Letters to the editor

Homosexuality is not a “˜choice’

Freedom should not be a question in the United States. Long ago,
we declared that men are born with certain inalienable rights.
Those things cannot be taken away, despite religion, race or
creed.

In the United States, we do not judge people because of things
that are out of their control. Laws are written to guarantee this:
civil rights legislation, Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Constitution.

Sadly, a vast majority of Americans believe homosexuality is a
choice that people make, and because of that choice, they’ve
given away the right to marry.

After all, we take people’s rights away based on their
choices ““ simply look at our penal system for countless
examples. I don’t have a problem with that. If you make
choices that you know will cost you something, then you should have
thought of that beforehand.

But homosexuality is not a choice. That was the ruling handed
down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, not some judicial magic.
It ruled that being gay is not a choice and therefore prohibiting
gay marriage is discrimination, which is against the state
constitution.

Somehow this has not been mentioned by any politicians, and that
is a shame because as far as I see it, this is the issue. Can
someone truly justify restricting someone’s rights because of
something beyond their control?

Joe Vardner Third-year, civil engineering

Prop. 56 no fix, just more taxes

In Mike Bitondo’s column “Prop. 57, 58 won’t
fix budget’s structural problems” (Feb. 24), Bitondo
endorses Proposition 56, claiming it will “provide some hope
for solving the current structural problems of the budget
deficit.” I’m still trying to figure out what the
structural problems are concerning the budget deficit.

Budget deficits are caused by spending more than is earned (or
taxed, in this case). So the “structural problem”
concerning the budget is a result of spending too much or not
taxing enough. If the problem is that the people of California are
not being taxed enough, I would have to agree with Bitondo that
Proposition 56 will solve the problem. As Bitondo states, the
proposition will “end … budget gridlocks by reducing the
vote requirement from a two-thirds super-majority to 55
percent” to pass a budget. Translated into English, this
means that your taxes can be raised on the consensus of 55 percent
of the bureaucrats in Sacramento.

The true motives behind this proposition are made clear if you
consider who supports it. Visit yeson56.org and look at the list of
supporters; it includes basically every state employee and labor
union. These organizations have spent millions on Proposition 56 so
that taxes can be increased and the pork barrel spending can
continue.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (in 1999-2000),
Californians suffer under the eighth highest tax burden of the 50
states. This seems to indicate there is enough taxation. So perhaps
Bitondo should consider the “structural problems”
concerning the budget are related to spending issues. Unfortunately
Proposition 56 does not address spending.

Perhaps Bitondo should look back at Propositions 57 and 58,
which curb future bonds and require a balanced budget every
year.

Kevin Williams Graduate student, microbiology,
immunology and molecular genetics

Vote “˜no’ on readership program

Usually I cannot agree with any of the Daily Bruin editorials,
but “Dorm tenants should reject corporate media” (Feb.
27) was an exception. Thank you for urging the residence hall
students to vote against the readership program. It’s not
fair for everyone to have to pay for something that only a few will
use. Though I often disagree with The Bruin, it’s an
invaluable part of the UCLA campus and should not have to compete
with a subsidized paper.

Russell Powell Third-year, biology student