The U.S. is tardy in accepting LGBTQs and rental prices are going to the dogs.
Keep ’Em Separated
Re: “Hitching Coast” (Currents, August 7th): I’m in good, heterosexual company relishing the fact same-sex marriage is steadily enjoying acceptance in society at large. Love’s only orientation is toward the object of one’s affection. Gender is irrelevant. Granted, progress will be slower in areas less accepting than central California, but it’s plain to see which way the wind blows. Good to see moral momentum building.
Integral to this debate is both proponents’ and opponents’ religious beliefs. Many critics of same-sex marriage are fueled by religious teachings. Would-be supporters who would otherwise speak up sometimes keep mum for similar reasons. I am religious and am always surprised by how rarely an easy reconciliation is mentioned: Our country’s charter document separates church and state as clearly as it promises equality under law. Each religion and house of worship needs to decide for itself whether it will host homosexual marriages, but has no obligation to do so, unlike the U.S. Government, which is tardy in granting the LGBT community the equality our Constitution mandates.
BJ Cope
Santa Cruz
FROM THE WEB
Touch of Class
Re: “Bow Wow, This Sucks” (Briefs, Aug. 7): I’ve been a renter all of my life (now in my 60s), all over the country, here for most of 24 years. The only place I’ve lived where renter could have dogs—even small dogs—was New York City, of all places, and one suburban condo in Houston. I live in a cabin on the edge of property that’s mostly a mobile home park, where those who own their mobile homes can have dogs but those who rent our residences cannot—even though those who own their homes also rent the property they’re on, just as I do. To me, it’s partly a class issue, too, because anyone is more likely to be allowed to have a dog if they can afford to pay $2500 or more to rent an actual house, with a fenced-in yard.
Judith Broadhurst
Ruff Reality
Re: “Bow Wow, This Sucks”: If the owners of rental property don’t want to rent to large dog owners, that should be their prerogative. The damage that a large or small dog can do to a property is real. Just because your dog can behave for a three-hour photo shoot does not mean he won't do any damage to a rental property. A lot of landlords have been burned because the security deposit does not cover all of the damage that a pet can do. P.S. Adorable and sweet dogs do damage, too.
Mike L.
Dogs vs. Students
Re: “Bow Wow, This Sucks”: Couldn’t agree more with Pascale! I have had a horrible time finding an apartment that would allow my extremely well behaved black Lab. When I moved here, I paid higher than market rates AND pet rent for the privilege. Now that rents have been going up again, I can’t ever move because I can’t find anything that allows pets in town that costs the same or less than my current place. I could understand breed restrictions, but no pets at all? Landlords lose out on a lot of responsible tenants this way. Those places go to college students instead, who I'm sure do a lot more damage than my dog would!
Claire Lovell
