Domestic Partnerships an Issue for Geezers as Well as Gays

Tom Danehy's June 2 column knocking heterosexual couples who live partnered outside of marriage ignores a not-uncommon situation beyond control.

My mate and I are registered domestic partners, and my retiree health care benefits cover her as a result; we both have medical issues. We are both divorced from others and would like to marry, but to do so would jeopardize my mate. She does not have enough qualified time in for Social Security benefits, but will be eligible upon retirement for benefits on her former husband's account--unless she marries before age 60. To do that would make her ineligible under either his or my accounts; after 60, she can choose whichever is higher. If we married now and something happened to me, she would be left with nothing.

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Danehy would "delight" in this, unless, of course, he is really in favor of the Christian right's anti-love initiative but doesn't want to offend gay readers. It's a human rights issue, for geezers as well as gays.

Albert Vetere Lannon

Danehy's Domestic-Partners Rant Needed Structure

Danehy's nonsensical diatribe "Note to Heteros" was better left unprinted. There were no concrete examples to back up his generalizations, and his conclusion was a pompous non-sequitur. A good citizen weighs the pros/cons and makes choices in his/her best interest. People get married, and divorced, if it makes sense to, and a marriage license is not (yet) required to father or bear a child. There are other, more profitable and detrimental loopholes and outrages present in our legal and political systems that can be supported with facts and are worthy of Danehy's virulent language.

Tuesday McCormick

Irresponsible to Publish Public Record, On-Government-Account 'Private' E-mails

So, what was the journalistic purpose in publishing--with photos and accompanying sarcasm, no less--the entire personal e-mails between Anne Elsberry and Nicki DiCampli (Legal Briefs, June 2)?

It certainly wasn't to inform the public about what Ms. DiCampli knew or didn't know or to help the public assess whether or not she should have been suspended. That information was already out there in spades. Besides, you could have quoted only the material portions of the e-mails if you felt that they added something to the discussion.

Nor did publishing these e-mails in their entirety do anything at all to help anyone better understand the murder--or, for that matter, any other issue of public concern. No, there was no journalistic purpose. You presented the e-mails in a manner that can only be described as designed to titillate yourselves and to embarrass the participants. You published them because you could. Who cares about the human consequences; we're having fun?

How utterly irresponsible. One can only hope that your lives will never be subject to your own journalistic standards. You owe them a big apology.

Paul Bennett

Illegals Are Costing Us All

I live in California, where we carry the lion's share of illegal aliens ("Catastrophe in Care," June 2). It's reported that in the past 10 years, California has lost 86 emergency rooms. Two years ago, I had a medical emergency that my doctor thought might be life-threatening. I had to travel one hour by car to an emergency room that could take me for observation.

I have heard that it's costing California $500 million a year for illegal aliens' health care. The federal government is giving our state only a fraction in reimbursements. Moreover, that's robbing Peter to pay Paul. The federal government doesn't have money. That's taxpayers' money!

There's has been a bill proposed in Congress whereby it would be required of hospitals to inquire about the immigration status of a client, but hospitals have raised an outcry that it would be too time-consuming. How come it's not time consuming when I go to the emergency room and they ask all those questions like where I live, insurance, person responsible for my bills, etc.? No matter how we slice it, the only solution is to end this invasion by enforcing our immigration and labor laws, guarding our borders, deportation and sanctions on employers who hire illegals.

Haydee Pavia

News for Danehy: The NRA Is Anti-Gun-Offender

With regard to Tom Danehy's wish that the NRA would support aggressive prosecution of firearms offenders (May 26), I am pleased to inform Mr. Danehy that his wish has already come true. In the late 1990s, the NRA was a major lobbyist for and sponsor of "Project Exile," a program in the Richmond, Va., area that slapped federal firearms charges on felons in possession and gun traffickers. Project Exile was highly successful in taking illegal guns off the street and putting away back-alley gun suppliers, but the politicians eventually decided that their priorities were elsewhere.

The NRA supports strong enforcement of existing laws like "felon in possession," as opposed to wasting money and effort on badly conceived new laws that divert limited law enforcement resources from the main task of taking violent criminals off the street.

Robert A. Benzinger

K.Rat: Reflecting Times in Tucson

Andy Mosier must live in my neighborhood (K.Rat, May 26). The 'hood is being overrun by snotty jerks who look at me (and my tacky dog) like I'm ruining the (future) ambiance of the area. You know you're doomed when those crappy traffic circles start appearing and bad artists paint walls with awful murals, and homes are now selling for $350,000.

I could never afford to buy anything today, so I will stay and watch my taxes increase and see more restrictions placed on our former neighborhood freedoms. I am old enough to have seen cities ruined because of excessive population growth.

Ann Baroco

A Late Word on Opium Addiction

Yes, this letter is very late, but I just got around to reading some indignant letters in response to the April 7 "Confessions of an eBay Opium Addict," and I had to respond.

When I originally read the piece, I knew it was going to piss people off. However, as a former heroin addict, I knew that there was more truth in the article than is usually found in the mainstream media. Former (or current) addicts are supposed to be deeply ashamed, spending their days berating themselves. Guess what? I'm not ashamed. It's a lifestyle I happily left behind 13 years ago, and I've lost a lot of friends to the drug. Yet, I still fail to understand the indignant tone of people condemning you and the piece in question. Where are the outraged letters in response to the multitude of bar advertisements in any of the local papers? In fact, some of the bars advertising are the very same topless bars that employed many of my addicted friends. My grandparents both died as alcoholics. Trust me: What their drug of choice did to them was far worse than what I've seen heroin do to people.

Are people going to run out and get opium off eBay because of an article? Ridiculous! It's too easy to get ready-made heroin right here in Tucson folks--almost as easy as it is to get the most medically dangerous addictive drug known ... alcohol.

Kimberly Doss-Cortes


A photo caption in "Size Matters" (Visual Arts, June 16) was incorrect due to a production error. The image on the bottom of the page is "Escape," a black-and-white photograph by Peter Kresan. We apologize for the mistake.
Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly