Religious group promotes hatred

I am appalled over Honolulu's willingness to use taxpayer money in support of the Hawaii Christian Coalition's agenda. Equally disturbing is the decision by Judge Helen Gillmor allowing the city and the coalition to promote discrimination.

This "Christian" group, which advocates hatred and discrimination towards gay people, should not have been acknowledged by being allowed to march on public streets in Saturday's Kid's Day parade.

My Christian beliefs encompass the values of inclusion, not discrimination and hatred.

Families today include gay people. Many gay children have straight parents, brothers and sisters. Don't we have enough problems already without adding lessons of hatred and discrimination? What values are we imparting to young people by embracing exclusion? What message of aloha are we sending to the rest of the world?

It's time for the productive citizens of Hawaii to take a stand for fairness and equality for all citizens. Bigotry and hatred in any form will never be a part of my family, nor will the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

Wes Smith
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

Gays want acceptance, not just tolerance

Your criticism of the city for not allowing the homosexual activists to march in a privately sponsored parade was off the mark (Editorial, July 5). However, it does fall in line with your continued support of the homosexual agenda.

PFLAG's (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) only desire to be in the parade was to continue its quest for legitimization via the courts. Legally, its members want our society to say it's OK to practice homosexuality. They want this behavior legitimized and codified into law as a normal acceptable way to live.

However legal this behavior, most people still find it immoral and repugnant. Certainly, a Christian family parade is no place for those who want to force their deviant version of morality upon others. PFLAG refuses to accept that there is a difference between tolerance and forced acceptance.

Bob McDermott

Eh, golfer! Eh, golfer! Eh, golfer! SWING!!!

Why is it that golf professionals feel they can't perform at all except under optimal, absolutely flawless conditions? ("Etiquette controversy swirls around Wie and father," Star-Bulletin July 5) "Canary in a Coal Mine" comes to mind when it comes to how easily these seasoned pros are ruffled -- and by such minor things!

Danielle Ammaccapane complained that Michelle Wie "walked into my line-of-sight while I was lining up my putt!"

Awwwww, pua ting. I can't possibly imagine how an LPGA veteran might cope with an NBA end-zone gallery's squeaking balloons, screaming and pounding "thunder sticks" while she tried to line up her putt for birdie.

It doesn't faze professionals like Shaquille O'Neal or Scotty Pippen, or countless other basketball millionaires when trying to put down a free-throw under intense, make-or-break pressure.

Likewise when baseball outfielder Barry Bonds goes to the end of the warning track, then launches into the air to stop a possible home run from clearing the lip of the wall -- all while the opposing team's fans rain popcorn, peanuts, beer, insults, profanity and who-knows-what-else down on him.

A professional rodeo bull rider can't afford to be distracted by anything other than the task at hand. Such a slip could be fatal to him.

Heroes in many sports continuously cope with less-than-optimal conditions. It's part of their game and they take it in stride. They are professionals. That's why they get paid.

If a minor disruption interrupts your focus and degrades your golf performance that severely, perhaps you're not that good to begin with. Golfers need to get real.

Blaine Fergerstrom

Ag bill would have unintended results

SB255, vetoed by Governor Lingle, addresses concerns about the increase of residential subdivisions, gentleman farmer estates and gated communities on agricultural lands. These developments typically restrict agricultural activities by urban-like covenants or other means.

Agriculture is a vital component of our state economy, and our agricultural lands should be used for agriculture and protected against restrictions from these gentlemen's estates. We support the intent of this bill, however, it is very broad and likely to produce unintended consequences.

It would prohibit landowners from placing any restrictions on agricultural uses of their lands, except for restrictions intended to protect environmental or cultural resources.

Not all restrictions on agricultural uses are bad -- indeed, sometimes they are necessary. For example, an owner of agricultural land could not enforce a lease restriction prohibiting pig farming next to other agricultural activities with which it is not compatible. In state agricultural parks, leases often restrict certain activities to assure that the agricultural tenants have compatible operations.

SB255 could be amended to focus on the specific problem that prompted its introduction, and avoid such unintended consequences by exempting leases and limiting the bill to agricultural lands that are subdivided for use that is clearly more residential than agricultural.

A group of state, university, county, federal, farmer, land-owner, and environmental organizations, is now working to find a way to truly protect agricultural lands. In the meanwhile, it makes sense to enact a bill with the intent of SB255 once the current language has been modified to avoid unintended negative consequences that would flow from the current version.

Sandra Lee Kunimoto
Chairwoman
State Department of Agriculture

Audit bill was vetoed for good reasons

The so-called audit bill would have given control over financial audits of the state and counties to the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Governor Lingle vetoed this bill for philosophical and practical reasons.

>> First, it violates separation of power principles.

>> Second, it would almost certainly prove to be cumbersome and wasteful. Anyone who thinks otherwise has probably not read the bill.

>> Third, as little sense as it makes to give the Legislature control over financial audits of the executive branch of state government, it makes even less sense to extend such control over audits of the counties.

Some legislators have portrayed the governor's opposition to the bill as a retreat from her earlier positive comments about the legislative auditor. A comparison of the governor's pre-election words to her post-election actions show otherwise.

>> As a candidate, the governor proposed that Marion Higa be given more funding so she could do more management audits. Once elected, the governor proposed to the Ways and Means and conference committee chairmen that Higa be given funding to double the number of management audits.

>> As a candidate, the governor said that state agencies should pay more attention to Higa's audit reports. As governor, she distributed Higa's prior reports to all agency directors, and instructed them to take appropriate action in response to Higa's recommendations.

>> Also as a candidate, the governor stated that within the first 180 days of her term she would authorize a complete, independent audit of the state's finances in cooperation with Higa. The governor did so with many days to spare.

Governor Lingle exercised her veto power this year because the audit bill was poorly conceived and poorly drafted. Governor Cayetano vetoed a similar bill last year for basically the same reasons.

The governor intends to ask the Legislature again next year to provide more funding for Higa's audits. For whatever reason, the Legislature ignored that request this year, and instead passed a bill that it knew any governor would veto.

Randy Roth
Senior Policy Adviser to Governor Lingle

Dems upset governor closed checkbook

Regarding complaints about the governor's vetoes: A reading of the many letters from Democratic voters reveals two fundamental complaints: One, they are unhappy with the governor because she will no longer allow us to spend money we do not have; two, she has been in office for nearly seven months already and has not yet solved all the problems created by the Democrats over the past 40 years. Almost amusing.

Richard S. Morris

Long-term care bill was soundly drafted

Governor Lingle's veto of the Hawaii Long Term Care Financing Program shows that she missed a golden opportunity to do something meaningful about solving the long-term care problem facing our state.

The governor says that the benefits for the program are (1) only for one year, (2) the trust fund could be raided by future Legislatures and (3) the monthly tax of $10 a month is regressive.

The facts are that:

(1) The benefits from this plan are for 365 days, not one year. The days do not have to be consecutive.

(2) The legislation provides that the funds may not be spent for any other purpose than paying long-term care benefits. The fund could not be raided.

(3) The legislation was set up to provide for a flat monthly tax for all taxpayers. This flat monthly tax was deemed affordable, easy to administer and actuarially sound. However, the permanent Board of Trustees could look at this funding method and make any adjustments that would be equitable and actuarially sound.

Bruce McCullough
Temporary Trustee
Long Term Care Financing Program

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Brainstorm!

What should be done about those triangle-shaped concrete islands created when the city makes two-way streets one way?

Send your ideas and solutions by July 14 to:

brainstorm@starbulletin.com

Or mail them to:
Brainstorm!
c/o Burl Burlingame
Star-Bulletin
500 Ala Moana
7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Fax:
Brainstorm!
c/o Burl Burlingame
529-4750