To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the letter from Tom McKenna of Quincy in last week's Reporter. Mr. McKenna stated "the institution of marriage has been defined . . . as the sacred union of a man and a woman" and that "marriage has always been the tie that has helped create, protect and preserve society as we know it." He also labeled the homosexual lifestyle as "selfish, unhealthy, abnormal behavior." I strongly disagree.

It is true that marriage is the tie that helps create, protect and preserve society because it contributes to the stability of family life. However, marriage does not have to be defined as the union between "a man and a woman" to accomplish that task. Marriage between two loving adults who wish to raise a family together is the key to stabilizing family life. Whether a couple, heterosexual or homosexual, conceives a child naturally, with help from medical science, or adopts a child does not matter, as long as they are both willing and able to commit themselves to lovingly raising that child together.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge, recognized that those homosexual families raising children need to be afforded the same protections of our laws as heterosexual families. It found that it is in the best interests of children for their parents to be allowed to marry. The Court was correct in its ruling. In addition to all of the benefits marriage provides, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, insurance benefits, tax considerations, etc., having two parents whose marriage is recognized by the Commonwealth, means that if their parents divorce, the children's rights will be protected by a state court. Too often one hears stories of gay or lesbian couples who have a child, then split up, with one parent taking custody and the other one left to fight for visitation rights, leaving the child with only one parent. If these couples had been allowed to marry, they would then be required to obtain a divorce in a family court, where a judge would address issues of custody and visitation in the best interests of their child.

Mr. McKenna also suggested that to allow gays to marry would open the door to allowing other people to marry, such as "a lesbian threesome," "a brother and sister," or "a pedophile and a minor." Such a suggestion is narrow-minded, ignorant nonsense. To equate a loving gay couple who wish to have their union recognized by the state with any of these other "couples" is ludicrous. Marriage has always been limited to two consenting adults who are not related to each other. The Goodridge ruling did not change the requirements for marriage, it merely extended the privilege of marriage to a group of citizens from whom it had been unconstitutionally denied.

Finally, Mr. McKenna stated that "it takes the paternal/maternal instincts of a loving father and mother to strike a more perfect balance in the child." Again, I respectfully disagree. What it takes to raise a perfectfully balanced child is, ideally, two parents who love it and want to raise it together. That is not to say that all those children being raised by single parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles will not turn out well balanced. The majority of them will. However, most of these single parents or relatives raising grandchildren, nieces or nephews did not choose to raise a child in this manner. Many single parents are divorced or were never married, while many relatives are raising children whose parents are unfit to raise them because of drug or alcohol problems, or mental illness, or because they lost custody of them due to abuse or neglect. On the other hand, nearly all gay and lesbian couples who are raising children are doing so because they chose to have those children together and to raise them as part of a loving family. Which children are really better off?

-Maggie M. Cornish

Richmond Street

To the Editor:

Ignorance in the face of evidence. That is what I thought when I read several of the letters opposing gay marriage in last week's edition of the Dorchester Reporter. Some authors claimed to know much about the lives of gay people and the impact of gay parents on children. Yet, their misinformed and baseless claims strongly suggest that they have never bothered to actually discuss such issues with someone who is gay, nor have they read the many scientific papers about the children of gay parents. So, I am taking the time to put forth factual information and a viewpoint based on personal experience.

One author questioned how gay couples could, in good conscience, raise a child in a "climate that will foster confusion and ridicule from his peers." The blame and responsibility for "confusion and ridicule" lie not on gay families but solely on individuals, like the writer, who actively create such an atmosphere by overtly participating in it and promoting it through such letters. Blaming families for the ridicule that their children might suffer is akin to blaming women for being raped because of the way they dress. Take responsibility, folks - without a rapist, there would be no rape. And, without an author of ridicule, there would be no ridicule.

Additionally, as Rep. Ruth Balser of Newton, a clinical psychologist, pointed out on February 11, the American Psychological Association has made clear in their summary of the scientific evidence that children of gay families are as emotionally healthy (or unhealthy) as children of other families. This is amazing given that the children do, as so clearly demonstrated by the earlier author, have to live with ridicule from anti-gay individuals. Maybe children of gay families would be even happier if anti-gay zealots let them and their families live a life free of ridicule and filled with the privileges of marriage.

As a clinical psychologist, I was particularly outraged by the false claims of another misinformed author. The author questioned how gay couples could raise children to be emotionally healthy when the "same people have suffered bouts of depression, suicidal tendencies, and a lifetime of therapy for their own conflicted lives." In reality, the vast majority of psychotherapy clients who suffer bouts of depression and have the luxury of affording lifetimes of therapy are middle class heterosexuals. And, many of those people are rearing children. Should they also forgo their option to have children?

I hope that the readers of the Reporter can see through the myths, stereotypes, and lore that have been propagated by either misinformed authors or anti-gay zealots to realize that the daily lives and relationships of gay people differ very little from those of other people, except for not having the opportunity to be equally protected by the laws of this state.

-Andrea Piatt

Dorchester

To the Editor:

The time for an alternative to Tom Finneran has arrived. The recent debacle in our State House is only the latest in the Speaker of the House's dictatorial and mean-spirited approach to representing the constituency of Milton and southern Dorchester.

Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, or the Clean Elections Law (which Mr. Finneran refused to fund, spitting in the face of the voters of Massachusetts), Mr. Finneran has proven himself to be less than an ideal representative of neighborhoods in Milton and along Gallivan Boulevard in Dorchester. It did not have to come to the unseemly debacle of February 11; we can thank Mr. Finneran's arrogance and disdain for compromise and civility.

Any constituent in the Suffolk 12th has the opportunity and ability to challenge Mr. Finneran during the upcoming re-election. Being elected to our state legislature is a high calling, but not an insurmountable obstacle. In 2002, Mr. Finneran received 7,616 votes, but 4,978 very wise constituents said "no" to him, and he wasn't even running against an opponent.

Envision yourself on Beacon Hill; you have every right to be there, and it's only a decision away. Substantially, all that is required is 150 signatures, filing before the early August deadline, and at least one year residency in the Suffolk 12th legislative district. Speak with your family and friends, and consider taking on a new career - you have it in you to represent the interests of your neighbors; you can be assured of support from not only constituents in Dorchester, but from disaffected residents throughout the Commonwealth. The people of the Suffolk 12th deserve and request better representation - the election results from 2002 attest to that fact.

You can certainly count on my support.

C. Eric Marion, Esq.

Dorchester, 13th Suffolk

Editor's note: In the 2002 election, Finneran received 7,616 votes, 4,976 voted "blank," and two voters cast their ballots for "all others."

To the Editor:

It seems to me that everyone is forgetting who created and laid down the foundation for marriage. We cannot go against our Creator to satisfy the lust of mankind. Those of us who truly understand the consequences of such behavior must help those who are weak to the flesh that do not understand that what they seek is wrong in the eyes of the Creator!

You cannot separate the Creator from his creation; nor can the state or man separate themselves from his laws no matter what our earthly philosphy. Right is right and wrong is wrong! If; anyone doubts that the Creator is real, then please explain to me how he already knew that in the end-times man would be calling wrong, right and right, wrong? Located in Creator's Holy Word, the Holy Bible! (Read it!)

And to see public officials flip flop on their voting on this issue tells me that these people do not know what is right or wrong themselves and; therefore, should be removed from office.

You are either hot or cold pertaining to this subject, but you cannot be lukewarm on such an important issue as this that will effect the lives of everyone and all future generations to come. Your personal opinion on this matter is not relevant; because mankind does not have to answer to you, but to the Creator. And, if a minister of the Gospel cannot clearly state (as Bishop Thompson did), that gay marriage is wrong, then he should dismiss himself and study further until he better understands whom he serves.

Marriage is between a man and a woman only! End of conversation, end of debate!

-Carol Y. Mallory-Causey, Mattapan

To the Editor:

Thank you for the important story about the impact of the President's proposed cuts to the Section 8 program. The Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) is the only federally funded program that assists extremely low-income people to find safe, affordable housing.

I would also like to clarify my comment in the story. Rather than forcing housing authorities to focus on extremely low-income families (which they already do), budget cuts could force agencies such as Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership to actually reduce the number of vouchers available to these households. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that more than 8,600 families in Massachusetts could lose their vouchers if this budget passes. Another alternative might be for agencies to distribute vouchers to higher-income households that can contribute more of their incomes towards rent.

Either way, the proposed presidential budget would have a devastating impact on Dorchester's most vulnerable households. Since 1974, the Section 8 program has been a proven, cost-effective way to engage the private market in providing affordable housing. I would urge Dorchester residents to let their federal representatives know the importance of this program to their stability and well-being.

Julia E. Kehoe

Executive Director

Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership

By Walter McCarty

I am proud to be a member of the Boston Celtics organization, but I am especially honored during Black History Month. This franchise was a pioneer in the integration of professional sports in the United States - the first NBA team to draft an African-American player, the first team in the NBA to field an African-American starting five, and the first team in professional sports to have an African-American head coach.

I have benefited so much from the sacrifices those who came before me. In my role as a Celtics player and a leader, it is important to know about the people who opened up the doors for me. I enjoy reading about Black history, especially learning about the important contributions to society that African-Americans have made - not just athletes and entertainers, but also inventors, scientists, doctors, lawyers and teachers. Teaching our youth about these pioneers can help inspire kids who might otherwise think, "I can't become this" or "I can't do that."

Black History Month should not just be a time for learning and reflection - it needs to be one of action. It is vital that we do everything we can to help make our communities better and safer places to live and work. There will be a day when future generations look back on us and ask, "What did they do? What did they do to help us become a better race, a better culture, a better world?" Step out and take a risk. Try to learn new things; to improve, you must expand your mind.

Throughout the month of February, I will be working with the Celtics and Amtrak on a program that gives me the opportunity to share my love of history with young people. One of my favorite elements of the celebration is the "Promote the Quote," which uses the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to teach them about one of the most trying times in our history, the Civil Rights movement. It also demonstrates that, although the struggles may have changed, his words remain as powerful and relevant as ever. Children today must be educated about our past, and use that knowledge to feel empowered to make a difference in their future.

Black History is not just for African-Americans - it is for all. We must learn about our rich heritage and embrace the people who helped shape it. Black History Month gives us the chance to reflect on how far we have come - and remember how far we have left to go.

Walter McCarty plays forward for the Boston Celtics.

To the Editor,

I have recently seen a copy of a letter being placed on vehicles asking people not to do business with Arthur Donovan. They do not want people to do business with Arthur because he attended the Mayor's State of the City speech.

I cannot imagine how short-minded a person could be. Anyone who knows Arthur knows he is always willing to help a friend, a family or an organization out. I personally have been a recipient of Arthur's kindness. Whether I was having a fundraiser or a union meeting, he has either sent food when I have asked, sent a monetary donation when needed, or donated space at his bar when asked. I am just one person of many whom Arthur has helped.

I ask the good people who know of Arthur's kindness to stop by his bar and say thank you. Let the people who do not want you to patronize Arthur's businesses know that you have not forgotten his kindness.

I am a member of Dorchester Day Parade, Dorchester Holiday Celebrations Committee, Lower Mills Civic Association, Cedar Grove Little League, own my own small business, am a Ward 17 delegate and a union member who is presently at the negotiation table bargaining for a contract for City of Boston employees. Arthur has demonstrated time and time again that he is a neighborhood guy. I am proud to be friend of Arthur, and I look forward to a bowl of the best chili in Boston. People who deny themselves this privilege is a fool. Arthur does too much good for anyone to complain about his attendance at the State of the City. He does too much good for people not patronize his businesses. I for one will be having a bowl of that chili this week and for many more weeks to come.

Michael B. Mackan

Bearse Avenue

By Lewis Finfer

Do you know anyone earning less than $35,000 a year? It's certainly hard to "make it in Massachusetts" when you have a low paying job. Though much has to be done to change this, right now you can help some of your friends and neighbors -and maybe even yourself- obtain their rights to some significant federal and state tax refunds due to low and moderate income wage earners.

Households earning less than $35,000 a year are likely eligible for significant refunds on federal and state taxes through the program called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and additionally for the child care tax credit. More than 25 percent of those eligible for this do not know about it and do not get this funds that would really help with our high living costs.

How could you help such neighbors and friends?

First, if you work for a business, hospital, nursing home, or organization, ask the manager or owner if they would be willing to give an information sheet about this program to employees earning less than $35,000 a year. You can get regular size and envelope sized fliers on this from the City of Boston's Earned Income Tax Credit Campaign at 617-918-5275 and additional information at their website at www.bostontaxhelp.org

Secondly, there are 18 neighborhood agencies and organizations in Boston that will provide free help to people to fill out their federal and state income tax forms and get these Earned Income Tax Credit refunds. You can find these groups by calling the above phone number and checking the above website. The ones in Dorchester and Mattapan include: Codman Square Health Center (822-8182), Dorchester Neighborhood Service Center (288-2700), Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (825-5897), Mattapan Family Service Center (298-2045), Metropolitan Baptist Church (436-0479), and United Christian Financial Services (265-8449).

Unfortunately, there are companies that do these tax returns for large fees that people can save if they went to one of these organizations listed above that will help people do their returns for free. Some of these companies also offer a terrible option called a refund anticipation loan. They offer to give people their tax refund immediately but take off a tremendous portion for themselves by charging outrageously high interest rates. Recently, the Dorchester based community group called ACORN demonstrated at the local office of a national company called H&R Block which makes such refund anticipation loans at terribly high interest rates.

Obviously, low wage earners need better paying jobs and that will take a lot of organizing at the state and national level to obtain. This means much more funding for job training programs that now only reach a tiny percentage of those that need them, lowering the costs of attending community colleges, help with day care costs while people are in training or college programs, building and subsidizing more affordable housing so people don't spend half their income on rent, and increasing the number of people in unions so they get better pay for whatever they do.

Lewis Finfer of Dorchester is the director of the Organizing and Leadership Training Center.