Mailbag: Stating religious beliefs does not make councilman homophobic

Re. “Peotter’s opposition to gay unions draws ire” (July 8): The most recent criticism of Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter is very telling indeed.

What’s wrong with an elected official expressing his views concerning one of our latest U.S. Supreme Court rulings? Official disagreement has been reported in the press several times in the last few days.

Look how far we’ve come in this country, when you can’t even take a position on closely held, religious beliefs without being attacked by some intolerant individuals promoting their own agenda.

There’s nothing homophobic about disagreeing with gay marriage, but some elements of society want to stifle honest dissent. This is dangerous, especially when the media doesn’t offer a balanced forum.

Why doesn’t the Daily Pilot run stories like the “Spiritual war on same-sex marriage,” which, interestingly, also appeared July 8 — on the front page of the Los Angeles Times, which is owned by the Daily Pilot’s parent company?

Kent Moore

Corona del Mar

*

21st century Newport is welcoming

I am truly dismayed (and embarrassed) by Councilman Scott Peotter’s email to Newport Beach residents regarding the Supreme Court ruling on marriage rights. It is an inappropriate and irrelevant topic for a City Council member who has no jurisdiction over such legal matters.

His phrase “homosexual movement” belies his attitude toward gay people and is nonsensical — one’s personal identification isn’t a “movement.” Peotter’s reference to the Supreme Court as “guys in black robes” demonstrates an extraordinary amount of ignorance (if not bigotry) since, of course, three of those “guys” are women.

I have been a resident of Newport Beach since the 1960s. Perhaps Peotter is not yet aware that the Newport Beach of the 21st century is a city that welcomes everyone — people of any race, age, ethnicity, identity and, yes, even female Supreme Court justices.

Susan Seely

Balboa Island

*

Councilman entitled to speak freely

Re: “Peotter should not use city seal in email rant,” (July 8):

Is it possible that columnist Barbara Venezia forgot to include that the foundation of our free speech are the writings of Tom Paine and the 1st Amendment? Free speech and free thought ought to be protected from suppressive totalitarianism. Socrates was sentenced to drink hemlock for corrupting the young with his ideas.

Al Wonders

Newport Beach

*

Peotter needs to go, but how?

I am deeply offended by this bigotry. How do we correct this awful mistake? How do we get rid of Scott Peotter?

Dean Laws

Corona del Mar

*

Remove Peotter in the next election

Is anyone else tired of Scott Peotter’s behavior as a city official of Newport Beach? I am. Here are some of Peotter’s more memorable actions:

1.) Advocated for removing the rabbit sculptures at the Newport Beach Civic Center. He claimed no one liked the rabbits. Not true. There was overwhelming support for the rabbits, as evidenced by the numerous letters to the editor of the Daily Pilot.

2.) Wanted to cut funds for civic center art on display and criticized the display of art that didn’t meet his aesthetic criteria.

3.) Violated campaign-finance rules before being elected to the Newport Beach City Council, and as a result had to return contributions.

4.) Used the city of Newport Beach seal on personal emails and correspondence, including a recent email criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Peotter can have his personal opinions, but he should not tie them to the city in any way.

I wonder what’s next. I, for one, don’t want someone like him representing the city of Newport Beach in any official capacity and dread him serving out his term on the City Council.

I do hope people will pay attention and vote in the next election to remove Peotter from office. We don’t need someone like him on our City Council. We need individuals who will take constructive action to address the real issues of Newport Beach.

Sharon Fisher

Newport Coast