Tax cuts killing R.I.

Governor Carcieri is calling for more tax cuts for the wealthy? We are in year four of a five-year plan of tax cuts for the wealthy. President Bush made tax cuts for the wealthy one of his main programs. Our economy is a disaster, with Rhode Island among the worst states.

Obviously, tax cuts for the wealthy don’t benefit anyone, not even the wealthy.

William Platt

Providence

Kudos to Maine!

Hooray for pro-life and traditional family values!

I wish to congratulate the voters of Maine — one of the most liberal states — for rejecting the counterfeit and oxymoronic notion “same-sex marriage.”

Homosexual activists are hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle, one that even in their heart of hearts they know to be wrong and a dead end. They remind me of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when Mom calls for dinner.

The vote is significant because we are dealing with forced affirmation of homosexuality — under penalty of law. This is a historic battle for the minds and souls of our children. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote.The time has come for a federal amendment banning homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Gerry Jones

Providence

Free speech extends to Catholic Church

Stephan Brigidi’s Oct. 30 letter (“Hypocritical church”) cannot go unchallenged.

He begins: “I was heartened by [Patrick Kennedy’s] criticism of the hypocritical Catholic Church, whose pro-life views consistently interfere with and violate governmental regulation.” He then demonstrates his contempt for the First Amendment as he muses, “For far too long, this interference has gone unchallenged. . . . The Catholic Church has no right to attempt to influence legislative action.”

Oh, really? Since when do Catholics not have the right to free speech? And when did we lose our right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

All people possess these rights — and surely, Mr. Brigidi realizes that you cannot restrict the Catholic Church without restricting Catholic people. To suggest that anyone’s religious freedom should not extend beyond their own home or church is disconcerting.

Mr. Brigidi writes: “Churches should keep their voices and actions within their own houses, where they solely belong.” I would remind Mr. Brigidi that we do not h1ave religious liberty “zones” in this country.

Nor do we have religious liberty because the Constitution says we have it. We have it because we are human beings, and our rights come to us not as a dispensation from government but from God. As such, they are intrinsic and unalienable.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution not to remind us of those liberties but to remind the government of them — and, apparently, people like Mr. Brigidi.

The Rev. Roman

Manchester

Pawtucket

Fishing permit violates constitution

The attempted imposition by the State of Rhode Island of a $7 saltwater fishing license seems in direct violation of the Rhode Island Constitution, which states (Article 1, Section 17) “The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state, including but not limited to fishing from the shore, the gathering of seaweed, leaving the shore to swim in the sea, and passage along the shore.”

Even a no-fee license would nullify the free exercise of these rights, because of the time and effort we would have to expend to obtain and renew these licenses. Free means free, as in leave us alone. The bureaucrats, in their questionable efforts to “manage” the oceans and fisheries, should not be allowed to trample on our precious rights.

Catherine Orloff

Providence

Of mediators and arbitrators

The Oct. 21 editorial “Sen. Tassoni’s new job” left me very confused. The editor does not understand the difference between binding arbitration and mediation.

Arbitration is where a neutral third party hears both sides of a dispute and then makes a ruling that is binding. One side wins. One side loses. Mediation involves a neutral person who meets with the disputing parties and facilitates the conversation so that both sides begin to hear what the real needs and concerns are of the other side, and eventually the parties, themselves, come up with a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Mediators do not decide what the parties should do. Research shows that when two parties are invested in the mediation process and reach an agreement that meets their needs, that agreement is more likely to last.

Most mediators strive to be impartial. As professionals, they understand their innate biases and are alert during mediation to the impact of such biases. Mediators can and do set aside their personal opinions. And since the mediator is not choosing a solution for the parties, it works very well.

There is real reason for concern when the blatant biases and conflicts of interest of arbitrators are ignored.

Michele Gousie

Geremia

Bristol

The writer is a mediator.

Editor’s note: We know the difference between the two. The Oct. 21 editorial “Sen. Tassoni’s new job?” referred to both labor arbitrators and mediators. While the binding-arbitration legislation has not yet been approved, typically state-approved arbitrators are chosen from among a group of different names than state-approved mediators. As the editorial states, Sen. John Tassoni, a former public-employee union official, has landed on the state’s list of qualified mediators. In the U.S. economy, mediators often become arbitrators and the reverse.