Back Bay dredging is an incomplete solution...

Back Bay dredging is an incomplete solution

I sit here pondering the homeless problem, the jobless problem,

Social Security, quality, affordable medical care and the lack of

affordable public services. I think about children who don’t have a

home, people sleeping under bridges of freeway ramps and people that

can not be treated for medical reasons because they don’t have the

money. I also ponder the problems of people living with too many

people to a house because they can’t afford rent they certainly can’t

afford to buy a house.

As I think, I really have to question the appropriation of money

for something that has become sort of a boondoggle: the Back Bay. The

bay that tries to be beautiful and many times it fails because of

stench, because of garbage, because of sewage, because of runoff,

because of silt that accumulates again.

We can’t successfully complete the job and its more millions after

more millions year, after year, after year, after year to try to

continue to maintain it. It’s so gorgeous when it’s gorgeous. It is

so ugly when its ugly and we can’t keep it gorgeous. There needs to

be a remedy and a solution rather then continually appropriating

money to do something that nature isn’t allowing us to successfully

do.

JO CAROL HUNTER

Newport Beach

Political labels exist on both sides of the fence

This regarding the “Community Commentary” on March 3, “Dealing

with labels for a lifetime.” I’ve lived in Newport Beach for seven

years. In that short time, I’ve read countless articles denigrating

conservatives usually with little or no defense. Flo Martin’s

commentary is a textbook example and I feel obligated to respond.

Martin wrote that she was very sad after reading Lolita Harper’s

column “Republicans as far as the eye can see” (March 3) because of

the statements of one kook at a Republican gathering. Harper’s

selective reporting was nakedly on display. Does anyone truly believe

that the Republican Party has a monopoly on hate? If so then try a

little experiment?

Go to any meeting of the Democratic National Convention with a

pro-life T-shirt or button -- just don’t forget your flack jacket.

Martin’s example of Michael Moore as a person of polite reason was

a laugh-out-loud riot. Does she not realize that his so-called

documentary has since been challenged to be a complete work of

fiction? Oh yeah, that’s right it’s now called “satire.” Its also

hard to believe why Charlton Heston, after graciously inviting Moore

into his home, would walk away after being insulted so rudely.

Hey, there’s another experiment for you to try. Next time you’re

invited into the home of a new acquaintance insult them, without

provocation and then see if they are classy enough to just walk away,

or perhaps physically throw you out.

I am a proud conservative. I’m not afraid or ashamed to admit it.

I do not consider myself a partisan but an ideologue. The problem I

see with labels it not the label itself but with a definition some

would give it. For example, conservative equals racist homophobe

misogynist. Liberal equals atheist morally bankrupted socialist. I do

not hate liberals, I love them too. I enjoy Joseph Bell’s columns --

they get my blood pumping and keep my debating skills sharp. I think

Harper is an excellent and talented journalist. Bell has called

himself a liberal in his writings and Harper certainly takes a

liberal stance but I still read them.

I suppose my main problem with Martin’s column is not with her

premise but with her completely lopsided examples.

STEVE LEACH

Newport Beach

Same sex marriage views vary in Jewish community

In the Faith section of the Daily Pilot on Feb. 28, in an article

“Drawing lines in the aisle,” Rabbi Marc Miller gave the “Jewish”

perspective on the issue of same-gender marriages.

Miller, while making many factual statements, does not fairly

represent the Jewish community. I am a reform rabbi. Reform Judaism

represents close to 2-million Jews in America and has long supported

equal rights for homosexuals and homosexual couples. In March 2000,

the largest organization of professional rabbis in the country -- the

Central Conference of American Rabbis -- voted to affirm a reform

rabbi’s right to perform a same gender ceremony by a conference

resolution.

The brilliance of Judaism is its ability to maintain historic

roots while changing and adapting to our cultural surroundings.

Miller’s historical perspective on marriage fails to note the

fluidity of our faith. When it comes to marriage, for example, our

biblical ancestors believed in polygamy. It was not until the 10th

Century that a German rabbi, formally declared a man should only have

one wife. His declaration was not based in religious legality, but

rather simply because monogamy had become the custom among the Jewish

people. We are in a new era. It is time to once again review the

customs of our people and to evolve, change and embrace our future.

Now is the time to affirm marriages between two loving people, no

matter their gender.

In Miller’s article he states, “In the view of Jewish tradition,

homosexual practices are condemned as morally objectionable.” Miller

and I disagree as to the definition of “moral.” Time and again, the

national Reform Movement has come out in support of the gay community

with the understanding that -- as the Torah teaches -- all human

beings were created in God’s image. Two human beings in love, caring

for one another with trust and dedication is the essence of what

Judaism is all about. That, to me, is moral.

My Judaism, and the Reform Movement I represent as a rabbi,

teaches that the values of commitment, partnership, love and loyalty

expand our understanding of marriage. The marriage of a gay couple

does not affect my freedom to make choices and so too, my choices

should not adversely affect the freedom of another. Gay marriage is

nothing to fear; rather it is something to embrace as it only widens

the beauty and majesty of the institution of marriage.

RABBI RICHARD STEINBERG

Irvine

Marriage licenses are the problem -- same sex or not

States should require couples to apply for a “Couples License” if

said couple wishes the legal safeguards expected when two people

decide to spend the rest of their lives together and want property,

tax and inheritance protections.

Marriage is a man-made religious concept. It was designed as a

device to compel members to accept and adhere to church-mandated

tenets and as a guarantee that the church would keep their membership

and financial support.

Couples who wish to have the approval of their church affiliations

should do so by obtaining a “marriage license” from said church after

providing evidence that they choose to comply with that church’s

religious doctrines.

Problem solved.

Now, let’s get on with the more important things -- like getting

out of the war business.

BERENICE MALTBY

Corona del Mar