Regarding the April 2 editorial "Surge of Poverty": The editorial board ignores some facts about the food stamp program. The Farm Bill of 2002 substantially expanded the food-stamp program; the legislation made legal immigrants eligible for food stamps, increased benefits for larger households and expanded food-stamp eligibility for people leaving the welfare rolls.

In other words, the government has made a conscious effort to expand the number of people on food stamps. Accordingly, the number of people on food stamps has expanded.

And the Post-Gazette continues its "have and have-nots" theme while blaming President Bush for everything ... ho hum. At least the PG has lots of valuable, money-saving coupons.

DICK DAVIS
Sharpsville

---

Regarding letters dismissing the need for a smoking ban, here is a look at arguments that do not pan out:

"If you don't like smoking, go to a nonsmoking establishment." While there is a short but growing list of smoke-free bars and restaurants in Pittsburgh, there are very few of them per neighborhood, and most of them are upscale. It is almost as though clean air is a commodity to be paid for when going out. In any subsequent letters to the editor making this argument, please indicate the local businesses you smokers avoid that are smoke-free, so that the nonsmokers and the smokers who don't mind stepping outside know where to give their business.

"If smoking is a health concern for employees, they should just switch jobs." Aside from being a privileged statement that assumes many people are in the financial position to move from one workplace or career to another easily, this statement also begs a question from the cigarette-loving writer of it: With smoking no longer permitted in many workplaces (remember when you could smoke in malls, government buildings and university classrooms?), did you find a new job so that you could smoke?

For all smokers making the claim that job switching is easy, try it first yourselves -- we will just assume you can switch jobs easily and that you would love working in a bar or restaurant where you can inhale smoke all shift long.

CAITLIN LENAHAN
Bloomfield

---

After seeing the latest renderings of the new arena, I am completely baffled that the community has ignored the visual impact the new arena will have on Pittsburgh's character ("A Neighborly Gesture: Pens Reduce Arena Height, Refine Design," March 26). To me, the new arena looks like a Wal-Mart with a glass atrium slapped on the side. It has no lasting architectural character, far less than the Civic Arena, which was and is a landmark structure.

Architecturally it pales in comparison to the new convention center, which is a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) gold-certified building. Will the new arena be LEED-certified? There is no indication as of yet.

I believe that if the Penguins or the city had provided an architectural design that captured the imagination of the fans (and city), the new arena would have had little trouble securing the funding for its construction. There is a reason why the Civic Arena is the oldest building in the National Hockey League. It lasted because it was such an innovative design, which characterized the city it overlooked. Both Heinz Field and PNC Park have the exposed steel work and character introduced by the Civic Arena. As it is, we have a boring brown box barely sufficient to satisfy the team owners, which will set back Uptown architecture for years.

To me, it looks like an anchor store for a cheap strip mall. Where will the dollar store go? If only the parking were so cheap!

ERIC WEBER
Lawrenceville

---

I totally agree with Michael Geer's response ("Most Want This Measure to Protect Marriage Law," March 29) to your editorial on the marriage amendment (and frankly, I resent your adding the words "so-called" in front of it) ("Marriage Mischief," March 22).

The vast majority of those of us who desire to see this amendment passed have no intention of singling "out gays to blame [them] for society's moral decline" and we also are not trying to deny anyone domestic-partner benefits where they have been awarded. However, neither do we think that businesses, charities or churches should be forced to give these benefits against their own personal beliefs.

Your paper often seems to pride itself on its support of freedom of speech. The latest polling indicates that even those who don't completely support the majority who define marriage as the union only of man and woman still want the people to have the final say!

It would seem the people of Pennsylvania who want to give people the right to vote on this are more supportive of free speech than the Post-Gazette. Why are you against giving people the right to vote on this issue? Perhaps it's because you know, as you state in your editorial, that Pennsylvania is "such a socially conservative state." Maybe it is your editorial staff who are paranoid.

MARILYN REED
Pine

---

In response to Patrick McMahon's March 31 letter "Gender Matters" regarding same-sex marriage, I believe it's Dr. McMahon who misses the mark.

Marriage is and always has been more about the legal benefits obtained therein than the religious significance of the commitment. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community just wants all of the legal rights and protections that couples benefit from when married.

In addition, why throw parenting ability into the mix as a reason to bar homosexuals from marrying? No state administers a test to measure one's ability to parent before granting a marriage license. With today's number of broken homes and single parents, the majority of straight couples have a long way to go before they can claim to be experts at child raising.

Furthermore, marriage equality is going to happen. With our society becoming ever more accepting that homosexuality is a normal human trait such as having green eyes or being left-handed, the next generation will struggle even less with the issue than we do today. In fact, five countries of the world currently allow same-sex marriage.

Maybe we can get back to basics and remember that this country was founded on the equality of all people. It is only constitutional and only American that we offer marriage to all people -- gay or straight.

KEITH BAJURA
Penn Hills

---