Regarding the article "Anti-Gay-Rights Law Leads to Colorado Boycott Calls," Dec. 3: The state constitutional amendment, recently approved by Colorado voters, is neither anti-gay nor anti-rights. It is just the opposite. It requires equal treatment of all persons by state and local government.
It prohibits government from singling out anyone on the basis of sexual behavior for minority or protected status, quota preference, or claim of discrimination. It guarantees the same rights to everyone, not as a homosexual or a heterosexual but as an American.
Colorado has set a needed example for the country in affirming that civil rights law should not be diverted to favor self-selected victim groups at the expense of individuals historically disadvantaged by characteristics such as race or gender. This principle of a free society is not negotiable under boycott pressure. My state's equal treatment amendment is just and right, preserving both the freedom of association and the privacy of the bedroom. Colorado, meanwhile, remains open for business. John Andrews, Golden, Colo. President, Independence Institute A water war California-style
The article "New Bill May Not Ease California Water Shortage," Nov. 24, misses the most cogent point in this latest chapter of the never-ending California water war. The seven-year drought has been badly mismanaged from the start by the two biggest water delivery agencies: California's Department of Water Resources and the Federal Bureau of Reclamation.
More northern California water was pumped south of the delta in the first four years of the drought than any other period in history. Agricultural production, during what should have been a period of prudent water use, was at an all-time high, and much of the water was used for surplus crops such as cotton.
Now that the proverbial well is nearly dry and storage reservoirs are nearly empty, the Hydraulic Brotherhood says that the solution is not wise use but yet more destructive dam and costly canal projects. If agriculture is bemoaning the loss of its death grip on 80 percent of the state's developed surface water supplies, it has no one to blame but itself. Decades of ignoring the legitimate needs of wildlife, fisheries, and health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary have brought agribusiness to the cur rent crisis. Lloyd Carter,,Fresno, Calif. Irradiated chicken sales
Regarding the article "Sale of Irradiated Chicken Due, but Feathers Ruffled," Nov. 17: I take issue with Michael Colby, of Food and Water Inc., who says that consumers will not have a choice regarding the sale of irradiated chicken. Consumers do have a choice when purchasing chicken that has not been labeled as irradiated. The most obvious choice is to only buy chicken products that have been labeled as specifically not irradiated. If food and drug processors are not ashamed of irradiation, they should display the fact voluntarily so that our choices as consumers can be just that. Peter S. Ross, Bridport, Vt.