Letters
to the Editor

Write a Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, September 9, 1998

No justice for victims of celebrity criminals

I am infuriated with a justice system that decides punishment based on who the criminals are rather than the crimes they committed.

Locally, Hawaiian celebrity Howell "Chinky" Mahoe, one of Hawaii's kumu hula, was accused of sexually assaulting four of his hula students. After pleading no contest last year to the charges, he received only five years of probation instead of the 10-year jail term the state had requested.

The victims are serving a life sentence while Mahoe is receiving a slap on the wrist. It makes my blood boil to see the victims' rights again infringed upon by an unjust judicial system.

To make matters worse, the state will be paying for Mahoe's rehabilitation, while the parents of the victims have to pay for any psychological problems their children might have. Where is the justice for the victims?

Mahoe's sentencing proves that celebrities are immune to just punishment for severe crimes.

James Takase
(Via the Internet)

Liquor panel hearings are sham for the public

I went to a public hearing recently, because I thought it was an opportunity to be heard regarding specific issues. I was among those testifying to deny a license to an applicant.

But one commissioner couldn't go along with "singling out one store." Another commissioner stated "no matter...I will abstain." The applicant, in securing community support for the establishment of its store some years ago, reassured the community that this specific site will not seek such a license.

The deputy corporation counsel tried to counsel the commissioners and urged that this matter be put on the following week's agenda. This was not received well.

The public hearing was before the Honolulu Liquor Commission. The commissioners are appointees of the mayor. The applicant is 7-11 Waimanalo Beach Store. The opponents are members of the Waimanalo community who work aggressively to reduce the use of drugs and alcohol in our area.

The whole point is that when public hearings are not attended, the public is seen as apathetic. But, one the other hand, why have public hearings when a predetermination is made not to listen?

Marian T. Holokai
Principal
Waimanalo Elementary and Intermediate
(Via the Internet)

Opposition to Heco plan doesn't make sense

Don't Manoa and Palolo people want electricity? Where do they think electricity comes from -- thin air? Electricity is essential to our comfortable living, just like water, cable and television.

I wonder, when the power goes out, are these people the first ones to call and complain to Hawaiian Electric?

B.A. Leong
(Via the Internet)

Diverging views
on gay marriage

Opponents can still vote no on principle

The discussion of same-sex marriage has been confusing due to the special agendas of the parties involved. Quite clearly and fundamentally, this issue has to do with the separation of church and state.

There are those who wish to impose their religious convictions on a historical small minority who are seeking equal rights under the law. Marriage is the civil not religious vehicle by which those rights may be realized.

In the United States, marriage is a legal transaction. The marriage license is produced by the state, not by any particular church, cult or belief system. Therefore, the appropriate venue for determining this issue is the courts.

People may not condone same-sex marriage due to their religious convictions. However, in good conscience, a person can vote "no" out of an equally compelling conviction that the separation of church and state must be upheld.

Support the separation of church and state by voting "no."

David Derek
Kalaheo, Kauai
(Via the Internet)

Certainly people have right to change Constitution

From the same-sex marriage debate, one could get the impression that gays are the only group "discriminated" against by being denied the civil right of marriage. Not so. Certain heterosexual relationships are also excluded, such as father/daughter or aunt/nephew.

And rightfully so. "Civil" comes from Latin for "city." Civil rights are rights of people living together in a community. The community has an obligation to protect its members from harm, even when this means limiting individual rights. Marriage is by definition a civil right.

Half the hemophiliacs in the United States have contracted HIV. Many have died. The majority of these and other cases of HIV infection can be traced to blood donated by homosexuals. Like drug addiction, homosexuality is considered "risky behavior." It is society's duty to discourage behavior that threatens its health and safety.

Our state Constitution's authors did not claim perfection or the ability to anticipate future questions of law that society might face. They not only included provisions for amending the constitution, they even insisted through the Con Con procedure that society regularly look at the need for changes.

"Don't tamper with the Constitution" is an argument its own authors would never support.

The state Supreme Court has interpreted state law and the constitution in a way never envisioned by its framers. It is appropriate for the community to review this decision and determine if it was correct.

David Douglas
Kaneohe
(Via the Internet)

Same-sex marriage issue is on appeal

The recent announcement by the League of Women Voters of Hawaii that it opposes the traditional marriage question on the Nov. 3 ballot was not newsworthy, as its endorsement has appeared on a Protect Our Constitution brochure since last spring.

What is newsworthy, however, is the claim by League President Jean Aoki that a single Legislature has never "amended the Constitution to deprive a single group of citizens of a right the courts say is already theirs." Perhaps Aoki is simply unaware that the issue of homosexual "marriage" is on appeal before our Supreme Court. The justices have not ruled on this issue.

Therefore, a "yes" vote will not deprive people of any right they now have. Perhaps, too, if the League had investigated the traditional marriage constitutional amendment by discussing it with our organization and others seeking a "yes" vote, its claim of objectivity would not ring so hollow.

Janice Pechauer
President
Save Traditional Marriage '98

If gays love each other, why not let them marry?

I am a white American woman married to a black American man whom I love with all my heart. I couldn't imagine life without my husband, but it is difficult. My husband and I sometimes encounter rude or ignorant people and remarks.

Given our situation, we can relate to people wanting same-sex marriages.

Too often, people judge based on what they see. If they see a gay couple, they reject them. But what if they knew that those gay people were very intelligent scientists who had just discovered a cure for AIDS? Would they be so quick to shun?

If those couples love each other as I love my husband, they deserve to be together. They are not having sex in front of me, so it really does not affect me. Why should I be so small-minded to deny them the same rights as everyone else?

Nichole Cook
Wahiawa

---

Write a
Letter to the Editor

Want to write a letter to the editor? Let all Star-Bulletin readers know what you think. Please keep your letter to about 200 words. You can send it by e-mail to letters@starbulletin.com or you can fill in the online form for a faster response. Or print it and mail it to: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802. Or fax it to: 523-8509. Always be sure to include your daytime phone number.