Rights Policies in Tustin and Irvine
I find your statement curious that “cities ought not to take official positions on issues that are already covered by federal law,” (“Reason Prevails at Tustin City Hall,” April 7). Of course, this comment insinuates that cities “ought” only to concern themselves with potholes and parking tickets.
Oddly enough, The Times did not heed its own counsel when it wholeheartedly endorsed Irvine’s “human rights” ordinance that bestowed special privileges to a group of citizens based on their sexual preference. Although I support the repeal of the Irvine ordinance, I do not deny the city’s right to become a modern-day Sodom if it so chooses.
The Tustin anti-abortion resolutions were innocuous, contrasted with the coercive nature of the Irvine ordinance. The City Council of Tustin has the right to express their opinions on any subject they desire with the understanding that they are, after all, elected officials and may be removed from office.
The Times seems to have forgotten the virtues of local self-government. The day that communities are disallowed from voicing their collective opinions is the day America ceases to exist. All things considered, I still prefer a free nation that includes the Los Angeles Times, Irvine ordinances and Tustin resolutions to a totalitarian society where none are allowed.
The Times’ selective reasoning is a dangerous precursor to the latter scenario.
WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER
Member of Congress
39th District
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
