Los Gatos Weekly-Times

Letters

Measures A and B spell relief from traffic congestion

I applaud your editorial endorsement of Measures A and B, designed to allow us to fund our own traffic relief.

As counsel to the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief, the sponsor of the two measures on the November ballot, I couldn't agree more that it is, frankly, a shame that a confusing mishmash of propositions and court rulings have forced us to use a "creative" approach to ask the voters the simple question: "Are we willing to tax ourselves one-half of 1 percent (as we did from 1984 to 1994) to fund traffic and transit improvements?"

The bottom line is that a "yes" vote on Measures A and B will provide funds and direction to the county as to how to spend them. The result will be reduced congestion, including my own favorite: improving the mess on Highway 17 at the Route 85 intersection.

Neither the feds nor the state will pay for these improvements. As we did with the first Measure A in 1984 (which improved 101 and 237 and built 85), we need to raise and spend our own funds to reduce traffic congestion and improve our quality of life.

Andy Faber
Monte Sereno

Monte Sereno story was fair and balanced

I want to compliment Clarence Cromwell for what I thought was an excellent article on the controversy involving the Monte Sereno building official and one of our subcontractors.

I thought the article was very balanced and well written. All too often, members of the news media are taken to task for being biased or inaccurate in their reporting. He was neither.

Robert Day
Customer Service Manager
San Jose Water Co.

Marriage contract doesn't reduce the divorce rate

Since society alone created the concept and contract of marriage, it would seem logical that society can bestow that right to just about anyone it pleases--heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, and all ports of call in between.

However, we should not confuse purpose with political whim. Marriage, restricted exclusively to males and females, was instituted to preserve and stabilize society. There were serious and necessary objectives in mind, to wit, cutting down on all the indiscriminate hanky-panky going on and hanging name tags on the results of said activity.

The domestic partners registry, which the Board of Supervisors approved Aug. 13, is patently an attempt by those favoring homosexual marriage to eventually legitimize the custom. Now that the registry has passed, can there be any doubt that in a few years (probably sooner) the gay rights activists will be back asking for the next rational step to be endorsed?

So why not indeed? Who cares? With or without a certificate to slide under the mattress, male and female homosexuals will continue to do what they've been doing for time immemorial. If the certificate makes them feel better or enhances their sex lives, let them have it. What difference does it make?

Only one, so far as I can determine. And that is the insult to the intelligence of thinking people made by the claim that homosexual marriages will encourage stable relationships, which in turn will engender a more stable and nurturing society.

Who says this will be the case? Will married homosexuals be more inclined to stay together because they will have to legally divorce before splitting up? Do we have any evidence this is likely? And who will be "nurtured"? Certainly not kids.

Hey, let them register. Then let them get married, but don't spin-doctor the issue. There's enough bullbleep being shoveled this election year.

Frank Stagnaro
Los Gatos