Cape Employers

We never learn. This year hotel owners and restaurateurs on the Cape are facing the same problem as they did in previous years.

Mandy Knutson (letters, April 19: A8) suggested matching up Cape employers with unemployed Boston teenagers. I had a similar letter in the Globe in June of 2005; almost three years ago.

I also suggested: "that we start planning now for next year's summer. Let our high schools offer evening programs in waiting, bussing, and room cleaning - perhaps Boston's hotels and restaurateurs can offer experts to staff the courses and sites for students to practice. Then next year we will have a trained labor force ready to fill those dormitories on the Cape with willing and capable workers."

One criterion of an ineffective organization or society is that the same problems recur. Let's not have that happen again. This year let us do the necessary training so that next year we can balance supply and demand on the Cape.

Sent to Boston Globe

Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

Here in Massachusetts, the only State in the Union to permit Gay Marriage, we are coming up to a State Constitutional Convention where a Constitutional amendment sponsored by a mean spirited coalition will be voted on by our legislators. If it passes, it will then go on a state-wide ballot to be voted up or down.

One of the arguments that the proponents make is that legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are only saying whether they think that the people of the State have the right to vote on the issue.

"Only" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.

And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.

In my view the legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.

Other States should rapidly adopt Massachusetts forward looking position.

Sent to New York Times

The Constitution and Gay Marriage

In his letter to the Globe (Letters, May 27th, 2007. D10) Peter Frank says that "legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are merely saying whether they think people have the right to vote on this volatile issue."

"Merely" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.

And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.

Our legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Sent to Boston Globe

Catholics and Marriage

Dear Editor:

I agree on constitutional grounds that the Catholic proponents of the marriage amendment have the right to an up or down vote in the issue in the Constitutional Convention next week (Bishops push for a vote on marriage, Boston Globe, October 31, 2006; B1, B5). However, I hope the amendment is voted down.

Why would the Church try to destroy the families of our gay friends and neighbors?

In any case, why would anyone listen to the Catholic Church on any family value issue? This is the Church that protected pedophile predator priests for many years. This is the Church whose Cardinal called down the Wrath of God on the media for publishing allegations of the pedophilia that was on going in the Church -- talk about taking the word of the Lord in vain!

No, on family issues, the Catholic Church deserves to stay in the purgatory of irrelevancy for the next two dozen years.