Email
Semantics solves marriage debate
Semantics is the only just and honest way the U.S. Supreme Court can answer and solve debate between same-sex union vows and one man, one woman marriage vows.
Everything under the sun has a name by tradition — day or night, black or white, male or female, adult or child, mother or father, human or animal, Chevy or Ford, Democrat or Republican. Who is to say that one is better than the other?
Most everybody thinking deeply agrees that same-sex couples should be allowed equal benefits as those allowed in the vows of marriage. This is the only honest and just thing for all concerned with equal rights.
The vows of marriage have been between one man and one woman. Now is the time for same-sex couples to start their own tradition with a name … (that doesn’t) infringe on the vows of the heterosexual tradition. This is the only just and honest thing the Supreme Court can do unless there is a hidden agenda by all concerned.
AMADO GUTIERREZ
Santa Fe
Presumption lies with tower builders
Whether you believe the link between cell towers and health problems exists or not, presumption ought to lie with those constructing the tower. In much the same way, the tobacco-smoking link to health problems proceeded the same way, but presumption was given to the tobacco companies, which led to countless illness and death. The science is not settled on this issue, but enough data exists to consider cell tower emissions a credible factor in various health problems within areas as close as Gonzales Community School is to the proposed tower site.
Gonzales teachers and staff spend up to 12 hours at the school daily, and would stand to be most affected by tower emissions in the same way that restaurant staff were most affected by exposure to secondhand smoke in their places of employment. In an age when we pay lip service to valuing our teachers, can we simultaneously expose them to potentially dangerous, but unnecessary hazards and label it “just part of their job?”
Thank you, Santa Fe Public Schools, for supporting GCS students, faculty, staff, and parents.
RONALD CHAVEZ
Santa Fe
Burden of fix falls on PERA members
The Sunday, March 17 Journal editorial praised the legislation passed on PERA (Public Employees Retirement Association) reform and urges the governor to sign it. The flaw in this plan is the state does not accept responsibility for its share of the problem and puts almost the entire burden of the fix on the PERA members.
PERA had been well-funded since its inception and weathered many market ups and downs. What got it in trouble was the double-dipping law of the (former Governor Bill) Richardson administration that encouraged employees to retire early. This was never factored into the fund at its inception and thus the fund could not handle the early retirements and now has a 65 percent funded ratio.
The only legitimate reason I can see for the double-dipping policy was to help the state to replace and maintain its workforce. Therefore, if the PERA fund was drained to help the state maintain its workforce, I see no reason why the taxpayers should not be on the hook for this portion of the problem. The state workforce is there to serve all the taxpayers, not just the PERA members.
I have not seen the double-dipping issue come up publicly in the pension debate. I suspect that this is because the governor and the legislators do not want to pay for the mistakes of the previous administration. This is unfortunate, especially for the PERA members. If PERA knows that the fund has a $6 billion liability, I am sure they could calculate exactly how much of the PERA problem was due to early retirement caused by double-dipping. I would have liked to have seen that number during the debate so we could stop talking about political will, or what people want, and deal with the facts in a responsible manner.
JIM SHINAS
Los Alamos
Bill dies after Dem offers amendments
House Bill 77 didn’t die on Saturday when the bell rang to end the 2013 legislative session. It died in the Senate Public Affairs Committee on March 7, when Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque, offered amendments written in consultation with the gun lobbyists. These amendments were specifically designed to make sure the bill would run out of time. Ivey-Soto’s motive was to keep his “A” National Rifle Association rating.
The bill, which would have closed the gun show loophole, passed the House with a bipartisan vote, garnered the support of the governor and was on its way to a vote in the Senate. Ivey-Soto’s play worked and HB 77 lost two crucial days — two days that it did not have to lose.
It is unfortunate that we live in a time when senators mistakenly think that the grade proffered by an interest group is more important than the people they serve. Ironically when Ivey-Soto came to the Senate, he said, “It’s important to me that (New Mexican voters) know that what we do here is transparent.” Interestingly in his quest for transparency, he voted in February to shield his emails and letters from public record inspection in the House Concurrent Resolution 1.
On the other hand, there were many heroes in the fight to close the gun show background check loophole. House Rep. Miguel Garcia, D-Albuquerque, wrote the bill. Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, worked on a rewrite that helped the bill pass the House, Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, co-sponsored the bill in the Senate and Sen. Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, made sure it was heard. Sanchez deserves particular praise and appreciation for his impassioned argument in the last 10 minutes of the legislative session. He told the Senate that the bill was not only one of the most important pieces of legislation being heard this session, but also that this bill would not go away.
In addition to the Legislature, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss fought tirelessly to get the bill passed as he and Santa Fe Police Chief Ray Rael bravely stood by at every committee hearing in order to testify to the importance of the legislation. Coss also worked with Mayors Against Illegal Guns to get the word out on television, radio and print. Grassroots organizations gathered thousands of signatures, generated countless emails and calls to representatives, held rallies and waited for hours at committee meetings to testify.
It is said that movements like tidal waves begin with a ripple. HB77 will have a new name the next time the New Mexico legislature meets, but it will carry the force of the many who worked so diligently this session.
MIRANDA VISCOLI
Santa Fe
Different view of senators’ spat
I happened to see the spat between Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Diane Feinstein, D-California, at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the assault weapon, referred to in Ruben Navarette Jr.’s recent op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, but I came away with the opposite point of view. If Sen. Cruz indeed has expertise in constitutional law as stated in the op-ed, surely he knew that there are a variety of exceptions to each article in the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fourth Amendments. With that in mind, it was pretty obvious that Sen. Cruz was being extremely condescending in how he addressed his question to Sen. Feinstein, which of course provoked her response.
Making the comparison between the banning of an assault weapon, which can do such horrific damage to a person, with the banning of a book read in the privacy of one’s home, is a ludicrous comparison, and justified Feinstein’s scathing response. Navarette’s comment that “… liberals (e.g. Feinstein) — care(s) more about the victims of gun violence than everyday Americans …” was patently true, at least in the case of Sen. Cruz, who showed no emotion at all during that exchange, and clearly feels that being able to own a gun without any limitation, has a much higher priority than any effort to reduce the carnage that results from the illegal use of guns, including the deaths of the children and teachers in Newtown, Conn.
ED BIRNBAUM
Los Alamos
Think twice before buying that bunny
Soon Easter will be upon us and many parents are tempted to buy one of those cute baby bunnies that appear. Unless the child is older than 12 years and is very responsible, a toy stuffed bunny will make a much better gift.
Rabbits are fragile creatures. They have a lighter bone structure than do dogs or cats and easily break the spine if dropped. Baby bunnies are cute and cuddly and tolerate handling. But babyhood doesn’t last long. In two short months, puberty turns that baby rabbit into Bugs Bunny. Often, the bunny no longer tolerates being held. Powerful hind legs can kick or scratch and sharp teeth can bite. Un-neutered males spray and mark their territory, just like dogs. Un-spayed females are territorial and may attack little hands that enter the cage. Thumper must be spayed or neutered to eliminate these undesirable behaviors. Every summer humane shelters receive a large influx of former Easter rabbits as soon as they reach adolescence.
Rabbits live 10 to 12 years. Will your child still care for the rabbit after the novelty wears off? Or will Thumper spend this summer abandoned in a backyard hutch? Like dogs, rabbits are social animals and need daily interactions with their human owners.
Last year, hundreds of rabbits were surrendered at animal shelters across this state. And unlike wild rabbits, pet rabbits released into the wild cannot fend for themselves. Thumper won’t survive for more than a day or two on his own.
Rabbits make great pets, especially older ones who are more tolerant of children, and provided you accept them on their own terms. They need a safe and loving environment in your home — not in an outdoor hutch. Save a life and don’t buy an Easter bunny. If you must have a rabbit, rescue an altered rabbit from your local animal shelter or from the House Rabbit Society. A listing of available rabbits near you is found at www.petfinder.org or via the New Mexico House Rabbit Society chapter websites at www.newmexicohrs.org.
ELIZABETH HOGAN
Santa Fe
Who pays for gov.’s trip to see pope?
Are American taxpayers being asked to pay for four delegates, one of whom is not even a government official, including Gov. Susana Martinez, to attend the inaugural Mass for the pope? I assume the answer is yes. One delegate would have been more than enough, if it was absolutely necessary to breach the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state to send a U.S. government employee to what is a religious ceremony of interest to only one Christian denomination — Catholics. There was absolutely no reason for Martinez to go unless she is paying for it out of her own pocket, which I sincerely doubt.
Ordinary people had to pay their own way if they wanted to attend. The cost of this trip to taxpayers, several million dollars I assume, including all the security that must accompany them, cannot be justified at a time when every dollar is being squeezed from “entitlements” like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other social programs. At least U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, the deficit hawk, had the sense to see this and declined to go.
I don’t care if government people want to attend, but I do care that I will be helping pay for their little jaunt, especially considering the Catholic Church’s ongoing problems with pedophile priests, scandals at the Vatican Bank for alleged money-laundering, and the Church’s stands against gay people and women. Evidently the new Pope is not going to be changing any of the Church’s dogma banning women priests, gay marriage, contraception or abortion, so what’s the big deal? New pope same as the old pope.
PATRICIA VICTOUR
Española
