To the editor:

As co-chairs of this year's American Cancer Society Relay For Life" of Wilton committee, I would like to thank residents of Wilton, Westport, Weston, Stamford, and New Canaan for their generosity and support. Participants from 57 teams attended this year's event, raising more than $164,000 for the American Cancer Society's research, education, advocacy, and service programs. The outstanding support received proves that the people of Wilton, Westport, Weston, and New Canaan are truly committed to the fight against cancer.

I want to applaud the survivors who participated in the opening lap and survivor reception. They are the reason we continue the fight, because each year there can be more and more people living wonderful lives following a diagnosis of cancer.

We also appreciate the generosity of this year's corporate sponsors. Relay For Life would not be possible without them. Our corporate sponsors are Caraluzzi's, Coffee Connection, Lucci Electric, Norwalk Hospital, Pfizer, Price Financial Group, Stamford Hospital, and Village Market. A special thank you for Stefano's Pizza and Italian Kitchen for hosting the complementary survivors' reception for the third year and to Westy's Storage for hosting our kickoff.

Media sponsors for the Relay For Life of Wilton are 96.7 the Coast, The Hour, and Wilton Villager.

Again, thank you for supporting the American Cancer Society, and remember, it's not too early to become involved in Relay For Life for next year.

Donna Burzynski

Maryann Dionisio

2008 Relay For Life of Wilton Co-chairs

Wilton

All veterans should be allowed to march

To the editor:

With regards to your article: Group denied parade entry.

What a depressing story. Doesn't the name of the group say it all? Veteran's (meaning they've served in combat or have promised to serve) For Peace (meaning after training and possibly fighting they now prefer to promote peace). Why are the organizers of the parade threatened by this organization?

Every year I attend the parade with my family. Every year I weep when the veterans of past wars drive by. I do not take the sacrifices they've made for our nation lightly. That said, I am vehemently opposed to military action and so I support the Veteran's For Peace cause.

Perhaps the organizers are worried that the group sends a political message that some would find offensive (Who could find peace offensive? There's a real puzzle). I wonder if the organizers have ever stopped to consider that the group of marching Boy Scouts is offensive to those of us who have homosexual friends and relations. Why no concern over the political message sent by that group? I find it objectionable and yet they march and the crowds cheer. Year after year...I confess that I smile and wave at them too. They're only little boys after all and have most likely joined at the suggestion of their parents. They smile back, blissfully unaware of the politics of discrimination they are promoting (particularly sad for the scouts who will discover they are gay).

All veterans should be allowed to march. Haven't they, more than anyone, earned the right to promote peace? Call me Pollyanna, I continue to hope for a time when important issues are held in as high regard as are rules about throwing candy...

Bev Ward

Wilton

Procedures were not followed

To the editor:

I am a Wilton resident and a practicing attorney. I do not know the two individuals involved nor am I affiliated with any group. Further, I presume both to be sincere in their positions and purpose. The entire Parade "controversy" presents two problems: The first problem is that Ms. Stephan apparently had a notion that she could just call the Town without any affiliation and without any color of clear purpose and gain permission to march in a Parade. I assume, without concluding, that there are established procedures for participation in Wilton's Parade. These were not followed.

Compounding the problem is Mr. Turner's letter to her which cites, as the reason for denying Ms. Stephan permission, a desire to avoid debate considering the Parade's theme. However, his letter to the Editor cites different reasons and does not even reference a desire to avoid controversy. In fact, while his first letter arguably raises First Amendment concerns, his second letter much more closely abides by the rights of a Municipality relative to admitting or denying participation in a Parade.

"Rules such as those in question here can be upheld against constitutional challenge if they are valid "time, place, or manner restrictions," a concept first discussed by the Supreme Court in Cox v. New Hampshire.

The response from the beginning should have been: We are denying you permission because the credibility of your "group" and your status is, at this juncture, questionable and because of that we cannot determine if your inclusion would maintain the time, place and manner requirements of our Parade." If this had been the only response, the credibility issue (whether real or imagined) generated by two different responses would have never reared its ugly head.

John Lino Ponzini

Wilton