Letters

Published: Wednesday, April 5, 2000

Proposition 22 ad insults gay people I must protest your decision to run the March 6 advertisement titled, "Look What Happens If We Pass Proposition 22." By allowing the advertiser to include the wording "Not paid for by your student fees, but by concerned students," you clearly insulted the students - including myself and my partner - who designed and paid for another ad, titled "Vote March 7 No on 22," which ran in the same issue.

I want to emphasize that no student fees were used in paying for the ad opposing Prop. 22. The advertisement in support of Prop. 22 implies that any ad opposing Prop. 22 was paid for by misappropriated student funds. I demand an apology from the Daily Bruin and from the party who wrote the pro-Prop. 22 ad.

I want to state that myself and my partner are not an exception to the norm. We are a perfectly normal couple in that we love each other, and someday, we wish to get married and raise a family. The pro-Prop. 22 ad's attempt to say that gays and lesbians are not normal is extremely hateful. I believe that this statement indicates the true intentions of Proposition 22's supporters - to denigrate and exclude gays and lesbians.

I want to thank all the Californians who opposed hatred on March 7 by voting "no" on Proposition 22. I urge people to sign the Same-Sex Marriage initiative petition currently circulating in this state. Signing the petition will help protect the families of same-sex couples and reverse the damage done by Proposition 22.

John Pipan

Graduate student

Computer Science

Column on Middle East full of wisdom

I applaud the analysis and celebrate the wisdom demonstrated by Fadi Amer in his column on the Israeli- Palestinian peace process ("Palestinians, Israelis need to seek agreement," Viewpoint, March 6). Indeed, I too look forward to the day when we can cross an open border between an independent Palestine and Israel.

In the meantime, we can initiate a process of reconciliation right here on campus by bringing Arab and Muslim students together with Jewish and Israeli students in an effort at generating understanding for, and acceptance of, the other.

Then, perhaps, we can create a joint coalition for peace.

Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller

Director

Hillel Jewish Student Center

Writer misses point of Constitution

I am dismayed by the lack of understanding shown by Sayuj Panicker ("View of Republican role unsupported by history," Viewpoint, April 3). Panicker makes a number of mistakes and errors.

One of the most noticeable is the claim that The Federalist papers were simply philosophical precursors to the Constitution. This holds no credence.

The Federalist Papers were written by such people as James Madison, who helped write the Constitution. They were used by the framers to help explain and clarify the Constitution. To put it bluntly, The Federalist Papers point out what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote the document. These papers should be given far more credence then some modern-day activist organization.

Also, Panicker points out that we work under a federal system, not a confederate system. This is true, but the writer seems to ignore the fact that the bulk of the power shared between state and federal governments is firmly in the hands of the states. The federal government was given a limited and enumerated set of powers. This is clarified not only by The Federalist Papers, but by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Panicker also gives undue praise to the New Deal and Social Security. Social Security is not that great of a deal; we are caught in a process of continually fixing the program because the system is inherently flawed. I think it is a shame that Democrats and Republicans alike are praising Social Security. It should be privatized.

I honestly suggest that everyone read at least some of The Federalist Papers, or at least the Constitution itself, before throwing about undue criticism.

Daniel B. Rego

Fourth-year

Chemistry

Chairman, Bruin Republicans