Doctors are being bullied
by federal law enforcers

The recent move of the federal government threatening prosecution of doctors for legally prescribing marijuana to certain patients is alarming and frightening. What gives the federal government the ability to abrogate the laws of the individual states, in this case California, without first challenging them by due process of law?

The Feds have stated that federal statutes supersede state laws in these cases. This is unjust, and is arrogance and high-handedness of centrality authority at its worst.

A doctor's schooled opinion on what drugs are to be legally prescribed must not be challenged by government threat.

If reflective of the will of the people, the federal government can challenge the state laws. It should not try to bully doctors with outrageous threats to their lives and livelihoods to get its way.

Ronald Scholze
(Via the Internet)

---

Jackson didn't deserve
pre-concert criticism

Because of the controversial point of view of Betty White's Jan 3. column, "Michael Jackson's larger-than-life farce or fantasy," equal space for rebuttal or at least a response should have been given the Jackson family.

It is regrettable that you gave such a sizable amount of space to White on the eve of Michael Jackson's first tour in the U.S. since 1989. He could have bypassed Hawaii, as so many other superstar entertainers have, at a time when this state is struggling for new ways to become a hub of the Pacific and generate new jobs.

I sense a strong and self-glorifying "plantation fixation" in White's attitude as she speaks of paradox and disappointment in this ageless black man.

Michael Jackson came from a hard scrabble existence and becoming successful beyond comprehension, paying taxes, employing hundreds and entertaining thousands. He opened sheltered eyes to the scenes of millions of impoverished, starving peoples whose very existence was threatened by famine and war.

Sherwood S.H. "Woody" Chock
(Via the Internet)

---

Brave souls are pushing
for same-gender marriage

Star-Bulletin Managing Editor David Shapiro has it wrong when he says the impetus for same-sex marriage in Hawaii "came from the state Supreme Court" (Volcanic Ash, Jan 4). It wasn't the court that brought this case to trial, but a few brave people who are fighting for something that has been taken almost completely for granted by those who have it. Until now, at least.

Shapiro is probably correct that "same-sex marriage wasn't intended or even imagined" by the writers of Hawaii's Constitution. Neither did they imagine 747s landing on the Big Island, nor e-mail in nanoseconds from halfway around the world, nor mainland retirees lined up at the ballot box.

But being wise, they probably did imagine a changing world, even if they couldn't know the details.

So they wrote a document that, like the U.S. Constitution, leaves room for interpretation.

Finally, Shapiro knows better than to suggest that gay marriage isn't a "serious issue" in any other state. That comment is disingenuous and foolish.

As for the "courage" required of Hawaii's legislators, I hope it will be in great supply in the coming session.

Tom Crisp
New York, N.Y.
(Via the Internet)

---

There's hope for foes
of same-same marriage

I can understand the frustration expressed by Rich Ernst in his Dec. 27 letter to the editor concerning Judge Chang's ruling in favor of gay marriage. However, I want to clarify an important point: Same-sex marriage is not a done deal.

Although it's true that right now the Supreme Court would probably uphold Chang's ruling, people must realize that this battle is far from over.

The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold the state Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people of Hawaii.

Because the Constitution is our document, we can change it if we want. Right now the courts, working in conjunction with the homosexual activists' lawyers, are using legal maneuvering to try to force same-sex marriage on the whole state. They're trying to take the language of our Constitution and twist it to mean something we never intended!

That's why we must make our legislators pass a constitutional amendment first thing this session. Then the whole state will be able to decide, fair and square, whether we want legalized same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court will have to uphold whatever we decide.

This is the only fair way to settle this issue.

Kalindi Penaroza

---

Same-sex archive