Constitution

The most logical statement in Steven Peterson's anti-Bush rant ("Constitutional rights are there for every one of us," Community Commentary, Aug. 12) is the one he seeks to disparage in commenting on Mel Wolfe's letter to the Leader of Aug. 5 ("Aggressive policy is not unconstitutional," Mailbag). With some rephrasing of my own, Wolfe's reading of the Constitution of the United States of America failed to find that foreign combatants, unaligned with any state, are entitled to constitutional rights and remedies when they wish to kill our citizens.

Ryan Carter HILLSIDE DISTRICT -- State and local officials will meet to talk about the United States Constitution on Thursday. A Constitution observance will be at 6:30 p.m. at the Masonic Center, 406 Irving Drive. Burbank Police Chief Thomas Hoefel, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, state Sen. Jack Scott (D-Burbank) and Assemblyman Dario Frommer (D-Burbank) have been invited to discuss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Constitution's first 10 amendments.

Laura Sturza LOS ANGELES -- The battle over Measure A rages on, even though the issue is not due back in court until later this month. Court papers filed earlier this week reassert the claim that the measure is constitutional. The documents were filed by community intervenor Mike Nolan, stemming from the lawsuit between the city and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. "It is constitutional because it doesn't usurp any powers that are given exclusively to the city of Burbank," Nolan attorney Dennis Winston said.

In his recent letter to this space ("Aggressive policy is not unconstitutional," Aug. 5), Mel Wolf wrote of President George W. Bush's record, "My reading of the Constitution and of news reports on debatable policy of this administration comes up with nothing that I find as a violation of any rights I, or of anyone I know, have." I suspect one has to actively avoid any credible, reliable, documented report on the actions of this administration to remain unaware of many examples of the current administration's penchant for dismissing or disowning a wide variety of Constitutional rights.

On May 26, in Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court held 6 to 1 that Proposition 8 lawfully bars same-sex couples from marrying . The high court’s majority opinion is harmful for two reasons: It supports group bias against gays, and it essentially removes the equal protection clause from California’s Constitution. From my perspective as a heterosexual married man with children, I believe our society will be better — for both gay and straight people — if and when consenting gay and lesbian adults are allowed to marry.

Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to overturn a federal appeals court decision that struck down Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman. Protect Marriage, the sponsors of Prop 8,  called  February's 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “misguided.” “Our Constitution does not mandate the traditional definition of marriage, but neither does our Constitution condemn it,” the group's petition to the high court said.

On May 26, in Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court held 6 to 1 that Proposition 8 lawfully bars same-sex couples from marrying in California. The high court’s majority opinion is harmful for two reasons: It supports group bias against gays, and it essentially removes the equal protection clause from California’s Constitution. Regarding the first point, from my perspective as a heterosexual married man with children, I simply believe that our society will be better — for both gay and straight people — if and when consenting gay and lesbian adults are allowed to marry.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Wednesday that a ballot initiative passed by California voters defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Proposition 8 “unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses.” The ruling is a victory for Burbank residents Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, who with a lesbian couple, are challenging Proposition 8. Zarrillo and Katami could not be immediately reached.

A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an appeal of February's ruling that overturned Proposition 8, a move that is likely to send the debate over same-sex marriage to theU.S. Supreme Court. The decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for a high court decision on gay marriage by next year. Proposition 8, passed by California voters in November 2008, reinstated a ban on same-sex nuptials six months after the state Supreme Court had struck it down on state constitutional grounds.

Marching through a walkway of waving American flags, McKinley Elementary School students received red and white carnations, and shook hands with the mayor and Sgt. Michael Vargas-Machuca, a U.S. Marine who recently returned from serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of the school's observance of Patriot Day. Several Burbank schools held special assemblies Friday to commemorate Patriot Day, a day declared by President...