Letters to the Editor
September 11th, 2008

To the Editor:
We do not normally get involved in sharing our views about politics or religion unless asked. But, this time we are so concerned in the way our State is heading morally, especially for our children and grandchildren.
First of all we want to make it clear that we respect the rights of everyone to live as they choose to. We have no problem with that! No one is asking them to change their life style. What others do is their business but when something is going to affect our family and loved ones it becomes our business.
We are asking our families and friends to log on to protectmarriage.com for information on prop 8. In the year 2000 over 61% of the people in California voted for the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. Recently 4 judges, from San Francisco, over ruled it, a 4-3 vote. We don’t feel that it is right that these few judges can over rule the will of the people! It is not their role to define American values. Prop 8 is the same prop that passed in 2000 but this time we want it in the California Constitution so it cannot be over ruled again.
Prop 8 will not change anything for the gays or lesbians. They will still have all the same legal rights as domestic partners just as we have who believe in marriage between a man and woman. They are “domestic partners” we are “married partners”. That is the only difference! Prop 8 is not designed against the homosexuals, it is designed to protect and sanctify marriage between a man and woman.
For people that believe in God there are several scriptures in the Bible that testify of marriage only between a man and woman. For people that are not active, or do not believe in a religion, the importance of the sanctity of marriage is still the same.
The will of the people should not be overturned by 4 lawyers/judges.
Please consider these six consequences if Proposition 8 fails: Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay. The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage, (51890). Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.
It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees. And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
It is our children, our grandchildren, our money and our liberties.
Let’s work together to protect them.
Again, go to protectmariage.com for further information.
We hope you will join with us in voting YES on Proposition 8 in November!
Name Withheld By Request

To the Editor:
I tried to do it right. I have a home located in a well kept housing tract in Fillmore on Meadowlark Drive. We have a small problem with the city owned property in this development. We are taxed for the care of these city owned spaces. The city contracts out the care of these small strips of vegetation that collect weeds, trash and animal waste. The city supplies the water for irrigation.
I have been watching a strip of city owned vegetation next to my home. There are two sprinkler heads missing, causing flowing water to flow mud and water onto the side walk and gutter. There is also trash, weeds and over grown ivy that is strangling other planted vegetation.
After a month of waiting for the contractors schedule to take care of problem, I went to the city hall Tuesday, August 26, 2008, to gain some satisfaction and bring this to the attention of the people in charge.
At the front desk I was directed up stairs to the public works office. I made contact with a lady at the public works front desk. I asked to talk to some one that could help with my problem. She said that the public works engineer is available. He walked from his office, and placed his attention towards me. I don't know his name, because he did not introduce himself and I didn't ask. I explained my concern with the lack of attention in my neighborhood, by the contract gardeners and the monitoring by public work officials. After a lengthy conversation about contracts and how the city works, he said the problem would be addressed.
Labor Day is over and in the past. The problem is still here and the labor hasn't been done. As of today. Sept 8, 2008, the problem has not been taken care of. What more can I say?
Tom Robertson,
Unsatisfied Fillmore Resident

To the Editor:
I rise in support of Initiative (I) that will limit the number of homes to be built in North Fillmore to 350. I realize that by doing so can make me the target of all the forces within City Hall. However, I have good company-about 1000 of the 5000 registered Fillmore voters who signed the petition for (I), mostly in front of Vons in just over a two-day period.
Recently, you may have read much about why this initiative should be defeated. First, on our town website, fillmoreca.com wherein the City Attorney, using his lawyer language, states that if we do not build the State Required amount of affordable housing the State will put Fillmore “at risk” of all sorts of bad things. Moreover, on the same website, is the $10,000 report made by a City-hired planning Consultant that basically says the same thing-“we will be at risk………”.
And finally, you may have read the most recent issue of the Gazette where our retired ex-City Manager, now a very well paid Consultant to Fillmore who, like most of the City Managers, choose not live in Fillmore, wrote an article for the Gazette citing a long list of reasons why the initiative should be defeated.
The City Attorney, the Planning Consultant and the ex City Manager-what do they all have in common? Answer: They all answer to the City Council! And what did most of the City Council want them to say? Exactly what they said!
So the argument against the initiative can be summarized in one word-FEAR! FEAR that some terrible thing will happen to us if the people, by popular mandate, dare violate the apparent stranglehold the State has over us. FEAR that the State will come destroy our town, take all our homes and kill all our babies( paraphrasing)—in other words-- let democracy be damned!!
But let’s be fair. Maybe our State is not all that terribly bad. Maybe it’s only our City leaders interpretation of the State’s statues that offend us so. After all, do not the same statues and regulations apply to our more affluent neighbors? Say, Thousand Oaks? Camarillo? Simi Valley? Yes, even Beverly Hills? I have never heard of them struggling as to how many affordable houses they MUST build or cringing about what the State will do to them if they don’t.
That begs the question of why would our City leaders want to misrepresent to us what the State law requires? However, this article is already too long to tackle that. I’ll soon write another letter on this to follow up.
Dorsey B. Smith,