Re: Tampa offers benefits to same-sex couples, March 12.
St. Petersburg Times readers awoke Friday to learn that Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, sweeping aside any pretense regarding democratic processes with a gentle stroke of her pen, has obligated city taxpayers to a new responsibility, assuming the financial responsibility for the employee benefits of "domestic partners" of city employees.
No apparent effort to gauge public support, no outreach to measure the public's willingness to take on new expense is evident here. Instead, our public sector is tacking on another unfunded mandate.
At a time when America's employers are making every effort to trim costs or shift more of the benefit cost away from the budget, Mayor Iorio has yielded to a minority constituency and added a not inconsiderable burden to the city's debt load.
The modest costs cited in the Times article announcing this move strain credibility, in my opinion, and I won't be surprised to see a rapid escalation of costs associated with this move.
Fortunately for our liberal mayor, these costs will not be borne by her, personally.
-- Jim Parker, Tampa
All should be treated equally
Re: Tampa offers benefits to same-sex couples.
I believe that benefits should be extended to anyone who has a standing partner relationship, regardless of outsider opinion of morality. All taxpaying citizens should be treated equally. In fact, the government is willing to accept taxes from all citizens, regardless of whom they choose to be united with.
The projected cost increase should not be an issue. People should not be directed by any government as to whom they can be personally united with. If the distribution of benefits is to be offered only to traditional partners, i.e. heterosexual couples, then the tax burden of those who do not fall within the norm should be adjusted to reflect that bias.
-- Margaret Covello, St. Petersburg
A hidden political agenda?
Re: Tampa offers benefits to same sex-couples.
To extend benefits to unmarried couples, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio's executive order requires them to have "lived together continuously for six months."
To the educated and far-sighted, this is an obvious inducement to corrupt the morals of our young and old even more. Pam Iorio, in her inimitable, sly ways, is really saying: "Hey guys, bed your partners and you'll earn the benefits I'm dangling before you in my executive order! Of course, when you tire of abusing your so-called "liberated domestic partner,' and you leave her with a couple of illegitimate offspring, the welfare system will take over."
Now, it is common knowledge that these welfare conditions lead to an expansion of the poor and needy voter base. In that way politicians can seduce them with more promises of expanded benefits in exchange for the increased number of votes they can get, promising the poor and illiterate higher taxation of the so-called malevolent rich so that government can be their benevolent benefactor!
Naturally this is camouflaged as responding to the nowadays popular, though decadent, homosexual mania. But why not? Pam Iorio knows she's hitting two birds with one stone!
Is this Pam Iorio's plan for making Tampa a "culturally diverse community" - in other words a larger base of short-sighted voters? Or can this be another typical Democratic Party agenda?
-- David A. Malka, New Port Richey
Some constituents think differently
As residents of West Tampa for over 19 years, we take exception to Tampa City Council member Mary Alvarez's statement that she believes the people she represents do not support recognizing gay relations in any form.
Her reactionary, homophobic views do not reflect the views of many of her constituents. This issue is not about gay rights as much as it is fair and equal treatment under the law for all citizens. All Tampa city employees should be entitled to the same treatment and benefits.
-- Ed Kennedy and Gretchen Langlitz, Tampa
Don't enshrine discrimination
Many people believe, out of fairness, that gay couples should have access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Yet they prefer "civil unions," and support a constitutional amendment denying secular marriage to same-sex couples. I am struggling to understand how they can believe in equal rights while supporting discrimination in our Constitution.
Is it that the word "marriage" has both religious and secular connotations? Yet, secular marriage and religious marriage are not the same. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said nothing about the religious institution of marriage. One's place of worship can still make its own rules about whom to marry. The separation of church and state is absolute - we would never expect the state to refuse to issue a marriage license on religious grounds.
I grew up believing that the Constitution protects minorities, sometimes from a potentially discriminatory majority. Enshrining second-class status in the Constitution is surely a slippery slope. If the rights of one group can be quashed by a popular vote, are any of us safe? When minority rights are dictated by the majority, can we all ensure our rights are protected?
Historically, civil rights issues have not been brought to the voters, and there should be no public vote on this. Legislators and our Constitution should be protecting rights, not taking them away.
-- Michael R. Marcott, St. Petersburg
Give the abstinence message a chance
Re: Teen virginity pledges rarely kept, study concludes, March 10.
It is too bad this front-page article was so short on foresight and information.
For the last 10 years, funding has come down from the federal government to teach abstinence in the public schools. During that time, we have seen the national numbers of unplanned pregnancies slowly decline. The exciting information that this article did include, but was shunted aside as if unimportant, is that abstinence pledges, while not perfect (is anything?) have tended to "delay the start of sexual intercourse by 18 months" and pledgers "married earlier and had fewer sex partners." Pledgers, then, have put off having sex, with the possibility of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, until they are more mature physically and emotionally. Today we find middle schoolers and even elementary students experimenting with sex in growing numbers, so who wouldn't welcome a program that delays the start of sexual intercourse?
Teens do not need to have their goals in life side-tracked by the emotional and physical pain that accompanies early sexuality. STDs today are more rampant, more numerous, more deadly than 30 years ago. HPV (human papilloma virus), for instance, causes 96 percent to 99 percent of all cervical cancers. Women are not only dying from AIDS, but from cervical cancer as well. Let's give the abstinence message a chance.
-- Linda Rodante, Tarpon Springs
Our sleeping watchdogs
When you have a Legislature as hapless and hopeless as ours, then it's necessary to turn to outside sources to seek other solutions. That is what enhances the value of an editorial such as Confidentiality on demand on March 3.
It takes the courage of the St. Petersburg Times and such organizations as Common Cause to emphasize the sins of our Legislature in belittling its duty to the public by hiding documents that could help keep our telephone, water and electric rates from increasing. Our legislators, through the Public Service Commission, should be the watchdogs. That is why we elected them. That is why we pay them.
Praise be to Common Cause for developing studies like this and to the Times for printing it.
-- Bud Wylie, Clearwater
Too much government mothering
Re: It's what's killing us, March 10.
Awww here comes another health alert. The scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are telling us that we eat the wrong things, don't exercise enough and smoke too much. And it's killing us. Great. Sounds like my mother all over again: "Eat your peas." "Go outside and play." "Those things will stunt your growth."
It bothers me that, once again, a government agency, like our mothers, is telling us how to live. Excuse me, but, it's none of their business. Besides, I have to believe that most Americans know that a cheeseburger, for example, is not very healthy food. But when they place their order, they're not thinking about diet guidelines. They're salivating for that first, delicious bite when the cheese drips on their chin. It doesn't get any better than that.
It seems a day doesn't go by without some agency or organization telling us we shouldn't eat this or that, that we should get up and exercise. Please. Life is tough enough without all this unrequested advice. Not long ago, the American Cancer Society called for an all-out assault on fat through social and policy changes akin to the war on smoking. An assault! Cut out the smokes and cut down on the meals. Yeah, and you'll be living the dream.
Far be it for me to criticize what these scientists are doing. But at the risk of sounding cynical, I believe most people will eat right and exercise regularly if they choose to, not if they are told to. And most people know what's good for them and what isn't. They do not need a study to discover that too much eating and too little exercise may kill them.
We already know that. In the meantime, please let us enjoy our icy cold beer and tender, juicy steak, thank you very much.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin
It's about discipline and moderation
Re: It's what's killing us.
While I am sure that it was not intentional, placing the Roadside attraction item (featuring a photo of a strawberry shortcake at the Parkesdale Farm Market in Plant City), adjacent to the article on obesity gave me a good laugh. What a way to go!
Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a diet, nor is there a magic pill, that will automatically melt away the pounds. In fact, the new pill called rimonabant (which is being marketed to help people to lose weight, as well as to quit smoking), still a year or two away from being approved by the FDA, may even do more harm than it does good. Just a few years ago, the drug fen-phen was taken off the market, after it was proven that it weakened the heart.
There is an old saying: "If it is too good to be true, it most likely is." The best way - which I believe is the only way - to take off unwanted pounds and keep them off for good, is to reduce your intake of calories and to exercise. Establish good eating habits and let the weight come off slowly. If you learn to eat sensibly, it will be easier to maintain your weight. It takes a great deal of self-discipline to say "no" to a second helping. But that is what you must do. Learn to eat in moderation.
So don't hold your breath, waiting for the magic pill to cure your ills. Self-discipline plus moderation will allow you much success in controlling your weight. No one ever said that it was going to be easy. It is a labor of a lifetime.
-- JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
