To be legal, marriage must be secular

In her Feb. 2 letter, Joan Wheeler makes a great proposal about coming up with a new name for gay marriage, but doesn't go far enough. I have a better system: Everyone who hates the idea of gays having equal rights can have "fake marriages," whereas everyone else can have "real marriages." After all, they're just words, right? Surely any objection would expose the idea's hypocrisy.

Apparently Joan also doesn't understand what a "fact" is. The reality is that the Roman Catholic Church is so named because it was founded in the days of the Roman empire, around 300 CE - the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE, is a reasonable point to claim it existed by, and it certainly existed by 380, when it was formally adopted as the sole religion of the Empire.

Not every culture defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Indeed, the very fact that gays (and many straights) call two gays getting married a marriage means our own culture defines it as simply a contract between two people.

The United States government must, in fact, respect the separation of church and state, per the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution. We cannot make any law on the basis of religion. As marriage is a legal contract, defining it in religious terms is unconstitutional. Ergo, if marriage is to be respected by the state, it must be a secular, purely legal institution, open to all.

Nathan Merrill, Philomath

'Shots fired' evoked right response from police

As I understand it, Corvallis police responded to reports of gunfire at a schoolyard. Rapid response was justified. Associated risks are no different from emergency vehicle response to accidents and other dangers. We accept those risks because of the benefits of rapid response.

Gunshots. A schoolyard. That's no time for lengthy speeches.

The activities cited as equivalent are typically dangers to the participants only, and are prohibited where nonparticipants would be at risk. I expect police and council members would use the word "dangerous" if asked to explain the prohibitions.

The recent news item is not the responsibility of the Corvallis Police Department. The newspaper monitors police reports, investigates and publishes articles about events deemed of interest. The newspaper also provides valuable and thorough coverage of school-related news items. Police officers should not be criticized for answering a reporter's question directly and honestly.

Yes, childhood has risks. I'm glad to have all 10 digits for typing this letter. If activities endangered others or property, discipline would have been appropriate, and is appropriate here.

I agree compassion is also appropriate. I'm confident the students will receive it. The article I read did not identify them. The Corvallis police officers I know are parents, volunteer in schools, protect our children and passionately search for them when they are stolen from us. Police behaved appropriately in the case of the spud missiles.

Bill Patton, Philomath

We're letting fear make recession much worse

Pundits say early-on that they fear recession. People start to believe it. People get fearful and reduce their spending. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. Because they stop spending, businesses get less income, cannot meet expenses, and lay off workers. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.

This fear just drives our economy into worse recession. So far our Congress has allocated $750 BILLION on the problem and the president wants at least $850 BILLION more for make-work projects and all the red tape that brings with it. That is 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

What would happen if that same money was divided equally among every man, woman, and child in this country? Every person in this country would receive about $5,300. That is almost $21,000 for a family of four. I wonder if that money would be spent in our economy. Do you think? If people decided to save some of it, that would help our savings rate and make our entire banking system stronger.

Even if you don't agree with my suggestion just think about how much $1.6 TRILLION really is; over $5,300 for every man, woman and child in this country. We will only see this recession end when people believe that the worst is over and begin to loosen their purse strings. How long will it last? As long as we believe it will.

Terry Brown, Corvallis

Irony marks debate over Brooklane Drive project

There's an ironic twist in the debate over proposed developments on the scenic hillside above Brooklane Drive.

Constitutional "takings" is an argument usually brought forward by those who oppose limits on land use. Such limits are imposed by governments to protect the public interest, and the underlying issue is often environmental protection.

But the neighbors along Brooklane have raised the issue of takings on BEHALF of environmental protection.

The proposed development would use parts of neighboring property as a dumping ground for polluted storm water runoff.

At public hearings about the plan, the City Council heard testimony that post-development runoff would increase in both volume and toxicity.

Water flowing off of new streets and about 70 houses and lawns would contain a potpourri of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, motor oil, rubber, anti-freeze and detergent.

Meanwhile, the city has Policy 1026 that addresses the problem of storm water runoff: "Because of soil types, natural drainage patterns, land contours, community expectations, and the potential for liability, we have concluded that storm water from all impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system."

But the proposed development would channel runoff into an adjacent wetland, including the yards of the Brooklane neighbors.

Will the city apply its storm water policy to protect the Marys River Natural Area? If not, will the city compensate the Brooklane neighbors for sanctioning the pollution of their properties?

Mark Knapp, Corvallis