Gay Marriage Is Not the Problem

Re "Missionary Man" (Cover Story, Oct. 1): This is a good and interesting article about the current happenings of Bay Area politics. As a Catholic who supports gay rights, I am baffled at the fact that all these "megachurches" and "Christian congregations" have agendas. I have seen how they seem to care a lot about money ("wealth churches"), and also how they are so against gay marriage. If they are so Bible-minded, they should be looking at themselves. It is divorce (more than 50 percent of all marriages if I remember correctly) that is destroying the family "as we know it" and yet these people choose to focus on gay marriage—can someone try and find out why? Why are they OK with divorce but not with gay marriage. I simply do not understand. "What God has united might not be separated by Men" (or close enough), so these people are living a lie and they are living in sin according to their own principles.

Paulina Picos

Sunnyvale

Frightened, Not Frightening

Re "Missionary Man": This Pegram guy sounds like a jack of all trades but master of none. Why is it Christian Fundamentalists think it's their right to dictate other people's choices? They seem so afraid of what other people do. As if it affects them in any way. If traditional marriage is so worthy of protecting, why do we have a 50 percent-plus divorce rate? This guy is about as relevant now as the KKK. Nobody cares, least of all here in Silicon Valley where most people subscribe to a live-and-let-live philosophy. Maybe he needs attention ... why else would you brag about a following of 10,000 families which yields you a voter base of about 20,000 people? I find guys like this irrelevant and frightened (not frightening). Aren't Christians supposed to subscribe to the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" idea? My daughter is gay and grew up here in Silicon Valley with little trouble from anyone other than religious zealots. I discounted their behavior, explaining to her that they were people with no control over themselves so they like meddling in other people's business. The only part of this article that's frightening is this guy's ties to the mayor ... hmmm!

'finitewisdom'

San Jose

Don't Redefine Marriage

Re "Missionary Man": In 2000, the people of this state overwhelmingly voiced their will in favor of the long-established definition of marriage. The family is the basic unit of any society. It should be in the interest of law to protect that fundamental entity of civilization, not to be redefined at every whim of an activist judiciary.

Family is the social institution that holds a society together. Marriage exists to acknowledge and espouse particular legal and moral responsibility upon consenting adults in this relationship and particularly concerning any children that may be born. Marriage is the sociolegal contract that confers those rights and obligations. This institution is rightfully restrictive, denied to such as minors, multiple spouses, close kinships, even certain medical conditions. Marriage is not merely the relationship between two people. Marriage is about raising a family.

Proposition 8 affirms this institution long established to protect family; it affirms the definition of marriage. We Californians, regardless of social, political or religious standing, must reaffirm what was decided at the beginning of this millennium: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." We must protect our families: socially, institutionally, traditionally, historically. Vote yes on Proposition 8.

James Garrick

Quartz Hill, Calif.

Oppose Prop. 8

As a parent and an active member of my family's congregation, I believe that our church and our society is strengthened by loving committed couples. In action, this means that each person must have the right to choose who they want to marry. Therefore, my husband and I oppose Proposition 8, the amendment to eliminate marriage rights.

Julia Rodriguez

Campbell

The Meaning of Little Italy

I can't believe you did it again. Three years ago you criticized the Italian Festa that was held at Santana Row in a very derogatory manner. Now (in the latest Fly report, "The Italian Job," Oct. 1), you suggest that the Italian community was dealt a serious setback when an alternate location was suggested for a Little Italy.

There is nothing wrong with second opinions. The important thing is to weigh all of the possibilities and hopefully come up with a winner. The creation of a Little Italy is a great opportunity to provide a meaningful tribute to past generations of Italians, and at the same time create a special place for everyone to enjoy.

Nina Bruno Boyd

Little Italy Committee Member

San Jose

Watching for Predators

Re Galbraith's book ("Meltdown," Books, Sept. 24): I have been hearing the same information from guests on Coast to Coast AM, and reading Catherine Austin Fitt's Blog. This is good. We, The People, need to hear the message again and again from people who walk different paths. The Truth takes on a life of its on. People believe.

Joanne Thomas

Vista, Calif.