In Proposition 8 we must consider the question, "What is the effect on our society of the state Supreme Court redefining marriage to include partners of the same sex?"
The court said gay people had an inherent "right" to participate in marriage. That implies that marriage between several people (polygamy) is also an inherent right because such rights reside in the people, right?
Wrong. Clearly the justices got it wrong. Such rights do not reside in the people. Marriage, like driving an automobile, is not a civil right. I agree with Barack Obama that gay unions should be allowed, but not with all the rights of marriage.
As a liberal Democrat and agnostic, I believe it is the fate of the children that are most important in this proposition. If rejecting the court makes you queasy, remember, courts once ruled that humans could be property of other humans. Now that was denying a civil right.
If we defeat Prop. 8 and allow marriage to be redefined to include partners of the same sex, then we have no basis to limit all other combinations between adults. Think of the options. Think of the reality shows they would spawn! Eons of evolution teach us to give our offspring the healthiest environment possible — a mother and a father. Every child deserves the healthiest environment we can offer. Supporting Prop. 8 fosters that healthiest environment.
Christian reasons to vote against Prop. 8
There are four good reasons to vote no on Prop. 8:
1. Those who claim to be Christians must not vote to "forbid marriage" as it is one of the "teachings of demons" (I Timothy 1:3).
2. Again, those who claim to be Christians are supposed to love and support others in their love. There is nothing in the Gospels that advocates prohibiting a ritual to express love between individuals, quite the opposite.
3. There are a lot of men who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, including many of our political leaders, yet they have married the person of their choice. There are a number of Vietnam War veterans who are gay so do not have the right to marry the person of their choice. Draft avoiders should not have more rights than veterans.
4. Those who claim to support "traditional marriage" must make an equal effort to outlaw divorce. To not make such an effort exposes the hollowness of their beliefs.
Who's minding the city's finances?
As I read the city's Oct. 25, 2007 finance committee minutes, I see that Mountain View maintains liquidity "by investing in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)" including Fannie Mae and Federal Home Loan Banks, and "may have a small amount of sub prime exposure."
It goes on to say that Fannie Mae "is considered too large an entity to let fail, though," and that "the city keeps a significant balance in LAIF."
It clearly states: "The city's portfolio continues to be a safe portfolio."
OK, the above are quotes from the Oct. 25, 2007 minutes; what has transpired since? Mountain View's finance director of over 20 years has quit. Currently there is no city auditor and as far as I know there has never been a complete outside audit in the past 20 years. And Fannie Mae and Federal Home Loan Banks essentially did fail (they had to be bailed out).
There has recently been a 2008 finance committee meeting with no information released. What happened to the Mountain View taxpayers' reserve funds?
Kevin Duggan, our city manager, sounds like Henry Paulson did when he asked for a trillion dollars to manage as he saw fit with no oversight, and I, for one, don't like it.
I am severely persecuted by the Mountain View government for my thoughts, but the city charter requires a city auditor, and I think we absolutely need an independent city auditor that works directly for the City Council, not Mr. Duggan or his attorney.
N. Rengstorff Avenue
Let's not give away Cuesta Annex
The history and heritage of our seniors should be considered. Some of us have been volunteering long hours to get our city where it is today. Like the true articles of Donald Letcher, Robert Schick, Steven Nelson and other citizens taking time to express themselves with great pride.
A majority of great speakers at the last City Council hearing on Cuesta Annex did not favor the plan to build a history museum at Cuesta Annex that some council members support.
Referring to the flood of the early 1950s, some of us are still here to prove that there was not even a puddle in our area; there were small amounts of water near Highway 101. We asked for pictures but none were shown. The Santa Clara Valley Water District says they will not charge Mountain View for creating the proposed flood basin at Cuesta Annex, but we do not have to take their offer just because it's free.
Please stop picking at our beautiful Cuesta Annex like woodpeckers. Lots of other issues need work like, the Shoreline projects.
Putting down rumors in council race
We were very surprised to hear a rumor that Laura Macias, City Council member and former mayor, intends to work to close down the bars in Castro Street. We were not surprised at all to speak with Laura about this and discover that these rumors are completely without foundation.
By the time this letter is published, many readers will have heard this from Laura herself, since she had plans to go "pub crawling" to show her support for the businesses in downtown Mountain View.
We are very fortunate in Mountain View to have such bright and dedicated people seeking service on our City Council. We are confident that whoever started this rumor did so without the knowledge or approval of any of the candidates. We would encourage everyone who supports these candidates to adhere to their high standards and shun such tactics in the future. The people of Mountain View have a right to know the truth about our City Council candidates as we decide where to place our votes.
Martha and Steve Cutcomb