Why do you suppose the unions are against a constitutional convention? Could it really be because they feel it is a waste of money? When was the last time you witnessed union bosses looking out for your tax dollars?
Unions oppose Con Con
for own selfish needs
Nowadays, nearly 42 percent of all union members are government employees. They fear that the Con Con will give the public another avenue to make our government and union workers more accountable, reduce the freebies (excessive paid holidays, sick leave and other perks) and allow privatization to work.
If you still don't get it, please consider why in the world we are wasting precious revenues paying professional police officers overtime on "special duty" for road crews?
Here's a thought: Privatize those road crew jobs (please keep the unions out of it), hire entry-level labor (those coming off welfare would be a logical start) and pay them entry-level wages!
But that makes too much sense.
Michelle "Mike" Kerr
Marriage as a legal concept, and marriage as a religious concept, are two separate ideas. The former binds a couple with their government; the latter binds a couple with their God.
Government has no right
to block gay marriage
The government has no business interfering with equal rights for all citizens in the legal area and, in fact, must ensure fair treatment for all people. Our Constitution mandates equal protection of the law for all citizens.
The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. Since some people are afraid of recognizing married same-gender couples, they can simply join a church that does not marry them.
However, they should not EVER be allowed to force their religious beliefs on others who believe differently or our government.
As an Episcopalian, I am pleased that my church has chosen to invite same-gender couples to its altar. To deny a married same-gender couple legal recognition is unconstitutional. Judge Chang was astute to rule in favor of the three same-gender couples.
Cowardly and abhorrently misguided judicial, executive and legislative branches have seen fit to place Hawaii on the map of lunacy ala homosexuality.
Major march must be held
to protest gay marriage
The Bronster team, admittedly pro-homosexual, could not in good conscience go against the "civil rights" of the homosexual community, so it threw the case. The state's arguments were as powerful as a podge of wet pasta.
This is not about civil rights; it is about the survival of a civilization. Homosexual marriages are oxymoronic - for a marriage is a union of maleness and femaleness, and cannot by nature be made other than it is.
What will it take to have the so-called and self-styled leaders of this fair state represent the people? Perhaps 50,000 marching on the Legislature this spring, as they are in Belgrade, will turn the tide.
Let us organize, now!
Ronald S. Carlson
The recent safety and health concerns expressed by Deputy Health Director Bruce Anderson about rebuilding the Waikiki Natatorium as a sea-water pool are good reason for proponents to rethink their plans. But Anderson's warning should not be an excuse for more years of indecision and waffling.
Can we please decide
on fate of Natatorium?
Faced with a similar decision a few years ago, the city of Vancouver, B.C., tore down its sea-water natatorium and constructed a modern fresh-water pool at popular Kits Beach.
The Vancouver pool is often filled to capacity during the few summer months when weather is warm enough for beach activities. The new publicly operated pool is not free but supports its operating costs through a small admission price.
It's true that the climate and ocean temperature in cold Vancouver are not similar to balmy Hawaii. But Vancouver also does not have 100,000 daily sun-seeking visitors to help support its new beachside pool. Some locals and visitors will often choose a fresh-water pool over the Pacific - and not every tourist has the opportunity to swim in a first-class hotel pool.
Whether a fresh-water or sea-water fate for the Natatorium, let's get on with it. The deplorable condition of the present structure dishonors the war veterans that the Natatorium is supposed to memorialize.