Letters

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