Dear Editor:

The Mormon Church claims to respect the beliefs and rights of others. Yet they are spending millions of dollars, acting as a political action committee (while retaining tax exempt status), and working to take away the civil rights of Californians.

As a gay man and former Mormon, I’ve spent the last few years giving time and money in the fight for marriage equality. Last June when the Supreme Court ruled all citizens could marry the person of their choice I was elated. But this put the Mormons in panic mode, now they are working to write discrimination into the California constitution.

I’m furious that the church can issue orders from Utah, pouring millions into a California civil rights issue, with no regard for the separation of church and state. Mormons have given over $9 million so far and issue political marching orders each Sunday over their pulpits here in California.

They preach a doctrine of hate and divisiveness, tell members to donate their time and money, and send them door-to-door to take away civil rights. Considering history, you’d think this church would know something about persecution of a minority group as it relates to the issue of marriage. Apparently not.

I voluntarily left the church years ago, but they are still attempting to exert control over my life. They do this in defense and “protection” of the family. This is offensive, condescending and arrogant in the extreme. Do Mormons really believe my marriage would destroy their families? With their own divorce rate at 50% they don’t need any help from me.

Mormons purport to support the “timeless” definition of the traditional family. Just don’t ask what a “traditional” Mormon family was like around 100 years ago; you’d get an entirely different answer.

Other timeless Mormon traditions include polygamy and discriminating against black members. The church refused to grant the “priesthood” to blacks for over 140 years. They were years behind the civil rights movement until a convenient revelation in 1978 changed this policy, not unlike another revelation that finally put an end to polygamy within the church. So apparently even “timeless” Mormon doctrines can change.

In 1967 when so-called “activist judges” of the Supreme Court ruled inter-racial marriage was finally legal, 70 percent of the public disagreed with the decision. Just as now, there were ad campaigns talking about “protecting” and “preserving” the family. There was talk of saving the sacred institution of marriage from something that was “biblically wrong” and “offensive in the sight of God”. Such arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now.

The majority opinion of the public is not always right (see Prop 22). That is why we have judges to protect the constitutional rights of the minority. The judges did their job in June, declaring that everyone has the right to marry the person of their choice. That is why we need to take notice when a powerful church decides to become a political action committee to take away the civil rights of others.

Fred Hunting

Dear Editor:

Countering a recent letter printed by your paper, I would like to thank you for your endorsement supporting Proposition. D, the alcohol ban on our beaches. As a Mission Beach property owner and part time resident for nearly 20 years, I can report first hand that drunken and violent behavior was ruining the beach experience for those who enjoy the beach for beach activities. Instances of bad behavior caused by excessive drinking have markedly increased to an unacceptable level in recent years. Public drunkenness, loud cursing, fistfights, lewd comments, and public urination became all too common on many afternoons or early evenings. Throughout our entire region Mission and Pacific Beaches became known as an “anything goes- no IDs checked – binge drinking zone”

Within the last week or so, the beer distribution and retailer businesses have launched a well-funded disingenuous campaign against Proposition D. Please don’t be fooled. The problems caused by excessive drinking are NOT isolated instances and they occur all year long. I urge your readers to follow your endorsement and mine and that is to VOTE YES on Proposition D.

James Ziegler

Dear Editor:

In opposition to comments in last weeks Letters column I want to commend the GLT and ask the GLBT community to support a continued ban on alcohol on San Diego beaches.

As a transgendered female the only times I have ever been disrespected in San Diego have been by intoxicated, apparently homeless men. Twice on the Ocean Beach boardwalk and sadly enough, once in Hillcrest.

The first OB incident about 4 years ago was minimal, a rude comment from a drunk. The second time was about 2 years ago. My partner and I were walking along the boardwalk one evening when a disheveled man sitting on the seawall drinking a beer accosted us. “Hey, are you a man? Oh yes! You are men.”

Followed by, “Don’t you FAGGOTS know you aren’t ALLOWED in Ocean Beach?”

This incident we later learned was several months after it was reported in local media that two lesbian women walking in OB had been threatened by men brandishing a shotgun from a passing car. I go where I please and stay as long as I like. But we left the area to avoid a potential physical confrontation with the man.

Two years ago Ocean Beach was a town out of control, and a hate crime waiting to happen.

I noticed this summer, since the booze ban went into effect the area of the boardwalk where the bums used to hang out and smoke and drink has been replaced by couples and families and folks enjoying the beach and boardwalk and surrounding community without the intimidation of the unsavory elements who previously controlled the area.

The beach towns are filled with bars. It seems to me that if you can’t enjoy the ocean without alcohol you can simply walk across the street and booze it up in the pub of your choice.

I urge the GLBT community to support the continuation of a ban on alcohol at our local beaches. The next hate incident that occurs could involve you.

Jamie Starr