Root cause of voting for Prop 8 was ignorance Regarding last week’s letters by Ms. Rayes of La Jolla and Ms. Solis of Point Loma (“More views on Prop 8,” La Jolla Village News, Dec. 23): I know many, many so called “friends of gays” who voted yes on 8. That is the line that they use so that they can be friends with god and still sleep at night. It’s a lie and the people who consider themselves “friends of gays” are liars. A friend of gays would support same sex marriage. A friend of gays would understand that being a parent means being able to provide for, raise and love a child for 18-plus years unconditionally. A friend of gays would have voted no on 8. And friends of gays are fighting to repeal it. The friends of gays are the joke. Does Ms. Solis believe that a heterosexual couple who cannot reproduce naturally should not be allowed to marry? Obama opposed Prop 8. The word of the day today is: Bonobos. Bonobos frequently interact with one another in a homosexual manner. In fact, their sexual acts are the root cause of the peace and low conflict levels among them, as compared to their violent chimpanzee cousins. The root cause of voting yes on 8, however, was ignorance. Briana Rose Pawka La Jolla Prop 8 motivation raises other social questions Regarding “In retrospect, maybe Prop 8 vote was wrong,” Dec. 23, page 6: I may be wrong, but was the letter writer who suggested her vote on Prop 8 may have been less than compassionate being facetious or perhaps sarcastic? Was she actually rubbing salt in the wounds of those who have been denied the right to commit their lives to someone they love? Was she, perhaps, cackling over her win because people like her have decided that gay couples somehow deserve less than other people due to their inability to procreate “naturally”? It seems this letter writer is suggesting that people who cannot produce a child “naturally” should not be allowed to marry because marriage is for procreation only. If that is the case, perhaps we need to rethink allowing infertile couples to marry, and those who do go to fertility clinics must submit to a DNA test in order to prove that the child did, indeed, come from their egg and sperm and if not, their marriage will be invalidated. I suppose she is also of the opinion that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt because they cannot marry and, after all, the adopted child would not share their DNA. Following that reasoning, why should anyone be allowed to adopt a child — after all, the child doesn’t share their DNA and that’s not “natural.” God, if there is one who dutifully follows the minutiae of our lives such as helping us find our lost car keys or winning a baseball game, forgive them, for they are bigots who lack compassion. After all, if one cannot follow your simple rules such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “judge not lest ye be judged,” then their basic right to “pursue happiness” should be struck down. And I thank you, Lord, for giving me the unassailable right to be their judge and jury. Now, could we put it to a vote? Cherry DeLorenzo Ocean Beach Prop 8 denies marriage but not couples’ rights The letters from Mary Rayes and Margarita Solis (“More views on Prop 8,” La Jolla Village News, Dec. 23) have it exactly right — same-sex marriages should never be considered as being equal to traditional marriages because of the basic biological and anatomical differences between gay couples on the one hand and man-woman couples on the other. It’s the “elephant in the room” that no one has been talking about in this lengthy, contentious process. That’s why letter-writer R. Jay Engel (“More views on Prop 8,” La Jolla Village News, Dec. 23) is mistaken — although his basic premise is correct (that a majority vote cannot ever be permitted to deny equal rights to members of any minority), there must first be a showing of equality between the two groups. It is entirely lawful to “discriminate” against a group so long as there is a rational and lawful basis for doing so. In my estimation, one of the biggest problems with so-called gay marriages is that it is simply an attempt to apply a label (marriage) which for many hundreds of years has meant only unions of heterosexual couples and apply it to something which is fundamentally different. While it is true that not all traditional marriages result in childbirth, a fairly high percentage in fact produce natural-born children (and many other couples who are capable of producing children simply choose not to). On the other hand, it is crystal-clear that no “marriage” between two men or two women can ever so result without the direct assistance of a third person (either a sperm donor or a surrogate mother, as the case may be). And, Prop 8 is only designed to deny gays the calling of their relationship a “marriage.” It does absolutely nothing to deny them all of the other rights of married couples. In California, the Domestic Partners Act some years ago gave gay couples all of the rights concerning property, contract relationships, health decisions and insurance, the making of burial arrangements, etc., that it was within the power of the state of California to provide. The areas in which they do not have equal rights are entirely those covered by federal law (Social Security benefits, federal income tax, etc.). And simply being able to call their union a “marriage” would not change that in federal eyes. An analogy may be made to the quest for equal rights for women, which has finally come to fruition within just the last couple of decades. Contrary to what existed when our country was founded (no right to hold property, or vote, or any number of other things), women now have every legal right in the U. S. that men have. But, has there ever been an outcry that women, now having equal rights, should commence to be called “men?” The confusion in terms which would result in such a change in terminology is obvious. Terms which have meant a particular thing for hundreds of years create a right to rely on those meanings to continue. Including relationships of men-to-men and women-to-women within the term “marriage” will create just as much ambiguity and confusion in our frame of reference as it would to start calling women “men” simply because they now have the same rights as men. The identical arguments apply. Calling both homosexual and heterosexual unions by the same designation, “marriages,” makes no more sense than calling all adults “men.” If “domestic partnership” is not a favored term, then let’s come up with a better one. But, I submit that calling these relationships “marriages” is not the proper answer. Chuck Patrick La Jolla >b>Landscaping increases danger of LJ?round-abouts Well, I saw my first accident in one of the round-abouts on La Jolla Boulevard today. It was only a matter of time. I drive through them twice a day, to and from work. The plants and trees certainly look nice, but they are deadly. I drive a midsize 4-door car and I can barely see people at the crosswalks now that the bushes and trees are growing taller. It has also made it difficult to see some types of cars coming around the circle. Today, sure enough, some pedestrians started to cross without having pushed the button to light up the crosswalk. The one car ahead of me stopped suddenly just in time when she saw them. The car in front of me rear-ended her and I stopped in time. I could not back up because traffic behind me had already started to enter the circle and was late for work. Thankfully, the people in front of me were not hurt and the pedestrians were already on their way. None of us were going very fast, but I have nearly missed small cars, small people and children crossing several times. I’m used to looking very carefully because I drive through them four days a week, but people who don’t normally drive through the intersections won’t be looking for people and cars that can barely be seen through all the foliage. How tall are these plants going to get? Very soon you won’t be able to see anything, not even the roadside business signs and addresses. Some low ground cover would have been much safer and still looked nice. What a shame that all that money was spent on this elaborate landscaping without a thought to safety. Debra Strayer Ocean Beach