When Gurza Speaks . . .

* The headline on Agustin Gurza’s March 30 column claiming that I am an “Anti-Gay Activist . . . Dancing to the Wrong Beat” is a good example of dancing around the truth.

When Gurza interviewed me, I emphasized repeatedly that I have no problem with gay Americans doing what they please in their private lives.

However I and many others in my community must draw the line when the gay lobby decides it wants to force a “gay curriculum” on our children in our public schools (Assembly Bill 222 and Senate Bill 1260).

Gurza also laughed at the candlelight vigil that I and close to two dozen others held in front of Assemblyman Lou Correa’s (D-Anaheim) office recently.

But he forgets to mention that two days later Correa pulled Assembly Bill 107, the target of our protest, off the agenda of the state legislative committee that he chairs. It would seem that we successfully reminded Correa that his constituents do not favor such legislation.

We opposed AB 107 because it would, if successful, destroy an institution that has been a bedrock of civilization for centuries, by redefining marriage to include just about any sort of coupling.

Gurza did not mention that our preliminary research indicates that if AB 107 were to become law, the taxpayers would also be on the hook for over $40 million in new expenditures needed to provide insurance coverage for partners of gay state employees.

I never said that Correa is “anti-family,” but if he votes in the affirmative for the above-referenced legislation, he will have a hard time making the case that he is “pro-family.”

ART PEDROZA JR.

Santa Ana

* Re Agustin Gurza’s column April 3:

While sympathizing with Antonia Acosta, I am not at all surprised to read about another Social Security victim.

I and many others are cheated by this system every day.

My husband died a young man of 51. I had two children in college and one in high school. He had worked for a large company all his life and paid in the maximum amount every year.

I figure his account must run to a couple hundred thousand dollars with interest. At his death, I discovered that I would not be entitled to even half of his payment because I teach school and I belong to the State Teachers Retirement System, which is mandatory.

The Social Security system calls this a government pension and says I am not allowed two government pensions. I feel like a victim.

My husband and I worked hard to raise our children and send them to college. I have been able to send them to great UC schools with no government loans or grants.

But when I retire, I feel I should receive at least half the money my husband would have received. After all, his Social Security payments were money out of my pocket as well as my children’s.

CAROL NORUM

Placentia