ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 7, 1996 TAG: 9603070004
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
MEMO: ***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on March 9, 1996.
A letter by Jesse Workman, published Thursday, should have read: "I
refer to their decision to delay until the 1997 session a vote on
legislation dealing with joint custody.
GENERAL Assembly members, in their great wisdom, again have decided they know what's best for the children of Virginia without any regard for the needs, wants and desires of the children or their parents.
I refer to their decision to delay until the 1997 session a vote on legislation creating a family court. Why would they do that?
Although I'm aware that our legislators are mostly attorneys, one would think the best interests of the children would be utmost on the minds of legislators.
The legislation would reduce caseloads in Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts involving domestic violence, parental kidnappings, juvenile crime. In some cases, it would help to reduce the divorce rate.
Oh, I think I may have answered my own question. Legislators are attorneys; citizens are cash cows.
JESSE WORKMAN
ROANOKE
You, too, can be a famous lobbyist
AS I read the Feb. 1 General Assembly Notebook column about lobbyists from Western Virginia, I was delighted to find myself listed in this distinguished group. Unfortunately, the closest I've come to owning Gucci loafers or Armani suits is when their distant, mislabeled cousins end up at T.J. Maxx. And the nearest experience I've had with wining and dining legislators is eating a dried-up tuna-salad sandwich in the snack bar at the state capitol.
Yet, there I am - a bona fide lobbyist. It must be true, because it's in the newspaper! I'm quite flattered. I never dreamed of such glamour.
And to think - all that for just taking seven students to Richmond for a field trip! As communications director for National Business College, it was my duty to make arrangements for the trip. Someone in Richmond told me that as a paid employee of the college, I was supposed to register as a lobbyist if I was planning to talk to any of the legislators. Well, having been a Boy Scout den mother, I couldn't ruin my reputation by being an illegal lobbyist. And I certainly wasn't going to travel in a crowded van for three hours and then not get to talk to the legislators. So I registered, never considering that such a mundane task could lead to stardom.
Allow me to thank The Roanoke Times for including me with the ``movers and shakers" of Western Virginia who stalk the General Assembly halls. Now, I guess I'll have to turn in my native cotton dresses and clunky shoes for something a bit more conservative and yuppie-looking. I'll bet all those other folks from Roanoke I saw in Richmond are sorry they didn't register. They could have been listed, too!
DEBRA MAXEY
Communications Director
National Business College
ROANOKE
Society is too lenient on drunken drivers
READING about all of the alcohol-related deaths and rapes lately has been rather depressing. It has been even more depressing to read about the light punishments handed down. Our society seems to believe that alcohol makes us less responsible for our actions. If we continue to believe this nonsense, we'll never make any progress in solving this problem.
Most distressing was the case of the 16-year-old boy who killed a woman while driving drunk. Anyone old enough to drive a car is old enough to be held responsible for his actions. Anyone who killed another through such reckless and irresponsible behavior should be tried as an adult, and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If age 16 is considered too young to be held accountable, then age 16 should be considered too young to drive.
Everyone is sober when he or she begins drinking, and everyone knows the ability to reason is diminished while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. We've been far too lenient for far too long. We need to stop accepting ``I was drunk'' as an excuse or even as an explanation for deviant behavior.
KENT M. FORD
ROANOKE
Gays aren't gay as a matter of choice
IN KAREN Kennedy's Feb. 26 letter to the editor (``Hate is not basis for religious beliefs''), she writes that hate and prejudice aren't at the root of her rejection of billboards expressing tolerance of homosexuality. Rather, she says that her belief is based on the Bible, that being the word of God.
She goes on to say that she would reject billboards promoting teen-age pregnancy, divorce, murder and adultery for the same reason. She refers to these as choices that she would reject.
But homosexuality isn't a choice - it's an identity. Who would choose to be a homosexual and incur the rejection of Kennedy and thousands like her in our society? Who would risk the rejection of family, and the loss of job, home and children? No one. Gays cannot choose to be straight any more than straight people can choose to be gay.
No one is asking for billboards promoting divorce, murder or adultery. But many are asking for billboards to promote understanding and tolerance, values that are very Christian indeed.
LARRY BERNATH
ROANOKE
Too few schools will be helped
I WOULD like to make the following points regarding your Feb. 2 editorial, ``The county needs a new high school'':
As you said, the Roanoke County School Board included a little something for every magisterial district, but very little.
Fort Lewis Elementary School is in desperate need of renovations. It has no air conditioning and a poorly controlled heating system. In the middle of winter, I send my child to school in short sleeves because of the stifling heat. She also is required to eat lunch at 10:20 a.m. because the cafeteria is too small. Her food is shipped in from another school because Fort Lewis doesn't have a kitchen equipped to serve lunch.
I feel strongly about education and the need for the bond issue to pass. However, I cannot in good conscience vote for a new high school when some of our other schools are in such poor shape. If the School Board took a realistic view of the county's needs as a whole, I wouldn't be forced to vote no to the bond referendum.
Our middle-school addition (Glenvar) has no furnishings, and I'm told the School Board cannot find the money to even put doors on the facility. Why isn't there a separate middle school with desks, chairs and equipment for our students?
You point out that Cave Spring's crowding is so bad that ninth-graders have to go to junior high schools. I'd prefer that my ninth-grader go to a junior high rather than our sixth-graders go to a high school. That's what happens when our middle school is built onto the high school.
You also said no other high school is in such desperate need. What about elementary and middle schools? Aren't they just as important? This bond will not properly channel money to the areas of greatest need - only to the area of most prominence.
LISA MAYS
SALEM
Gambling vote was misinterpreted
I FEEL compelled to correct the misinformation in Emily Hamilton's March 3 letter to the editor (``Cranwell stood with special interests'') that accuses me of voting to allow riverboat gambling in Virginia.
I didn't vote in favor of riverboat gambling. In fact, I've consistently and publicly opposed it. In the past, I've also opposed the lottery and parimutuel betting on horse races. I don't support, and I never have supported, gambling as a means of raising money in Virginia.
During my campaign for re-election last fall to the House of Delegates, I polled voters in my district. Among the questions were whether they favored riverboat gambling, and whether they favored a statewide referendum to let the people decide the issue. The poll showed that a majority of voters in the 14th District oppose riverboat gambling but, surprisingly, approximately 80 percent felt that citizens should have the right to vote on the issue.
The recent House vote to which Hamilton refers was actually on whether Virginians should have the right to vote on riverboat gambling in the next election. It wasn't a vote for or against it. By voting in favor of the measure, I wasn't going against the interests of my district, as Hamilton suggests. I was actually voting for the wishes of the people in my district.
I remain opposed to legalized gambling of any type. However, so many in my district favored a referendum, I felt compelled to vote to give them their say.
I'm confident Virginia citizens would have said no to riverboat gambling in a statewide referendum.
C. RICHARD CRANWELL
House of Delegates
14th District
VINTON
LENGTH: Long : 160 linesby CNB