More Views on Proposition 22

* Re “Two Views of Proposition 22,” Ventura County letters, Feb. 13.

Letter writer Bert J. Rapp stated that the institution of marriage has been weakened over the past 40 years and that this has led to multiple problems for the country. He argued that we must pass Proposition 22 or we will further undermine marriage.

It is interesting to note that same-sex marriages were not legal during the last 40 years. How could a law against same-sex marriage cure those problems? To blame homosexuals for the problems of heterosexual marriage is ridiculous, homophobic garbage. If heterosexuals can’t raise their children or live up to their wedding vows, blame heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

Rapp says heterosexual families are where it is proven that children do best. According to whom? Major studies on children of homosexuals say they turn out the same as children of heterosexuals. People who have bothered to look into the subject know most people in prison are there because they were abused as children, not because they had a homosexual parent.

Just read the arguments for and against Proposition 22 in your voter information guide. The argument against 22 is signed by the speaker of the California Assembly, the district attorney of Los Angeles County and the state superintendent of public instruction. These are people who know about the consequences and interpretation of legislation. They are also elected officials who are answerable to the people if they lie. Listen to them instead of people who write letters to newspapers.

BRUCE EDWARD BRADLEY

Ventura

* In his Feb. 13 letter, Steve Bailey goes the name-calling route that liberals always resort to when their arguments fail. He wants to know if those voting for Proposition 22 are bigots or haters.

Marriage is not a union between two people. Marriage is defined as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

The opponents of Proposition 22 are name-calling and lying. Why? Tolerance isn’t enough. Society, in their minds, must validate their lifestyle, must condone their way of life.

Opponents of Proposition 22 must be accorded all rights and freedoms under the Constitution but what they must not do is force the rest of society to accept special rights or redesign society based on behavior.

MIKE HANNIN

Newbury Park

* Proposition 22 was originally called the Definition of Marriage Act. But that was not really true. Now it is called the Limitation of Marriage Act, to reflect its true effect. At the federal level, we also have the Defense of Marriage Act.

After more than 35 years married to the same woman (and seeing two great children become great adults), I know my marriage requires neither definition nor defense.

State Sen. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale), the sponsor of Proposition 22, has never reconciled himself to his own son’s homosexuality. Instead, he is using Proposition 22 as a form of verbal gay bashing. By this initiative, Knight attempts to legitimize homophobia, which will create an environment that fosters physical attacks against gays.

Knight can deny there is blood on his hands. But if passage of Proposition 22 encourages another tragedy such as the slaying of Matthew Shepard, Knight will be as morally guilty as those who actually commit the deed.

DAVID E. ROSS

Oak Park

Editor’s note: March 1 is the last day The Times Ventura County Edition will publish letters concerning the March 7 election.