Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Reason to be proud of politicians

Letter by MacKenzie Allen, Tacoma on Jan. 24, 2012 at 11:34 am with 14 Comments »
January 24, 2012 1:21 pm

For many years it has been extremely rare to find reason to be proud of any politician. So, when we finally see elected officials acting in a manner consistent with the Constitution, American ideals and the very right and wrong of a thing, it should be celebrated.

It might seem unnecessary, perhaps even inappropriate, to compliment people for doing what is, after all, their sworn duty and the purpose for which they were elected, but compliment them I will. I am proud of those legislators who will be voting to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

I am particularly proud of anyone who votes that way contrary to his/her beliefs. A difficult decision that comes down on the side of fairness and equality should be recognized as a moral battle won.

We are, all of us, entitled to our beliefs. We are not, any of us, entitled to impose religious dogma on the rest of society. I mention religion because it is at the heart of most opponents’ stance.

Marriage is a civil act. That many people choose to have it sanctified by their particular religious organization does not alter its secular foundation.

So, congratulations to Gov. Chris Gregoire and to those courageous legislators. And, most important, congratulations to all the gay and lesbian couples who will, finally, hopefully, be able to fulfill their relationships in a way most meaningful to them.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 14
  1. Yes! Congratulations to all who are standing up for human rights!

    Great letter MacKenzie Allen! Well said!

  2. Pacman33 says:

    Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the radical leftists invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

    The issue, it’s important to remember, is not whether society will allow homosexuals to “marry”. They may already do so, in any church or other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so. No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, in this state same-sex couples happen to enjoy every right, with extra to spare, traditional marriages do with the aptly named “Everything But Marriage Law” or SB-5688.

    What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such “marriages.” Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.

    Liberty and freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not. Due to the fact they currently enjoy the same rights, advocates have yet to justify infringing upon the religious rights of others and the right to freedom of beliefs in general. Unless one considers spiteful retribution simply for opposing beliefs, ….. justification.

  3. alindasue says:

    Pacman33 said, “What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such.”

    That is not true. What’s at issue here is legal recognition of their partnership.

    Without the legal “marriage” document, partners (of any sex) cannot participate in their partner’s medical plan, cannot participate in community property statutes, cannot be given information about and is often even forbidden from visiting a partner who is in the hospital with a critical illness or injury…

    Personally, I find homosexual activity or any “free love” type behavior to be immoral. That is based on my religious beliefs, but are we going to start basing the law on my religious beliefs? On yours?

    When we start basing laws like the legal definition of marriage on one religion or the other – mixing church and state, if you will – then we weaken the religious freedoms for us all.

  4. bobcat1a says:

    The Ayatollahs need to stay in Iran. We don’t need any in America.

  5. Aye! Aye! Aye! Atollah!

    Oy vey!

  6. Pacman33 says:

    “Without the legal “marriage” document, partners (of any sex) cannot participate in their partner’s medical plan, cannot participate in community property statutes, cannot be given information about and is often even forbidden from visiting a partner who is in the hospital with a critical illness or injury.”

    That is completely false. There isn’t an accurate word in that entire unfounded misconstrual. I might give you “the”. A 53% – 47% vote on R-71 gave them every single one of those rights in 2009.

    There can only be 3 possible reasons I can think of to why you would write something that untrue, none of which excuses the irresponsibility of such a post. By the way, who told you that? I know it couldn’t have been published.

    1) You lived outside of Washington State from April 2009 – January 2010.

    2) You lived in the State of Washington in a coma from April 2009 – January 2010.

    3) You are a liar.

  7. commoncents says:

    Pacman – can those partners pass on their estate to their partners tax free? Can they share SS benefits? There are a myriad of tax and social advantages to those that have entered into the civil contract of marriage. Will this alter that at the federal level? Not yet…but it’s a step closer.

  8. To discontinue discrimination of any kind deserves kudos. Thanks to the courageous for standing up for what is right.

  9. ManuelMartini says:

    There was a man on TV the other night who says he opposes gay marriage in Washington. I loved this part:

    He said “Marriage and civil unions are exactly alike. Now let me tell you where they are different.”

    There, in a nutshell, is the logic of the opposition.

  10. Pacman33 says:

    That’s why the State took the extra effort and named it “Everything Except Marriage” ……….. Just for the slow kids.

    This is the another example of the distorted and confused minds of the left. The State of Washington makes it easy to view the law. I doesn’t take that much to read. All it really says is that it’s exactly the same and on equal footing as marriage by law.

    Regardless of clarity of law. Despite it’s title being tailored for the simple-minded. A random guy on T.V. says ……….

    The leftist chooses the random guy to associate logic with.

  11. Pacman… garbles incoherently “That’s why the State took the extra effort and named it “Everything Except Marriage” ……….. Just for the slow kids.” and “Regardless of clarity of law.”

    No “extra effort” and it’s called “Everything But Marriage” not “Except”. EBM not EEM.

    And now, they want “everything including marriage,” just like every other married couple in the state gets to have, by simply asking for a government printed document, and NOT requiring or demanding anything at all from any religious organization or clergy in the state. Just a document. A piece of paper. That’s all they want. What’s so dangerous about that?

    And, regardless of whatever, I actually prefer our laws to have some clarity. It makes them a lot easier to understand. I hate having to pay lawyers to reinterpret gobbledygook back into understandable English. There out to be a law that says laws need to be written so everyone can understand what they mean. Clarity, you know?

  12. Typo correction:

    There “out” to be

    should be

    There “ought” to be a law that says laws need to be written so everyone can understand what they mean. Clarity, you know?

    or could be

    There “should” be a law that says laws need to be written so everyone can understand what they mean. Clarity, you know?

    Okey dokey, pokey?

  13. Pacman33 says:

    “NOT requiring or demanding anything at all from any religious organization”

    Just like when we were called paranoid, homophobic slippery-slope conspiracy theorists for suggesting SDRP’s would lead to marriage.
    All the GLBT wanted were the rights that short bus jockeys like alindasue commoncents don’t know they currently have.

    You guys lost credibility quite some time ago.

    In addition, out of the small hand-full of states that have legalized same sex unions and ‘marriage’, that were told the same b.s., and already half of them are having lawsuits filed against them. The GLBT didn’t waist any time to highlight their compulsive dishonesty.

    All one can do is remember, the left’s goal is not reason or truth or consistency to values, but promoting a particular ideology. That is why there the left demonstrates subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.

  14. SDRP?

    “Just like when we were called paranoid, homophobic slippery-slope conspiracy theorists for suggesting SDRP’s would lead to marriage.”

    Acronym – Definition
    SDRP – Source Demand Routing Protocol
    SDRP – Syndrome Dysgenesique Respiratoire Porcin
    SDRP – Socjaldemokracja Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (polish political party)
    SDRP – Self-Directed Retirement Plan
    SDRP – Special Discharge Review Program
    SDRP – Statutory Dispute Resolution Procedure (UK)

    Which of those SDRPs is on the slippery slope?

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0