GOLF FASHION SPREAD IGNORES SPORT'S IMPORTANT STRIDES : CURTIS OFFERS THIN ARGUMENT FOR MAKING HORROR MOVIE.

Re: ``Tee Time'' (Aug. 13, L.A. Life):

Your article regarding golf attire for young people appalls me. While I realize we live in an area influenced by wealth and rich kids, this is a time when professionals such as Tiger Woods have been heroes, trying to show underprivileged children they may have an out from the inner-city lifestyle through golf. Tiger's efforts are the reason youngsters have become interested in golf.

I wish I could send you pictures from the Detroit News showing Tiger coaching financially less fortunate young golfers, In this regard, your ``fashion show'' was indecorous. Your article displayed the ``rich kids only'' concept of this sport, implying that children should be dressed in appropriate designer attire to play golf and have fun with the sport. You immediately alienated the less privileged young people who could never afford the clothes you displayed.

Why don't you do an article about the golf programs available for L.A. young people who are unable to afford the sport? Do we have any such programs for our Greater L.A. area? If not, shame on us.

Forget the clothes - let us set up and support some golf programs for all youths, with or without the ability to pay - and without the fashion ensembles.

-Judy Simon

Agoura

After reading the article about Jamie Lee Curtis (Aug. 5, L.A. Life), I felt compelled to write. It must be noted how an actress (of some legitimacy) can try to justify the making of another slasher picture. A chance to be responsible about horror movies - as she puts its.

Why? Why be responsible for making one at all? How dare she defend horror movies against charges of inspiring violence in what is already a violence-prone society. This is Hollywood, and the bottom line is money. It's sad to think Jamie Lee is happy to hear audiences.

I'd like to scream at her.

- Gail Wolfson

Moorpark

Dr. Laura misplaces blame on homosexual family units

In response to Dr. Laura's column about domestic partnership (Aug. 16., L.A. Life):

Her implication that gay marriage/domestic partnership contributes to everything from children killing their infants to their poor academic levels is outrageous

Not only is she taking the responsibility off the adults of the individual family unit, but she's holding gays responsible for the quality of those families; an incredibly fashionable scapegoat thing to do.

It's true by both imposing or denying gay marriage/domestic partnerships, one is forcing a moral stance on society that will surely contradict someone's ethical home, yet we are all forced to legally acknowledge heterosexual unions. To restrict marriage to hetero-only couples, Dr. Laura (and much of society) is imposing her heterosexist dictatorship mentality that doesn't include many wonderful, loving, decent Americans. Instead of equal responsibility and rights for gays and lesbians, she furthers the hetero/homo dichotomy that rates people in a hierarchy of desirability instead of striving for a more egalitarian culture.

We need to stop aborting gays in the name of ``family values'' and in honor of the ``popular God'' (Lev. 20:13), and start judging people as individuals. Gays and lesbians are our children, so let's give them a positive life-affirming place in society to love and contribute.

David G. McHale IV

Agoura