Religion mustn’t have role
in denying gay marriage

Each person is allowed to hold a viewpoint about same-gender marriage, informed by his or her religious beliefs, and to discuss those beliefs. Faith communities may struggle with their stance on the issue, or make absolute pronouncements in favor or against.

That's the great thing about living in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed.

But when it comes to determining the state's position on same-gender marriage, religion has nothing to do with it.

The matter being decided by the courts concerns civil marriage, and no religious aspect should be involved.

The state has a compelling interest in licensing unions in order to keep track of property ownership, benefits and responsibilities. But because we have separation of church and state, the government cannot decide whose marriage is ordained by God and whose is not.

Finally, it is important to recognize that many religious communities and clergy already perform and accept same-gender marriage. But when legal recognition of same-gender marriage comes, no religious body will be forced to perform such marriages - just as no religious body is required now to perform any marriage that goes against its precepts.

Amy C. Gregg
Hilo, Hawaii

---

Electing judges would be
poor decision for Hawaii

Larry Grean is wrong when he says that electing judges will reduce crime in Hawaii (View Point, Nov. 22). Blaming judges for crime is as misguided as blaming doctors for disease.

By electing judges, we immediately face at least three very undesirable outcomes:

Political campaigns are expensive. Judges, like other elected office holders, will need to raise funds for their elections. It is difficult to imagine a faster and more certain way to undermine the community's confidence in the impartiality of our courts than to have judges hustling campaign contributions.

It will undermine public confidence in judicial decision-making, because their decisions will be gauged on the political spectrum. This will undermine the community's confidence that judicial outcomes are made by neutral, detached jurists committed only to an unbiased interpretation of the law.

Elected judges will be ever mindful of opinion polls and will be careful to avoid unpopular decisions. We depend on judges to be fair and principled, and driven by what the law requires, not by the popular whim of the moment.

Let's attack crime, not the judges.

Robert A. Marks
Former state attorney general

---

Neil isn’t as wonderful
as supporter believes

My, my, if I hadn't read the heading on Benjamin T. Toyama's letter in the Nov. 27 Star-Bulletin, I would have thought he was describing Neil Abercrombie instead of Orson Swindle.

Let's see: an East Coast carpetbagger, whose carpetbag was filled with mainland union PAC money; an outspoken opponent of anything "establishment" and definitely anti-military; a laughing stock of his congressional peers?

That sure doesn't sound like Mr. Swindle.

Perhaps Toyama's efforts in the next two years would be better spent educating himself about his "hero." He might discover that Abercrombie's true colors are other than red, white and blue.

Edward Novak Jr.
Mililani

---

Swindle suffered for us
as a prisoner of war

Letter writer Benjamin T. Toyama's attack on Orson Swindle's character outrages me. The very thought of someone calling a career military officer a carpetbagger and opportunist is unbelievable.

Once upon a time, when most of us had died, an airman applied at the judgment seat.

"Show me proof that you are choice among the dead! Some saintly act, some holy skill or kindly art."

"Only this, oh magistrate, oh king, oh God; my life's blood for my country stained the sod. For proof, I have this Purple Heart."

He gazed long at it, the king of all mankind's mentor, then nodding, softly whispered, "Enter."

Mr. Toyama, Mr. Abercrombie, where were you in 1969? I know where Orson was.

Rich Ernst
Aiea