Letters to the editor

The following are letters to the editor that appeared in the June 17 print edition of The Peninsula Gateway. To submit a letter, e-mail gatewayeditor@gateline.com. Please keep letters submissions to 250 words.

Kennedy, Sotomayor both show ‘judicial activism’ in opinions

Will the Gateway allow a real examination of judicial activism or simply continue to publish the opinion of one person (Re: Judicial activism and the progressives’ interpretation of the Constitution, The Peninsula Gateway, June 10)? Why not publish articles that provide some reason and balance?

The comments as they relate to Justice Kennedy and Judge Sotomayor ignore the fact that Justice Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan and Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H. W. Bush.

The op-ed also ignores the fact that, as to Justice Kennedy, it takes four others to agree with him to make a majority and that, in the decision referred to with Judge Sotomayor, there was a unanimous decision on a three-judge panel.

Most legal scholars who have expressed opinions, whether they agree with individual decisions or not, agree that both Kennedy and Sotomayor have shown little “judicial activism” but have shown great scholarship and adherence to the Constitution in decisions they have authored.

Conservatives have tended to endorse Justice Kennedy until he joins in a majority opinion they don’t like, then they attack him. They no doubt do the same as to Judge Sotomayor.

George Robison, Gig Harbor

Pierce County should reinstate program of removing illegal signs

Litter is sprouting like weeds along our scenic roadways, and so are illegal signs (Litter on a Stick).

The Pierce County sign law needs to be enforced to rid our area of sign clutter, which degrades our environment.

I urge the county to reinstate the program of removing illegal signs.

Lois Hartwig, Citizens Against Litter, Gig Harbor

I want to ‘buy American,’ but I couldn’t do it for my last car

This is really a great country. We have two auto giants that could not manage their affairs, mostly caused by union demands, so they go bankrupt.

The government, in all its wisdom (and to pay off labor votes), loans my money and that of all taxpayers to the auto companies so they can continue.

The payoff is that they do it with my money invested in stocks and bonds (which are now worthless) and give the unions and government the companies! Talk about money swaps.

In doing all this, they take the money that could be used to “create” more jobs, as Obama promised in the general populace, and give it to these defunct auto companies.

Of course, the government had to insist the companies close some of the derelict plants that they wanted to close anyway, since they weren’t efficient.

Also, to reduce the auto lines that were not performing, which the companies should have done any way.

But that wouldn’t sit well with the unions, for it would have cost jobs — now it’s the recession’s fault.

I have been one to “buy American” since I first started buying cars in the 1930s, but my last car I couldn’t conscientiously purchase “American” because of the poor quality of the Big 3 and their unions’ work performance.

Marsh Allen, Gig Harbor

Solution for Wauna Curves should start north of Burley Lagoon

Re: June 10 article on state Route 302 safety concerns: A large truck breaks down up the Wauna curves.

Ever been behind a school bus or transfer station semi lumbering up 144th Street? Imagine a high bridge over Burley Lagoon with steep grades up to both SR 16 and SR 302.

Mitigate slow-moving traffic and backups by developing a corridor north of the lagoon, and design something more functional than multi-roundabouts in Gig Harbor North.

John McDonell, Gig Harbor

Sign Referendum 71 to earn your right to voice your opinion

There’s a lot of controversy over Senate Bill 5688, allowing same sex or elderly people registered with the state in the Domestic Partnership Program to receive full benefits as those officially married, under our nation’s founding traditions.

SB 5688 has been touted as “equal rights” for those who support benefits being available to those in loving relationships.

They currently find it hard to obtain insurance coverage for their loved one, or have full disclosure of medical conditions if their partner is suddenly in need of health care.

They also don’t have the right to receive property directly as a traditionally married spouse would in the event their partner dies.

These are valid concerns.

SB 5688 provides for them, but the bill takes it a step too far. More than 180 times within the very lengthy bill (110 pages), it reads: “marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships.”

Domestic Partners have a right to form meaningful relationships. Not the right to redefine marriage.

Our state and others already have provisions for people to obtain a Will and/or a Power of Attorney, yet the dissatisfaction with that is it costs, and in “opposite sex marriages,” benefits without those measures are automatic. Traditionally and historically, it’s because that’s the basic foundation of pro-creation within the unit of a family. It takes a man and a woman to create future generations.

The idea of SB 5688 wouldn’t be so bad if it was written in such a way that same-sex partners registered in the Domestic Partnership program were granted a provision to receive inheritance benefits, a type of identification stating they are a state-recognized partner, thus granting the right to visit and receive information in emergency situations.

That could be termed a civil union.

As far as allowing coverage for insurance purposes, individual insurance companies should offer that benefit.

There are some people who are pushing to stop, stall and threaten, those who sign Referendum 71. Why? Is there a fear from those involved in same-sex partnerships that the people of Washington State are of a percentage that would oppose altering the basic language of marriage as SB 5688 would do? And what ever happened to tolerance? Isn’t tolerance an acceptance of each having one’s own view?

Referendum 71 will give us the right to voice our opinion. That’s democratic justice, not governing of certain groups or parties. Please sign Referendum 71 and give all voters the right to vote on this issue.

Cindy Manning, Gig Harbor

City of Gig Harbor should replace faded flags that it flies downtown

I am particularly bothered by the sad state of the flags that are flying in the downtown Gig Harbor area. The flags are in awful condition. Each one looks completely faded out.

According to the U.S. Flag Code, “the flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”

If the City of Gig Harbor is in such dire economic conditions that it can’t afford to replace old, worn-out flags, then the city should not disgrace the flag by flying it in a damaged condition.

Zack Rosenbloom, Gig Harbor