The rights of states, Washington and gays

Re “Giuliani, the federalist candidate,” Opinion, July 25

Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani is right on the money. So many issues that should be solved at the state level have been captured by the federal government. The Constitution gives very limited powers to the federal government and leaves the remaining authority in the hands of individual states. These distinctions are often disregarded today, and Giuliani is correct to point out this problem.

Subjects such as abortion and gay marriage should be left to individual states to decide. The conclusion of each state may not be the same, and our Constitution gives wide latitude for states to differ on serious issues.

Raz Shafer

Stephenville, Texas

Giuliani is in favor of states determining whether gay people can get married. Perhaps Giuliani is still living in the 18th century. In the 21st century, people often move from state to state. How would you like to wake up in a new state and find out you are no longer married, Mr. Giuliani? In Monday’s debate, only one democratic candidate (Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich) had the guts to say he favored gay marriage. Shame on the mealy-mouthed rest of you.

Julia Dunphy

Harbor City

It’s bad enough that all three branches of the federal government fail to recognize gay rights as a constitutional issue and, in doing so, lag behind the enlightened thinking in most Western governments. But to have a prominent journalist in a prominent newspaper do the same is disheartening.

Gay rights are not social issues any more than they are cultural issues. And it’s legally impossible for full gay civil rights to exist within a patchwork of state laws that conflict with one another and with the Constitution.

Gay rights are civil rights that are at the core of equal rights protections promised under the Bill of Rights.

Until Congress or the Supreme Court recognizes this, I fear we’ll continue to suffer from mischaracterizations of the sort in this Op-Ed article, which are more befitting of a blog or high school newspaper than The Times.

It’s 2007. Wake up.

Todd Piccus

Venice

Unfair to Bush

Nowhere in your article headlined “Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11” (July 25) does the president do any such thing. Nor has he done so anywhere else. Instead, he has made an argument that, at present, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has some operational control over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Experts can argue about whether or not this is an exaggeration, but the president’s claim hardly deserves a front-page headline.

Jay Groutt

Burbank

Watching words in the war on terror

Re “Anti-terrorism bill advances,” July 26

The current discussion over inadequate federal funding for local anti-terrorism efforts is myopic. The focus should be on the reasons for the international terrorism threat, which are connected to American imperialism and humiliation of Muslims worldwide. Once we rein in imperialism and stop humiliating Muslims, we will discover a greatly diminished terrorism threat.

Robert Lentz

Sylmar

Re “Turning against terror,” editorial, July 25

Your editorial rightly asks whether Western leaders are capable of digging a chasm between Muslims and such terror groups as Al Qaeda. Muslims have been vigorous in denouncing terrorist acts as inexcusable. Islam enjoins us to tread the path of reconciliation, justice and equality, and it respects the sacredness of human life and dignity.

Muslims are the real victims of injustices. In Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Bosnia, Somalia and Chechnya, Muslims are marginalized and their inalienable rights to independence and self-determination continue to be abused and neglected. Western leaders can mitigate the unspeakable humiliation by dedicating substantial efforts toward lifting economic sanctions and occupations that strike civil populations indiscriminately.

Munjed Farid Al Qutob

London

You mention that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken to avoiding the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to describe terrorist acts they perpetrate. Instead, he simply calls them criminal; this has apparently pleased British Muslims and angered critics. I’m with Brown. Remember, there are Muslims who can’t find the humor in a political cartoon depicting Muhammad. If a word, idea or picture can please moderate Muslims who don’t want to be painted with the same broad brush strokes as their radical brethren, then what’s wrong?

Words have power. The wrong words can have devastating results. Case in point: President Bush’s “bring ‘em on” comment during the war in Iraq.

Eric H. Potruch

Westchester

Genocide in Iraq

Re “Green light to genocide,” Opinion, July 24

I agree in part with Jonah Goldberg’s assessment that the Democrats appear inconsistent in their position regarding America’s responsibilities to prevent genocide abroad.

However, it can also be argued that, unlike Darfur, genocide in Iraq is a prediction, not a reality. This prediction is based on the current unilateral military and diplomatic strategies.

When the Democrats pull our troops out of Iraq, they will succeed in preventing genocide largely through multilateral diplomatic strategies that promote peace.

If the Republicans succeed, they will spend billions of taxpayer dollars and sacrifice countless American lives. This will serve only to prevent them from having to admit that they failed and to reduce their dissonance over getting us into this mess in the first place.

Michael P. Marshal

Pittsburgh

Of all the justifications for our continued presence in Iraq, Goldberg deploys one of the most artful. If our presence there is now a relief mission designed to prevent a genocide, this is the most expensive and least successful relief mission in history, with thousands of our soldiers dead and so many more of the “relieved” dead. After billions have been spent with no particular definition of victory or the discipline of self-limitation, our president won’t walk away from the blackjack table until he gets his “political capital” back. This is a moral failure of liberals?

This is an amazing time in the history of logic.

Walid Persen

Dunedin, Fla.

Goldberg commits a classic “straw man” fallacy by taking a wide range of positions and labeling them as “liberal.” His points concerning President Clinton’s lack of response to the Rwanda genocide are telling, and I applaud him for taking Clinton to task for his lack of honesty. However, Clinton is a conservative Democrat who took strong positions on issues such as the death penalty that were anathema to most liberals.

Goldberg should have remained focused on Sen. Barack Obama, who clearly views himself in the tradition of liberalism. However, Obama’s position on withdrawing troops is not shared by many other liberals, most of whom, I believe, support a reduced but sustained troop presence. Thus, the core of Goldberg’s complaint is the position of Obama, not that of liberals.

Franklin Cox

Baltimore

What tortured reasoning Goldberg enlists as a reason to stay in Iraq. Genocide? And what exactly does he think is happening now? Genocide, only our troops are involved and paying the price.

Get our troops out of there and the prime motive for violence will be removed. The Iraqis will figure things out for themselves much faster than if we stay, because as long as we stay, they’ll be trying to kill us. Hard to blame them, really, when President Bush invaded their country to steal their oil.

Only Republican apologists like Goldberg still maintain we are there to bring democracy. But hey, let’s blame the liberals; it’s worked up until now.

Susan McCabe

Valley Village

Getting Griffith Park back on track

Re “Conflict grows over Griffith recovery plan,” July 24

As a member of the Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group, I see no controversy between our draft plan and the desire of L.A. City Councilman Ed Reyes to have better bike access to Griffith Park. In fact, the draft plan’s Mobility Chapter addresses and encourages quiet, energy-efficient mobility modes. The L.A. River bike path lacks safe connectivity to the park at some places, and perhaps improvements can be engineered. The hope is to bring more people to the park to enjoy its nature, so bringing them by modes other than autos is terrific.

Gerry Hans

Los Angeles

The situation is worse than the article states. The L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks has used the recent fire and trail “rehabilitation” scheduled for September as an excuse to close hiking trails in non-burned areas. Closing unburned trails during the summer when they are most needed is callous. Councilman Tom LaBonge correctly demands that trails in non-burned areas be reopened.

Lawrence Goldberg

Burbank