Letters to the Editor

Ms. Paterson has missed the point (“Prop 8 Overhauled the Constitution,” Nov. 21). Our Supreme Court had no right to make social policy in the first instance. Its tortured and convoluted reasoning in the marriage cases proves that this court has become a super legislative body imposing its will on the people of this state. Thank goodness we have the initiative and referendum process as well as confirmation elections for these super legislators.

History, culture and tradition shows that civil marriage exists to impose duties and obligations on parents and to establish inheritance rights. The only issue before the court should have been whether the state had a rational basis to deny marriage to gay people. Two gay men cannot reproduce naturally. Absent a sperm bank, or a man acting as a sperm bank; the same holds true for lesbians. The fact that some heterosexual couples choose not to have children does not obviate the state’s legitimate and rational basis to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

Further, the court’s ruling violated the statute of common sense. The basis for the argument against Proposition 22 was that gay couples have loving, sharing and caring relationships and that they should not be made into “second class” citizens by denying them the right to marriage. If that is the basis for the ruling, then why should the state continue to ban polygamy? Why not have plural marriages? Don’t these people have loving, caring and sharing relationships? If children can have two daddies or two mommies, why limit marriage to monogamous couples — whether gay or straight? I know many people that have loving caring and sharing relationships with their pets; should they be allowed to get married?

Russell Davis
San Francisco

JUDGE MCBRIDE WAS UNFAIRLY TARRED

We completed a three-week jury trial in front of Judge James McBride four months ago. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the recent admonishment of Judge McBride (“Commission Scolds PJ-to-Be McBride,” Nov. 19), we write to let the public know that the recent findings regarding Judge McBride are simply not consistent with our extensive recent exposure to him. We are not writing because we had such a great experience before Judge McBride. We lost the case. However, we lost fair and square.

Without any question, Judge McBride was very careful, thoughtful and diligent. He was considerate to all attorneys throughout the trial. We did not believe that a single decision made by Judge McBride was made unfairly, without careful thought, or without giving the attorneys a full opportunity to be heard. If anything Judge McBride went overboard in permitting counsel to present their arguments. We also observed some criminal matters before Judge McBride that were heard on occasion during our trial. His conduct appeared of equally high quality during those matters.

It is beyond dispute that Judge McBride has a strong sarcastic temperament. One couldn’t be in his court for more than an hour without realizing that. However, he is an equal distributor of his sarcasm. It was never directed at a particular person or attorney. More importantly, it was clear to us from the start and throughout the trial that the judge did not intend by his manner to intimidate or demean any of the attorneys. It is just the way he talks to people.

We can certainly understand how reading some of Judge McBride’s statements in isolation might give one pause. However, our experience with him throughout the course of an extensive trial was that he was always respectful of counsel. From our recent experience, we found Judge McBride to be a smart, hardworking judge who is truly dedicated to the fair administration of justice.

We hope our thoughts will give some perspective to the recent events.

Arnold R. Levinson
and Terrence Coleman
San Francisco