Shouldn't the economic stimulus money go to the states that have been hardest hit by the economic slowdown, rather than it being doled out on a percentage basis? If we don't need as much, should we be crying for more? If someone has a broken leg, and we only have a scratch, should we be crying that the other person got a cast, while we only got a bandage?

And with Sen. Inouye as head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm sure he will continue to ensure that Hawai'i will continue to get more than its fair share of the federal budget.

MICHAEL PHELPS

BOYCOTT KELLOGG'S FOR DROPPING ENDORSEMENT

To those out there who know the harmlessness of marijuana compared to physically addictive legal and illegal substances, and fully realize that pot did not help Michael Phelps win all those gold medals, please join me in bidding adieu to Kellogg's Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies, and all our childhood favorite Kellogg cereals by boycotting this company for dropping Phelps' endorsement contract. It might even be healthier.

And when are we going to give up our naive need for, and our expectations of, role models? Isn't it far better to have a concept of ourselves as a perfect being that we concentrate on becoming? Grow up, America.

RAIL MONEY

VOTERS WANT PROJECT, SO DON'T TOUCH FUNDS

If we the citizens of O'ahu voted for the rail, it's because we want rail. The tactics and excuses used to jeopardize the funds, in the hope of killing the project, underestimate O'ahu voters' resolve. Don't touch the rail tax funds! If you don't like Mayor Mufi, for whatever reason, counter him with your own brain powers and resources.

This rail is not a Mayor Mufi Hannemann thing, although he is the one with the wisdom, foresight and tenacity to see it through. It's our thing, the voters' thing. All you who are trying to sabotage the rail, do not promote your political agendas at our expense. Instead, get in step with the mayor and Barack Obama's policy statement for revitalization. Let's get this canoe moving instead of looking for ways to sink it.

CIVIL UNIONS

PUTTING RIGHTS TO VOTE DOESN'T WORK IN U.S.

I was very disappointed with the editorial (Advertiser, Feb. 24) expressing the opinion that the civil unions measure should be put to a vote.

Putting civil rights to a vote of the people never works. Civil rights and liberties must always be done by legislation. I was raised to believe that the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution is very clear about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

As one who was raised in a segregated state and attended "whites only" classes in a Jim Crow society I can testify that if people were allowed to vote for equal rights for our African-American brothers and sisters it would never have happened.

The same is true about laws regarding interracial marriage and even the measure to finally allow women to vote! None of these many things were supported by the majority. To deny by what is really a form of mob rule the rights of Americans is just wrong.

EDITORIAL CLOUDS ISSUE OF 1998 VOTE, HB 444

Your editorial (Feb. 24) made some serious misstatements regarding civil unions when it stated that HB 444 "disregards the 1998 vote" and "clearly is an end run around the 1998 vote."

Fact: In 1998, voters said yes to the following question: "Shall the Constitution of the state of Hawai'i be amended to specify that the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?" Consequently, Article 1, Section 23, providing that "the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples," was added to the Constitution.

Fact: The 1998 amendment does not define marriage. Rather, the amendment confers the right to define marriage to the Legislature.

Fact: Through HB 444, the Legislature is doing exactly what it is empowered and obligated to do to address the needs of same-sex couples. Through public hearings, legislators are educating themselves about the issue and considering whether Hawai'i's same-sex couples should be afforded civil unions — not marriage. Legislators will be informed that public opinion has changed. According to a 2008 Newsweek poll, 55 percent of America supports civil unions, and, in Hawai'i, a 2007 a QMark Research poll found that over 70 percent of those questioned agreed that committed couples should have the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, your misstatements clouded the editorial. The Advertiser's position on the substance of the issue — that civil unions are appropriate to ensure equality — was lost completely and thus did nothing to inform public discourse.

REPORTING ON RALLY WAS MISREPRESENTATIVE

While I can appreciate that perspective is as unique as the individual I feel that The Advertiser's reporting on the event Feb. 22 at the Capitol was completely misrepresentative. Beginning with the headline: "This bill is an abomination."

The rally on Sunday was about what the people were for, not what they were against. It was a rally to support traditional marriage (check all advertising, radio and TV). The mood was positive and caring. (Reporter Michael) Tsai failed to report that there was even a time when folks paused in silence to pray, to ask forgiveness to any legislators, and any in the gay community if we have or have ever in the past acted in hate or said things in a hateful way.

Why was this omitted, Mr. Tsai? Or why pick four signs out of the more then 50, isolate them in such a way to express hate? Should all the great people of Makaha, Wai'anae and Nanakuli be stamped as violent because a law student is beaten to death one night while camping on the west side, or that there has been fights last week in the high school? That would be bad reporting and misrepresentative. This is what was done in Mr. Tsai's reporting using such loaded words as "a myriad of rhetorical approaches" etc.

HOW ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE?

Are civil unions only for those claiming the homosexual orientation, or are they for all the other sexual orientations claiming equal birthright and civil rights with them?

Can a male or female person claiming bisexual orientation enter into a civil union with at least one male and one female partner? Can a woman claiming polyandrous orientation enter into civil unions with dozens of men at once? Can a person of confused/undecided orientation enter into civil unions with a person of every sexual orientation to cover all his/her daily-changing sexual preferences?

Why aren't these questions being published in our papers and answered by our legislators? What are they all trying to hide?

THINGS HAVE CHANGED FROM 11 YEARS AGO

This letter is in response to the letter (Feb. 23) "It's same-sex marriage with another name." According to the clergymen and women and Mitch D'Olier, same-sex marriage was voted against by the citizens of Hawai'i by 70 percent in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that was 11 years ago.

Voters like me were unable to have our voices heard because we were not of age at that time. There are thousands of citizens who were between 7 and 17 years old when that vote took place who are now 18-plus years old and eligible to vote. To use the excuse of the recession to avoid this issue is ridiculous; if that was their true intentions they would just let the bill pass instead of holding it up. They are hiding their discrimination behind the recession.

All those who demand equal rights for themselves (to include freedom of religion) yet are against gay marriage are the worst kind of hypocrites. Equal rights do not only pertain to a selection of the citizens in this country. I encourage all those who truly believe in equal rights to demand those rights for all citizens of the United States of America. We must remember that this was a country founded on freedom, but that freedom is just a facade if it doesn't pertain to all citizens of the United States of America.

SEN. BUNDA, CIVIL RIGHTS NOT A MAJORITY MATTER

The Advertiser (Feb. 22) reports that Sen. Robert Bunda will oppose the civil union bill, a civic rights matter and not a religious matter, because he thinks most Hawai'i voters don't want it. The Advertiser notes that Sen. Bunda is thinking of running for lieutenant governor.

I think Sen. Bunda misreads the public. The people of Hawai'i turned out in unprecedented numbers to nominate Barack Obama for president and then to vote him in. These new and old voters are energized and here to stay.

A new day has dawned in Hawai'i's politics. Gone are the tired old arguments of a radical minority about "abominations" and threats that proponents will "burn in hell." These well-meaning folks haven't learned that civility, moderation, making government work is the order of the day.

President Obama supports civil unions. So do the Democratic Party and the Interfaith Alliance Hawai'i, which includes representatives from Christian, Jewish and Buddhist faiths.

In any case, it is a mistake to make a civil right matter a matter of religious or majority approval. The person who sacrifices her career to put her partner through school if the partnership breaks up deserves the protection of the law that a married partner has. Problems with property acquisition and distribution during the partnership; the inability to get temporary relief that married partners can get; the powers and rights that Family Court gives to married partners that are denied to partners who cannot, by law, get married. This is unequal treatment of persons similarly situated, and the civil union bill would remedy the inequality.

I hope Sen. Bunda will reconsider. The people of Hawai'i deserve better.

RELIGIOUS SHOULD LEAVE MARRIAGE TO CITIZENS

Sometimes we, as citizens of the United States, say that we believe in the separation of church and state. We don't permit public school teachers to impose their personal religious beliefs. We don't permit the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses. As a country we are all over the page on beliefs and laws concerning the separation of church and state. I personally believe that religious groups in this country should get out of the business of defining marriage for everyone. We are a nation of great diversity and complexity of beliefs about personal matters. Is marriage not a personal contract?

Let the state perform civil marriages for all citizens, without bias to gender, age or race. Let marriage be a legal contract which carries rights and responsibilities. If the couple wants to be blessed by a religious person or group, let them pursue that avenue. I am more and more opposed to religious groups deciding with whom I may choose to form a life commitment.

Be you Muslim, Jewish or Christian, I say, "Leave marriage to the state and its citizens." Lest we forget, it was the religious ones who killed people for believing the world was round.

GAY FAMILIES TAKE JUST AS GOOD CARE OF KIDS

Your front page headline (Feb. 23) quoted activist Judy Franklin saying that HB 444, the equal-rights bill for same-sex couples in Hawai'i, was an "abomination." She stated, "It opens the door for innocent children in foster care to be taken into homosexual families — that's one of my chief concerns."

Ms. Franklin need not worry since every major health agency in the country has stated that gay families provide as safe and secure a home for children as heterosexual couples — if not more so.

Gay parents and gay citizens of Hawai'i are not that much different from most Hawai'i residents. I would like to remind Ms. Franklin that most of the people of Hawai'i constitute a good and honorable citizenry. Our differences don't divide us as much as our humanity binds us together. HB 444 is a good law and will extend equal rights to a much-defamed minority.