Brainstorm! Challenge

---

Forefathers couldn't foresee gay unions

I support the proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I don't care what adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, who they form legal partnerships with, assign power-of-attorney to or designate as beneficiary. But I object to the campaign by gay activists to overturn thousands of years of cultural, religious and moral tradition by legalizing homosexual relationships as "marriages" under the law.

The basic purpose of marriage has always been procreation and child rearing. The first tax breaks for marriage were established 2,000 years ago by Caesar Augustus to encourage child bearing because Roman society had become sexually degenerate. In Scotland as recently as the 19th century, marriages could not be performed unless the bride was verifiably pregnant. The moral, legal and financial privileges of marriage always have been intended to protect dependent mothers and children.

Now homosexuals demand these privileges while boasting of their economic power and greater disposable income because they are unencumbered with children.

Our Founding Fathers could never have imagined that it would become necessary to define marriage in the Constitution. Unfortunately, that time has come.

Gary F. Anderson
Waimanalo

Trace controller shortage to Reagan

Regarding your story about the shortage of air traffic controllers ("Air traffic control in islands may soon face crisis," July 13): It adds a sobering note to the highly hyped glorification of President Ronald Reagan for firing all of the air traffic controllers in 1988. His action sowed the seed for the crisis we are facing today.

Raymond Chuan
Hanalei, Kauai

A better commute deserves a high value

We should all support the proposed rail system and Nimitz "flyover" highway improvements to our island's mass transit system. After all, who wouldn't want lighter traffic, a stronger economy and friendlier neighbors?

City Councilman Gary Okino put it simply when he said, "Without this, we will reach gridlock. With this, traffic will continue to move" (Star-Bulletin, Oct. 28, 2003). While most of us complain about Oahu's obvious traffic problems, few of us have the benefit of studying the problem like our state officials do. They're the ones with the responsibility and knowledge of the situation, and they're the ones we should be listening to.

Critics of Gov. Linda Lingle's proposal cite tax hikes and higher priorities for public finances. I wonder if these critics appreciate what's really at stake here. An effective transportation system lies at the heart of every successful economy, and we should all agree that positive change always involves sacrifice.

Improved mass transit benefits everyone involved. Imagine what it would be like to see commuters from Mililani and Kapolei talking story on the way to work instead of road-raging in the confines of their own vehicles. Starting your own business? Try advertising it where thousands of people go every day: the train station. This project would be a dream come true for retailers and entrepreneurs.

The new plan for solving Oahu's rush-hour nightmares deserves a chance. We are worth the effort, so let's get involved and see that it happen.

Daniel A. Chandler
Honolulu

July 4 reminds us all of America's gifts

July 4 was Independence Day for America's sovereignty. Trumpets blared, cannons boomed, rifles were fired by proud troops.

Fireworks lit the sky. Spectators were awed by the spectacular display. Emotions ran high.

America is a nation of freedom -- freedom of speech, the press and religion. There will be no racial segregation. We will not allow it.

Other people would love to live in this wonderful land. Hooray for the Red, White and Blue.

How T. Chang
Honolulu

President's views pose ethical quandary

"Killing is wrong," wrote an observer of earlier times, "and therefore we do well to punish it severely, except when done in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

The accuracy of that observation makes it hard to take seriously the self-proclaimed religious ideology of our president when he advertises pure pro-life motivation in opposing abortion while favoring pre-emptive war and the death penalty.

It might seem that such a person would be aware of the inconsistency. The key to this selective moral vision is that most decisions a president makes are based on expediency, and he fails to notice that the factors in decisions for or against the lives of specific individuals, if religious in attribution, are uncompromising; no other factors can be allowed to hold sway.

This is the problem with advertising religious precepts in political decisions. One might look on it as a reversal of the biblical story of money-changers in the temple. The temple is here moved to the location of the money-changers, which is not suitable for anything but secular pangs of conscience mixed with political expediency.

The situation as it affects abortion that then arises, when religion enters the picture, is that the concern for children's lives then begins with conception and ends with birth.

John C. Roberts, M.D.
Honolulu

Bush kills for peace and takes away rights

The idea of forcing (the establishment of democracy in Iraq while trying to take away people's rights in the United States) is the President Bush's biggest flip-flop.

There is no excuse for desecration of mosques by the U.S. forces. Bush, is a president -- not a czar, not a king. He had no right to send weapons into mosques.

The Constitution is the paperwork that guarantees U.S. citizens the personal rights to be different. It is not a way to deny rights. Is the president thinking of changing the Constitution? The United States was founded on a policy of religious noninterference. When did this change?

Is it all right to give children the idea that killing another person is correct if that person does sport a different religion from the president?

Jane Anderson Harvill
Honaunau, Hawaii

Legislature moves to regain public trust

I take exception to Lenny Klompus' July 9 letter defending the governor's veto of the campaign spending reform bill. The bill is a good bill that was mischaracterized by Klompus in his letter.

One of the provisions of the bill would have limited contributions from out-of-state donors. To be fair to the governor, there is a typo in that section where the word "not" was left out. But the bill wasn't slated to go into effect until January 2005 (after this coming election), so we had plenty of time to fix the flaw in the next legislative session.

So, why did the bill have to be vetoed in its entirety?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. Local Republican coffers are full of funds from out-of-state contributors and government contractors. And the governor has not been nearly as aggressive in pushing for substantive reform as some would like to believe.

Klompus says the governor has made "significant strides" to fulfill her "pledge to restore integrity and trust in state government." I disagree. The Legislature was forced to take unprecedented action when we discovered that the Lingle administration had placed a gag order on the directors of the Campaign Spending Commission and the Elections Office. We passed the legislation to restore independence to the two offices. The governor then vetoed the legislation, and the Legislature overrode her veto.

Democrats have been advocating campaign reforms for several years now. This year's effort was praised by members of the Campaign Spending Commission as a good first step. We will continue to press ahead to bring about meaningful reform.

Rep. Scott K. Saiki
Majority leader
House of Representatives

---

BACK TO TOP
|

[ BRAINSTORM! ] The city owns a large, underground facility at Fort Barrette in Kapolei that is sitting empty. What could it be used for? Some sort of archive? A place to stash gigantic holiday decorations? A temporary storage site for Evan Dobelle’s ego? Send your ideas -- include your name, address and phone number -- by July 16 to: brainstorm@starbulletin.com Or by mail: Brainstorm! c/o Nancy Christenson Star-Bulletin 500 Ala Moana 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Or by fax: Brainstorm! c/o Nancy Christenson 529-4750