Dear Editor:

Rex Wockner’s article “Polls flip on California marriage, Gays losing now” (October 9) doesn’t mention the scariest aspect of the new polls showing anti-marriage Proposition 8 ahead: the gain of support occurred almost entirely among young voters (ages 18 to 34). Before this poll, marriage equality advocates had always assumed that the youth were on our side; that even if today’s cohort of voters was against same-sex marriage, the bigots would slowly die off and eventually there would be a clear majority on our side as young people, raised in an atmosphere of live-and-let-live acceptance of Queer people, entered voting age and replaced them.

Well, as on so many issues the Left sat on its hands and hoped, and the Right put their noses to the grindstone and organized. An October 10 dispatch on the Christian Newswire by Trish Teves [http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/traditional-marriage-initiative-makes-gains-with-young-voters] boasts that the Yes on 8 forces have set up a special Web site to appeal to youth directly, iProtectMarriage.com, which “directs users to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and BlueChowder, encouraging young people to register to vote, get informed about Prop. 8, and tell their friends to vote Yes on 8.” As a result, according to the SurveyUSA poll, voters 18 to 34 are now MORE likely than older voters to support Proposition 8 – 53 percent in favor to 39 percent opposed.

Today we face a political emergency in the Queer community. The defeat of Proposition 8 by all legal means available is our immediate priority. NOTHING – not even the Presidential election – is more important. Passage of Proposition 8 will kill the chances of same-sex marriage anywhere in the U.S. outside of New England forever – or at least long enough that no one now living will see it. The future of Queer equality will be far better if Proposition 8 is defeated and John McCain is the next President than if it passes and Barack Obama is the next President.

Accordingly, the Queer community nationwide in the U.S. should divert ALL its resources into a massive campaign to raise a war chest capable of matching that of the Proposition 8 supporters and defeating this initiative at the polls while there is still a chance to do so. Proposition 8 is the deal-breaker, the vote that will determine whether or not marriage equality for same-sex couples EVER becomes a reality in the United States. Our opponents understand that and are acting accordingly. Are we?

Mark Gabrish Conlan

Publisher, Zenger’s Newsmagazine

Dear Editor:

Obama supports 10 out of the 11 issues facing the LGBT community. I am glad, thankful, and appreciative that his campaign has grown to see these issues as important for the progression and equality of couples and families. The one issue he does not support is gay marriage. He states “that marriage has religious and social connotations.” Well ... the LGBT community holds connotations of religious beliefs and social standing and success! We all should pride ourselves in that. I find his statement to be idiotic, but more thoughtful, compassionate, and caring than any Republican politician. Basically, the religious and social connotation means that we are still second class citizens. If Obama sees the social connotation of a black person unable to get on bus because of race or sitting in the back of the bus because of race or sitting anywhere on the bus because he or she is human. Then, he should support and move the LGBT community to be treated equally regardless of any connotation!

Michael Wilger

Dear Editor:

In light of your District 3 endorsement of Todd Gloria, I am extremely disappointed in your apparent oversight of some vital information. It has become clear that the GLT spins stories to support Todd, but you are doing a huge disservice to the community by not revealing some critical facts. All I had to do was look at the city’s registered lobbyist list and Todd’s donation list. Dont you believe that the people should know he took money from Walmart lobbyist Lou Wolfsheimer, Sunroad lobbysist Mitch Berner, CCDC chair under federal investigation, Nancy Graham and on and on. And if he only took 17 percent of his money from developers, as he claims (and his campaign has bragged about how much money they have) couldn’t he have said no to some of these people? Couldnt he have said no the President of Manchester, Perry Dealy or the 9 high ranking members of Epsilon Systems, a company contracted w/ Manchester Navy Complex and building missiles for this war. I want to know, Dont you guys care?

Christine Mann

Dear Editor:

Thank you for your endorsement of Prop 9. It really means a lot to see a voice of reason after reading the Stepford Wives editorials. Every time victims of violent crime get an initiative on the ballot, our opponents drag out the same of argument: It Costs Too Much! … blah, blah, blah.

Victims are really upset that Prop 9 is a political issue. We don’t understand why the Democrat Party and unions oppose us, but we do have theories. We fit every demographic of California society. We are more representative of the citizenship then the Parties or unions will ever be. And we vote!

Your endorsement will help us pass Prop 9 by 65+ percent. Thank you.

Genelle and Jack Reilley

Dear Editor:

I am extremely annoyed at your endorsement of Proposition D, the ban on alcohol at San Diego Beaches. You obviously never visit the beaches on a regular basis. I go to Ocean and Pacific beaches no less than 20 times a year. I have never seen a melee or violent or outrageous behavior. The one incident you refer to that happened last summer was due more to bad police judgment than overconsumption of alcohol.

A better solution would be to outlaw beer in kegs or restrict drinking on public holidays. An outright ban is another infringement of our right to enjoy our beaches and parks. Please reconsider your endorsement.

Roger Ramsey