LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Measure 36 doesn't make sense

I don't understand this amendment to the state constitution, Measure 36. I listen to people talk and they say that only one man and one woman can marry. Now is that forever?

Some say that marriage is for raising children. I was raised by a single parent, and my mom raised three of us. We all turned out pretty well.

The proponents for Measure 36 say that marriage is for procreation, too. Does that mean that people who are sterile or past the age of having children can't marry?

Is it because the homosexual community will have something that the heterosexual community has screwed up over the years - a divorce rate of more than 50 percent - and they are jealous?

I really don't understand why anyone would even vote for something like this. It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would someone want to discriminate against another person? If you have a religious conviction, that is fine, but keep it to yourself. We all have our own religious views. Who's to say yours is better than mine?

SHEILA COATS

Eugene

Preserve traditional marriage

My best childhood memories revolve around visiting Aunt Jo and Uncle Earl's home. Together they reared three children, who were off to college by the time I came around. Earl faithfully provided everything the family needed, and Jo used that income to shape the most peaceful home I've ever known.

Creative beyond measure, her vegetable gardens produced much of their food. Walking among her flowers made me sigh with a feeling of rest. Who can talk about Aunt Jo without mentioning the snacks and meals she put her heart into, just for us?

Uncle Earl, faithful to keep up the heavy work and maintenance of the house, had time for us. We followed him around as he puttered or lived out our imaginations in the playhouse he made from the old chicken coop.

Even after 60 years of marriage, they were lovebirds, eating each other up with the looks in their eyes. As they called one another endearing names, my sisters and I felt like we were in the middle of a love relationship, not just bystanders.

Earl and Jo were faithful to each other until death parted them. Their marriage stabilized our world, and added to the harmony of their community. We want to follow their example.

Two men or two women may team up to accomplish tasks. However, let's hold the word marriage for relationships like Uncle Earl and Aunt Jo enjoyed. Please vote yes on Measure 36.

BOB SCHULTZ

Springfield

Federal taxes aid destruction

It will not be long before the Internal Revenue Service levies my bank account. I sadly do not voluntarily pay my federal income taxes. I am a conscientious objector to war taxation. The taxes that I do not pay, I either give to life-giving groups or put in savings so that interest can for a time be similarly used.

Were federal income taxes truly used to meet the basic, life-giving needs of my country, I would gladly pay my share. It is a travesty that this wealthy country permits over a million people to be homeless. It is a travesty that so little of our federal income taxes are used for services for vulnerable populations, for infrastructure, public transportation, health care and shelter for all, environmental protection and education.

Instead, the wealth of this country is being used to destroy. From Iraq to nuclear weapons in space, we are causing death, poverty and hatred around the world. The "war on terror" creates terror, and we are ever more vulnerable. Our precious young adults are losing their lives, limbs and health in wars. Our government is trillions of dollars in debt, a debt that will devastate our children and our grandchildren.

My heart yearns for policies of caring and compassion. We will have to suffer the consequences of our actions, just as innocent people in many parts of the world now suffer the consequences of our economic and military policies. But we must begin to use our hearts as we formulate and carry out foreign and domestic policies.

PEG MORTON

Eugene

Sometimes it's best to change

In response to Kathleen Parker's Sept. 28 column, "Swing-vote moms want an alpha male": When someone with a "stay the course" macho attitude leads you, your children and grandchildren into a swamp full of alligators, poisonous snakes and quicksand, it amazes me that this person would be trusted to lead you out again.

I'd rather have someone who thinks about it first, looks at all the options and is willing to change direction when necessary.

Parker asks, "Who is the most constant, most dependable, most responsible?" My question is, "To do what, to or for whom, and for what reason?"

SUSANNE TWIGHT-

ALEXANDER

Eugene

Quit telling people how to vote

As a registered voter in the United States, though I'm an expatriate, I am still entitled to vote. I will do so via an absentee ballot in the next two weeks. I also am on the fence regarding who I should vote for.

One thing is for certain, though: I have finally had it. I am tired of reading The Register-Guard every day and seeing letters from people who feel they have the right to tell me how I should cast my vote. The voting system is done through a secret ballot for a reason. I will not tell you or anyone else how I will vote any more than I will tell you how much money I earn. It is none of your business.

Those who have written these letters should do their campaigning elsewhere. They should take to the streets and hold signs in the typical Eugene fashion. There, they will meet people who disagree, and eventually violence will erupt on both sides, in typical American fashion.

One word about this phenomenon: I live in Hong Kong. One year ago, we had a protest against the government's plans here on a national holiday. Some 500,000 people took to the streets all day and night and protested peacefully. There was no violence at all. You know what? They got what they wanted. The government stood down a few days later.

Just thought people might be interested.

JEFFREY A. INSLEY

Hong Kong

Vote for values is never wasted

Have you ever carefully considered that a way of voting, which some people (but not me) view as "throwing your vote away" may be a very commendable and appropriate action?

Do you sometimes feel that you must vote for the lesser of two undesirable candidates to avoid throwing your vote away by voting for a better person, who appears to have very little chance of winning? If so, it is examination time.

Before you mark your ballot, you should conscientiously examine your principles and values in the light of the standards you have set for your own life. Following this self-examination, you may have an agonizing decision to make. If so, which will you throw away? Your principles and values or, in the eyes of some people, your vote?

If need be, write in your choices of better people for the various offices. Please don't make a decision to not vote.

In the words of John Quincy Adams: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

RAY COX

Sutherlin

This election is about our future

We all need to consider what will be good for the future of our country and our planet when we vote. In this presidential race, I've heard a lot about the war, taxes and Vietnam records. What I want to hear is how the next administration will deal with issues like the environment, the enormous deficit, America's worsening image and providing for our nation's children.

I'm a schoolteacher and a mother of two. I worry that if our country continues on its current path, our children won't be able to enjoy clean air and water and the beauty of nature as environmental protection laws are repealed, public lands are sold off and funding for our parks is slashed. I worry that our youth will inherit an enormous debt that will weigh them down for generations. I worry that many children will not get the education, health care and services they need due to lack of funding. I worry about the negative image Americans now have throughout much of the world and that our innocent children will inherit this image.

When we vote, we need to look beyond our tax cuts and our fear and think about how we are leaving this planet for future generations.

CHARLENE DECKER

Eugene

Kerry isn't fit to be president

Ultra-liberal John Kerry is unfit for command as president.

As president he would nominate liberal activist judges with their crazy decisions. Think about the Pledge of Allegiance fiasco. These judges would also destroy your gun rights.

Radical environmentalism would increase. Think about no logging with devastating forest fires.

We would have a weakened America. Kerry would not fight unless we were attacked, and then only with United Nations approval. We are in a different kind of war.

Kerry gets an F rating from the National Rifle Association for a reason. After missing most Senate votes, he shows up to vote for bankrupting the firearms industry. He voted to keep frivolous lawsuits going. On Kerry's list of assault weapons to ban are many of our hunting guns. Kerry gets a 100 percent rating from animal rights organizations. He has voted 50 times against gun rights.

Americans would be increasingly taxed to pay for Kerry's socialism. Socialism doesn't work, just ask Europe.

Kerry is unfit for command, as many Vietnam vets have said. How can a man aid the enemy, lie about his fellow vets and be president of the United States?

STEVEN RICHARDSON 

North Bend