Dear Editor:

The GLT should be applauded for providing an opportunity for readers to express their opinions on line on the GLT’s District 3 endorsement of Todd Gloria. This is a first for the San Diego print press and produced some interesting results.

Of 15 responses, 60% disagreed with the endorsement and strongly supported Stephen Whitburn and 27% supported Gloria. Whitburn’s endorsements and policy positions were viewed as important but in general Gloria’s negatives, particularly his campaign contributions from developers and bars weighed heavily against him.

However, Todd won the vote (and apparently love) of one supporter and his friends as the “youngest and cutest “ – not the qualities that rank highly on the list of most voters except perhaps Nicole.

Ian Trowbridge

Dear Editor:

I wholeheartedly agree with your endorsement of Todd Gloria for Council District 3. Having studied all of the candidates closely, I came to the same conclusion as your newspaper. Todd has deep roots in the district, has the most relevant experience, and has the right priorities for our city. I will be proud to cast my vote for him on June 3rd and hope your readers will do the same.

Charles Friely

Dear Editor:

For those of you celebrating the California Supreme Court’s ruling that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, I ask you to step out of your emotions for a moment and look at the issue with a naked, practical, logical eye.

Prior to the supreme court’s ruling, California’s Domestic Partnership Law already granted all the state-level benefits to registered same-sex partners that married couples enjoy; inheritance, income tax, insurance, hospital visitation, all of it. The only thing this ruling does is allow the union to be officially called ‘marriage’ in the eyes of the state, nothing more. If same-sex partners already have all the same benefits under state law that married couples have, do you really care what the government calls it? Marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, why should it matter as long as we’re treated equally under the law? Some argue that only having access to domestic partnerships and not to marriage makes us “second-class citizens.” I reject that argument. Just because something is called something for one group and something else for another, doesn’t make us second-class citizens UNLESS the rights and benefits afforded one group is different from the other. Remember that true equality is about the substance not about the name. And that word, marriage, may come at a price. At this point in time, a majority of Californians, and America in general, are not supportive of gay marriage. This ruling will only galvanize the right-wing zealots and will increase public support for a constitutional amendment (not only in California but on the national level as well) declaring that marriage “is only between a man and a woman.” Unlike propositions passed by voters and general laws passed by legislative bodies, state constitutional amendments CANNOT be ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. For those of you who don’t fully understand what that means, it means that if a constitutional amendment is passed by voters in November, it will void this ruling. Is the sole success of being able to legally call it marriage worth sacrificing the practical rights we already have?

In closing, let me say that for all of you celebrating that ‘we’ve scored a victory in the name of equality’, I say to you what the plaintiffs in this case may have done is given us nothing at the expense of everything. The practical effects of this ruling could do more harm than good. We may end up losing all the rights and successes we’ve gained in this state for same-sex couples. I certainly hope I’m wrong.

Jay Turner

Dear Editor:

Since you, your publisher and the community have had no response to Paul Broadway’s query of four weeks ago, please allow me to answer his question as to why he was excluded from the candidates forum at the Center.

Mr. Broadway, how can you possibly be an effective city counsil member when you have no concept about how local poitics work? Though controlled by only a handful of people, the gay lobby is quite powerful and your failure to understand the “insestuos” nature of politics in this town makes you unqualified to serve. You were not excluded as a participant due to your party affilliation as Amber Cypher did not even know what it is. The following is a few pointers you might keep in mind for the next time.

First, you never held a swank dinner party for those who really matter. Might I suggest a guest list that includes, but is not limited to, Bruce Abrams, Toni Atkins, Ben Dillingham, Mike Phillips, Nicole Ramirez-Murray and Michael Portantino. All have been honored by the gay media and/or themselves. Both Gloria and Whitburn have been nominated for man of the year at this years Nicky Awards. (In lew of a dinner party, hire Miss Nicky to hold a fund raiser for your favorite charity. If it is an AIDS charity, all the better!)

Though I beleive it is extremely honorable that you are a disabled veterin, it would be much better if you were HIV positve. Gay leaders and media would eat this up as they consider HIV infection to be a badge of honor. Next, you have never been arrested for indicent exposure. Randy Hope, associate editor of the GLT wrote, the Center’s forum “focused on issues affecting the GLBT community-many which voters have heard the candidates speak on before.” Hope continued, “The difference, however, at this debate, is it was Hartly’s first pubic appearance since he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor lewed conduct charge...”

Finally, I have always thought small business owners do make good candidates. However, if you were the owner of a bathhouse, the entire gay community and gay media would rally behind you, even to the extent of lieing for you. I trust you will find these sugestions helpful.

Kevin McCarhty