It's quite obvious that sexually transmitted diseases are spread, well, by sex.

However, does that mean that the election of a president who has sex endorses the spread of STDs? Should we not elect a president because he contributes to the proliferation of STDs? I think that R.A. Blais, letter to the editor Aug. 27, would be hard-pressed to answer those questions with a "yes."

Nonetheless, Blais believes that the "confirmation of [a gay] bishop endorses [the] spread of AIDS" and uses a myriad of false and fallacious arguments to make this claim.

Blais refers to Bishop Gene Robinson as one who is "proudly aberrant." Blais is not using these terms to praise Robinson. Apparently, being openly aberrant and different is bad. However, take a look back in history. Again, I ask, should we not have elected George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? Don't forget, they did have sex, and they were "aberrant" rebels against the British Empire.

I am 18, and I'm about to head off to UCLA. While I am not homosexual, I understand the situation quite well. At my orientation for UCLA, the University made it clear that we should not hide in but rather thrive in a diverse, social environment and that sexual orientation does not make a person less human.

I implore you to accept these new ideas and values. Keep in mind that without these rebellious ideas we would still be living under British rule and that this great city we share might never have been founded. Do not take these ideas for granted, and instead embrace similar ones so that my generation does not have to live in fear of being subjugated because of our gender, race, or sexual orientation.

—Daniel Nguyen, Cupertino


Barrier at Kim Street is not legal according to law

In response to the issues about the Kim Street barrier, I would like to start with a quote that sums up the legality of the issue: "The power to regulate traffic over city streets is subject to the general laws of the state, and ordinances inconsistent therewith are invalid because the streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state." Ex Parte Daniels (1920) 183 Cal.636, 639, 192P 442, 21 A.L.R. 1172; and Whyte v Sacramento (1924) 65 CA 534, 224P 1008.

It is disturbing to learn that Cupertino's former city attorney knew that the barrier was illegal at the time it was installed. This raises several issues regarding whether or not city officials have personal liability for acts which they knew, or should have known, were illegal.

In his July 16 letter to the editor, Mr. Harrison argues that 15 years ago Cupertino's city council discussed the issue and decided to install the barrier at the behest of a few residents of Kim Street. He argues that we should "leave well enough alone" because "any proposed change will galvanize neighborhood residents to search out further legal fine print to protect the neighborhood streets."

I would like to suggest a couple of sources of "legal fine print" that the neighborhood residents should consult: California Vehicle Code § 21101.6, "Use of Gates and other devices to restrict access to streets," which clearly states that the "...local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street while permitting others unrestricted access to the street." See also City of Lafayette v County of Contra Costa (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 749, 154 Cal Rptr. 374, where "The court held that the entire field covered by the Vehicle Code had been preempted by the state law, and that, in absence of express legislative authority to the contrary, the city had no authority to restrict the right to travel on one of its streets" and Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Association (1994, 2nd Dist) 23 Cal App 4th 812, 28 Cal Rptr 2d 451, "...the city had agreed to use public funds to maintain the streets and drainage, and be liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions."

Therefore the city had no statutory authority to withdraw the streets from public use.

—Frank Denby, Cupertino


Audubon International cozy with golf course

In your article entitled "Birds of a feather tee off together" in the Aug. 27 issue of the Courier you describe the golf course certification process of an organization calling itself "Audubon International." Not once did you mention that Audubon International is not affiliated in any way with the National Audubon Society.

I think a little research will reveal that Audubon International is heavily supported by golf course developers and owners. A call to our local Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, which is affiliated with National Audubon and is headquartered in Cupertino's McClellan Ranch nature preserve, will reveal that this confusing and misleading name can be quite troublesome to environmentalists who try to intervene on behalf of wildlife whenever poorly designed or destructively located golf courses are proposed since the standards of Audubon International and that of National Audubon societies are not the same.

Decision-making officials are often confused by this name adoption, which I suppose was the aim of the golf course certification group, and the Cupertino Courier did nothing to clarify the confusion.

—Deborah Jamison, Cupertino


Signs not stopping folks from feeding park ducks

We read the article in the Sept. 3 Cupertino Courier concerning the feeding of the ducks and geese.

We moved to Cupertino Aug. 1 from Fairview, Tenn. We discovered the park and really love it. We go nearly everyday to walk. Almost every time, there have been people and their children feeding the waterfowl. We have also seen and read the English signs posted in the park about not feeding the waterfowl.

My wife and I would suggest adding signs in other languages or, as in road signs, have a picture of a duck being fed but circled by a big red circle with a diagonal, as in the traffic signs for no U-turns.

Many times a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just our thoughts; also, we enjoy reading the Courier.

—Bob and Barbara Armstrong, Cupertino