Dear Editor, Christine Faulk’s recent opinion piece regarding
Proposition 8 and the
”
equality
”
of domestic partnerships sets forth a seriously flawed argument
for continued institutionalized discrimination against non-straight
people.
Gay marriage has everything to do with legal equality
Dear Editor,
Christine Faulk’s recent opinion piece regarding Proposition 8 and the “equality” of domestic partnerships sets forth a seriously flawed argument for continued institutionalized discrimination against non-straight people.
Ms. Faulk compares straight marriage to apples and gay marriage to oranges – what about marriages of people who reject typical definitions of gender? Bananas? Apples are valid and oranges are immoral (and bananas invisible!).
Please. This ridiculous analogy reminds me of the Jim Crow laws of not so long ago. It’s OK to segregate people as long as we pretend our laws treat them equally.
Denying gay couples the ability to marry deprives them of legal benefits afforded to married straight couples. Domestic partnerships are not simply marriage in every way except name; they are inferior and unequal to marriage.
Apparently Ms. Faulk has forgotten that California is part of a larger union.
The California Family Code may say that domestic partnerships are just like marriages, but the federal government does not.
This means, for example, that domestically-partnered gay Americans are taxed on medical-insurance premiums paid by their employer for their partners. (Straight people are not taxed on their spouses’ premiums.) They cannot receive Social Security survivor benefits. They are not eligible under the Family and Medical Leave Act for leave to care for their ailing partners. (Fortunately, the California Family Rights Act does allow employees leave to care for domestic partners.) The list goes on. Committed gay couples are denied access to benefits enjoyed by committed straight couples. They are not equal under the law and it is incorrect to say, as Ms. Faulk does, that they are.
Marriages are not exclusively for people “of a faith,” and many people of faith do not believe gay marriage is an affront to their religious beliefs. Marriage is a civil institution and the authority to perform marriage comes from government, not some divine power.
Legalizing gay marriage violates neither the establishment nor the free exercise clause of the first amendment. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legal equality.
Ms. Faulk insists she is tolerant and accepting of gay people, but her insistence that gay marriage is immoral and dangerous suggests otherwise.
I don’t believe she is a hateful person, but I do think she has been, in the words of Oscar Hammerstein II, carefully taught. Her article clearly suggests we continue teaching our children as her parents taught her.
Allowing children and teens to be whisked from the classroom should the topic of gay unions come up teaches children there is something wrong with gay people and encourages them to bully their classmates who are gay, perceived as gay, or who have gay parents.
There is nothing inappropriate in allowing children to know that gay people exist and that they, too, enter into committed relationships as straight people do.
Kate Haberland, Morgan Hill
Admonished for characterization of prunes as ‘rotten old plums’
Dear Editor,
This letter is regarding Laurie Sontag’s article “Choosing your Halloween candy: do’s and don’ts” in which she called prunes “rotten old plums that somebody forgot to pick.”
It is evident that you did not live in the area when the valley was mostly prune orchards. Prunes are not plums! There are about five varieties of prune trees – French, sugar, imperial, standard and Burtons.
My husband’s grandfather came to San Martin in 1904 and planted many acres of prunes. He studied horticulture. He built his own dehydrator for the prunes.
Due to weather conditions, they picked the prunes as they ripened in three different pickings. Yes, the prunes were on the ground, and many people were hired to pick them up and put them in boxes. The prunes were taken to the ranch where they were dipped in lye water two times to disinfect them and then ran through scalding hot water on a conveyer belt. This breaks down the prune. Then they are sorted for size. The prunes travel on a screen conveyer that sorts the No. 1 prunes from the smaller size No. 2 prune.
The No. 1 prunes were then placed on wooden trays in the dehydrator. And the No. 2 prunes were placed on trays and dried in the sun. When they were finished processing, they took them to the Sunsweet plant in Morgan Hill.
If you tried to process a plum like a prune, you would have nothing left except a pit and dried skin.
The Gwinns had around 225 acres on this ranch, and three of Marion Thomas Gwinn’s sons worked on it for years as well as several grandsons. They worked almost every day – long, hard hours. Pruning trees, spraying them, planting mustard, white washing the trunks, plowing, watering, etc.
The San Joaquin Valley began to plant prune trees in huge acreage amounts. Due to their humidity and warm summer nights, they only had to do one picking, saving much time and money. Therefore, it forced out the prune ranches in our valley around the 1960s.
Most orchards are long gone. I would suggest visiting a fairly new prune orchard just a little way north of Saint Louise Regional Hospital on No Name Uno. It is beautifully kept. The owner was raised on a prune ranch in San Jose. This orchard is his hobby.
I would also suggest you should research your information before you write.
Ethel Gwinn, Gilroy
