Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Loving commitment good for society

Letter by Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom on May 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm with 61 Comments »
May 10, 2012 1:53 pm

Re: “Obama endorses same-sex marriage” (TNT, 5-10).

The impeccable logic of the human heart cannot possibly object to loving commitment between two people, whether gay or straight, because loving commitment, in any form, is good for society.

That is why the opponents of gay marriage never appeal to the natural compassion of the heart. They can only appeal to a 5,000-year-old tribal law code from the Middle East to justify their irrational fear and bigotry.

Leave a comment Comments → 61
  1. LornaDoone says:

    Meanwhile, Mitt Romney says his bullying of a gay classmate at his posh prep school was just “hijinks”.

  2. GHTaxPayer says:

    Meanwhile, 32 of 32 states have voted to ban same sex marriage, including the most liberal state of California.

    Anything to distract you from the FACT that Dems haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years, REAL unemployment is 11.1% and the Obama administration just pushed 325,000 women off the unemployed ranks to help his unemployment numbers.

    Clearly Obama only cares about his future and is pandering. If pedophiles were offering millions in campaign donations, Obama would support child rape. Obama has no morals.

  3. In an effort to go after the Southern redneck vote, Obama will announce his support of brothers and sisters getting married. Then brothers to brothers and so on.

    Crazy yes, not true, of course, but just wait. At the rate this Obama Administration and Pelosi and her crowd have been degrading common decency and morals, dont be surprised if Obama did just that in his next term if he got elected and stuck 3 wackos on the Supreme Court.

  4. Dave98373 says:

    Are there any other letter writers out there other than Fred and Lyle who get letters printed every other day? They have nothing new to add to the conversation other than their repeated biases. If the TNT is going to continue to hire the same liberal cheerleaders to fill these pages, they may as well merge with editors from The Stranger. At least that publication is fun to read.

  5. LornaDoone says:

    “Meanwhile, 32 of 32 states have voted to ban same sex marriage”

    Name one of those votes that was held during a major general election.

  6. LornaDoone says:

    “Clearly Obama only cares about his future and is pandering. If pedophiles were offering millions in campaign donations, Obama would support child rape. Obama has no morals”

    GH – the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t like Obama, so pedophiles offering millions will probably not happen any time soon.

    The rest of that paragraph was stupid. Obama took a major chance on a minority. If he was pandering, he’d sell out to the Republicans.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Fred, can you define what you meant by fear? If you meant fear of a society without boundries, then sure. Fear that we are losing our rationality, catering to extreme minority populations over the masses, then sure.

    As to bigotry, you are repeating failed rhetoric. Not supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with hate or prejudice.

    Without marriage are they not free to love? To be lifelong companions? All the title does is piss people off, a badge of honor for the extreme left. In a sense of irony, it brings them into the spotlight, creating passionate feelings on both sides, versus living a quite, private life like everyone else.

  8. RLangdon says:

    IQof88: The Wechsler Intelligence Scale classifies an IQ Score of 88 as dull normal intelligence which is also considered: borderline mental retardation. Google it. This explains much about your comments, such as the one above.

  9. Dave98373 says:

    “Glad to see you are reading The Stranger. I’ll bet you never looked at the pictures in Playboy, either”
    LornaLoon- I didn’t..you are very quick with the assumptions and stereotypes…how you live with yourself honestly and with an open mind is beyond me. I feel sorry for the people you live with…assuming you have any family and friends that talk with you.

  10. “Obama took a major chance on a minority.’

    No he didn’t. He’s been for and against gay marriage back and forth for years now depending on where he thinks it will get him in the long haul.

    I’m astounded that the net is full of accolades for him for his courage. He’s said it before, and he’s said the opposite, and then said it again. Do you any of you seriously think you know WHAT this man actually believes about anything?

  11. Sure Mr. LaMotte, loving relationships when compared to hateful or violent ones are always better for society. Agreed. This isn’t about gays being prohibited from having long-term, loving relationships, it’s about their insistence that society officially validates their union.

    Several here will say this is not what they want, but it is. They already have all the rights of others in domestic partnerships.

  12. sozo, again you try to tell others what they are saying.

    Well, since you are telling me what I believe, I will tell you exactly what you believe. You believe gays are subhumans that should not and cannot have the same equal rights of humans. You believe you are superior to gay people and that you have a right to delegate to this branch of subhumans called gay people a lesser form of citizenship and a lack of equality under the law.

    What I believe is that gays are human and entitled to the same exact equality under the law that other humans have. If equality is your definition of “validating”, then perhaps you are correct. If you say that gays are not your equal under the law, then you are invalidating their humanity.

    If you would like to call all such unions, heterosexual, baby-making or not, childless, elderly, gay, etc., “civil unions”, then that is equality, too, and I would go for that.

  13. LornaDoone says:

    Dave…

    I’m just glad you are entertaining yourself with “The Stranger”.

    If I said “you didn’t look at the pictures in Playboy” and you agreed by saying “I didn’t”, then what is your problem with me? We just agreed that you didn’t look at the pictures and that you prefer “The Stranger”.

    There are no assumptions or stereotypes when we agree in concept, which we did, unless you are not being honest.

    Meanwhile you seem to have ignored the ridiculous claim that Lyle Laws is a liberal. I’m thinking THAT is what set you off.

  14. LornaDoone says:

    “This isn’t about gays being prohibited from having long-term, loving relationships, it’s about their insistence that society officially validates their union”

    Same kind of stuff was said about interracial marriages. One of the favorites was “the children will suffer”. Yeah, one of them might become President of the United States.

  15. LornaDoone says:

    The argument over “marriage” and “civil unions” is nothing other than a group of people trying to leverage themselves into a superiority position over a minority. One group thinks they are somehow superior and will not share a title of a coupling.

  16. You cannot change your nature by what you do. You can do something long enough that you become quite accustomed to doing it but your nature is unchanged.

    Now if we start talking about spiritual, it is a different set of rules. Spiritual nature can be changed but not by the individual.

    Ever notice how those promoting a new definition of marriage almost always use monogamous in their descriptions of same sex relationships? It’s almost like they know that most other people know that promiscuity is a predominant characteristic of alternative lifestyles so they try to pre-empt it.

    Evn of jugeared president did it in his famous non-endorsement endorsement.

  17. CT7,
    There are on the order of 1,400 legal rights conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits.

    Among them are the rights to:
    joint parenting;

    joint adoption;

    joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

    status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

    joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

    dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

    immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

    inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

    joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

    inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

    benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

    spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

    veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

    joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

    wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

    bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

    decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

    crime victims’ recovery benefits;

    loss of consortium tort benefits;

    domestic violence protection orders;

    judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

    and more….

    Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

  18. GHT,

    For two of those years the Democrat controlled house passed budgets which were filibustered by Republicans inthe Senate.

    For the past year the Republican controlled part-time house has only passed ryans nation busting right-wing engineering plans masquerading as budget bills.

    Dave – if you don’t read the Stranger how can you know it is fun to read?

    Sozo – go read my response to CT7.

    Pgroup – individuals can and do change there actions. even the bible says so.

  19. pgroup, it is only some dirty little minds that like to fantasize about all gays cavorting around in hot little promiscuous sex scenes and none wanting a monagamous life-long commitment.

    As you say, a spiritually-devoid mind takes a much higher power than anything said on these threads to change, but a first start would be to try getting his or her mind out of the gutter first.

  20. “No he didn’t. He’s been for and against gay marriage back and forth for years now depending on where he thinks it will get him in the long haul.”

    That is an outright lie. And you know what that makes you.

  21. GHTaxPayer says:

    Obama, ehill, xring and Fred Lamotte are liars and they know it.

    In 2004 when running for state senator Obama rdently supported gay marriage in many debates. Look it up. In 2008 he reversed position at request of Axelrod to keep black christian donors happy. Look it up. In 2012 he’s magically for homo marriage when queer donors are withholding $10 – $15 Million in donations. If bestiality promoters were offering Millions, Obama would be for animal-human marriages. Obama has no morals.

  22. RLangdon says:

    Well GHTaxDodger, you got the FACTS WRONG, but essentially are correct that candidate Obama has changed positions on the issue of same sex marriage. Here are the REAL FACTS that you screwed-up!

    As a candidate for the Illinois state senate Obama had said in 1996 that he favored legalizing same-sex marriage;[139] but by the time of his run for the US senate in 2004, he said that while he supported civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex partners, for strategic reasons he opposed same-sex marriages.[140] On May 9, 2012, shortly after the official launch of his campaign for re-election as president, Obama said his views had evolved, and he publicly affirmed his personal support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to do so.[141][142]

    Now, GHTaxDodger, would you please tell us all that Mitt Romney has NEVER EVER FLIP-FLOPPED on an issue for political reasons?

  23. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    MARRIAGE: Loving commitment good for society?

    I could support that statement, unfortunately marriage does not mean anything anymore.

  24. charliebucket says:

    hell, my views have changed on gay marriage too in the last ten years. When we know better we do better. Obama will never get the vote of gay haters so I am glad he came out, so to speak, in favor of gay marriage. about damn time.

  25. “n 2004 when running for state senator Obama rdently supported gay marriage in many debates.”

    That’s a lie. Your parents must be so proud.

  26. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Prove it ehill. Add something for a change.

  27. Sroldguy says:

    “…While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships…”

    Open monogamy
    What gays can teach straights about marriage, according to some people.
    Mary Rice Hasson | Friday, 30 July 2010
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

    Don’t forget to read the Comments at the bottom and the Our Ideals of MercatorNet at:
    http://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals

  28. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Well, let’s change the definition of a relationship now.

    Marriage implies only one partner. If not, divorce. With gays it is a different story.

    Tell me it’s about equality again.

  29. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    Oh, look at that.
    A letter by Fred Lamotte.
    Again.
    Golly, they seem to love that guy.
    Why doesn’t the Trib just hire the guy to replace one of their columnists and get it over with, already?

  30. nonstopjoe says:

    If loving commitment between two persons is great, why not three or more?

  31. One of the benefits to society of marriage for gays is the change in behavior and beliefs about committed and monagamous relationships.

    As more and more gays are able to be married or form civil unions, the percent of gay relationships that are monogamous increases dramatically.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-09-05/Gay-straight-couples-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1

    “‘Some might expect monogamy is not something that typifies same-sex couples, but clearly the trend is in the opposite direction,’ says psychologist Glenn Roisman of the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign”

    “Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%.”

    Will it ever be the same for gays as straight marriages? I think lesbian relationships will be more monagamous than male relationships and more monogamous than heterosexual relationships, just my opinion, because of the difference in male and female attitudes about sex, straight or gay.

  32. menopaws says:

    I feel very sorry for people whose lives are soooo empty that they need to meddle in other people’s business………Committed relationships are a GOOD thing—Maybe if more hetrosexuals didn’t use divorce as the ultimate solution, they would understand why gay couples want to celebrate their committments………I figure if it threatens you–then your own relationship needs work. It means NOTHING to society and those Bible thumpers who want to hide their prejudice behind their faith are essentially cowards…….We spend a lot of time judging others and maybe we need to look in our own house and put our own lives in order……It is stunning to read how sick some of these blogs get over this essentially benign desire to build a home, relationship and family…….

  33. LornaDoone says:

    Will all those who complain about the frequency of letters from certain readers submit letters of their own and quit griping?

    Oh, they’d have to tell everyone who they are and own their opinions.

    Nevermind.

  34. LornaDoone says:

    OK…enough with the lies about Obama.

    In 1996, Obama signed a document. Among other things, he supported the legality of legislation of gay marriages.

    Now I know this is not something that most conservatives can even comprehend, but it is possible to consider the legality of a social issue even if your personal opinion is contrary.

    Now, can we put that one to rest?

  35. LornaDoone says:

    “Well, let’s change the definition of a relationship now.
    Marriage implies only one partner. If not, divorce.”

    Unless you are Newt Gingrich who has two at a time as long as it serves him

  36. LornaDoone says:

    “Not supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with hate or prejudice.”

    Yeah….it’s trying everything under the sun to stop it with no good reason other than “I don’t like it” that is prejudiced.

    No one said that those disagreeing with gay marriage have to participate in one.

  37. GHTaxPayer says:

    America has responded to Obama’s attempts to distract us from his failed economic and energy policies. Latest Rasmussen/Gallup poll has Romney ahead by 7 points !
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Another DEMOCRAT tracking poll has Romney ahead by 10 points !

    Hasta La Vista America-hating, job-killing, spendaholic Socialista !!

  38. scooter6139 says:

    GH – Just love how you cherry pick your polls. Why not just link to all the polls and let them speak for themselves, or do you not like the fact that Obama is still ahead on average?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

    Poor Romney, he’d become a communist if a focus group said it would get him elected.

  39. AP poll: Obama 50, Romney 42
    Reuters poll: Obama 49, Romney 42
    Public Religion Research Institute: Obama 47, Romney 38
    Investors Business Daily: Obama 46, Romney 43
    Resurgent Republican: Obama 49, Romney 42

    Hasta la vista, Slick Willard

  40. shadynasty says:

    Sheesh. Maybe before everyone starts getting all crazy on bashing the thought of gay marriage we should focus on the fact that marriage in and of itself is a joke these days. There is more divorce than ever. People see no problems getting divorces anymore. I find THAT to be a much larger issue than allowing same sex couples to become legal married couples. And in my opinion, a legal marriage is much different than a religious marriage, and the two should never meet. Religion has no place in politics. Period.

  41. Good to see that both this year’s presidential candidates are able to grow their thought processes, and to evolve as they mature.

    While one candidate’s thoughts on gay marriage has evolved as he matured, the other candidate has evolved from attacting an individual with a scissors, to regretting it.

    Now thar’s a real man!

  42. “Meanwhile, 32 of 32 states have voted to ban same sex marriage, including the most liberal state of California.”

    Which will soon be ruled unconstitutional.

  43. “Clearly Obama only cares about his future and is pandering.”

    And there is todays hypocrisy moment.

  44. “it’s about their insistence that society officially validates their union.”

    Is that what you get from your marriage?
    Validation?

  45. “Prove it ehill. Add something for a change.”

    Yet another hypocrisy moment!

  46. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Klu, instead of your comment-on-a-comment garbage, why not sell your idea?

    Someone posted a link showing how good lesbian’s kids did in school. That counterbalanced the one that shows gays live in open relationships.

    Try to contribute. I know you can do it!

  47. BlaineCGarver says:

    “Try to contribute. I know you can do it!”

    No….he can’t.

    BTW, when marriage was called a civil right by SCOTUS it was a case involving inter-racial marriage. A CLEAR violation of a civil right. It’s yet to be made legally clear that it applies to Gay marriage. Hell, my 2nd Amendment right implies that I should be allowed to target practice with a 50 Cal. M2 in my back yard. Clearly, that is not legal, because of certain common sense qualifications made defining a Right.

  48. “Try to contribute. I know you can do it!

    You’re setting such a good example.

  49. Blaine, correct on the common sense stuff. SCOTUS says that ahrm to others and harm to democracy and inheritance rights and inability to contract can all restrict marriage rights. Come up with factors that show harm lor inability to contract and I will be right there with you.

    The right for interracial marriages wasn’t so clear to the many states who fought through the courts for their states’ rights to restrict interracial marriage. It was a 5-4 decision after all, so there was just a bare majority, and one justice on the “4” side said states had an absolute right to restrict any marriage they wanted to. He later changed his opinion to support for interracial marriage and support for integration laws.

    In hindsight, the right for gays to marry will appear to be jsut as “clear” as the right for interracial couiples to marry. It just needs logic and rational thought rather than emotional harrangues and unrelated issues that are mainly being used to oppose it

    A major example is religious views, which all the Supreme Court agreed was an issue settled with polygamy, underage marriage and incest cases previously. Religious views can not be used in support of marriage rights like the Mormons tried to use for polygamy and some Christian sects tried to use in support for underage marriage and incest. Religious views also cannot be used as a defense for restrictions and anti-marriage laws.

  50. anotherID2remember says:

    “The impeccable logic of my (insert body part) cannot be wrong.”

    Is this really the logic we use to argue a point?

    I have the audacity to hope that it is not.

  51. GHT – Not only does Real Clear Politics still show Obama ahead in the average of 7 major polls, it list the odds of an Obama victory as 59 to 36.

    Another – The failure of logic is that it does not address the truth or validity of basic argument.

  52. “Try to contribute. I know you can do it!”

    “No…he can’t.”

    The hypocrisy is running amuck in this thread!

  53. RLangdon says:

    “The hypocrisy is running amuck in this thread!”

    Welcome to REALITY!!!

  54. “it is only some dirty little minds that like to fantasize about all gays cavorting around in hot little promiscuous sex scenes and none wanting a monagamous life-long commitment.”

    Is that so, tuddo. So the vulgar stuff that goes on at gay pride parades is what?

    What seems ironic to me about all this at the moment is that Hollywood is all over this push for gay marriage when Hollywood shows absolutely no respect for marriage at all. Promiscuous sex, adultery and hedonism are the meat and potatoes of sitcom successes. Does this irony simply escape the great minds posting on this blog?

  55. concernedtacoma7 says:

    How about the madness that is San Fran. Naked freaks sitting next to people in restaurants.

    The left is just scared to tell the truth.

  56. What would know of the truth c7?
    Just look at your comment, naked freaks in restaurants??
    Out right lies is your stock and trade!
    Man I’ve spent a great deal of time in the bay area……where are YOU hanging out?
    Ya freak!

  57. “So the vulgar stuff that goes on at gay pride parades is what?”

    You’re not so blind and stupid to think that represents anything but a ‘shock jock’ type of thing to rattle you uptight, self righteous bigots do you?
    If you think that represents the majority or even anything more than a tiny tiny sliver of the gay population you are clearly dumber than most house cats.

    If we were to put on parade the things going on in, dare I say, YOUR house soso,not to mention every upstanding straight hetero married church going house…..how ‘vulgar’ would THAT be??

  58. LornaDoone says:

    “concernedtacoma7 says:
    May 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm How about the madness that is San Fran. Naked freaks sitting next to people in restaurants.”

    Someone is obviously ignorant to the happenings at Fremont each year – no homosexuality required

    “sozo says:
    May 11, 2012 at 4:31 pm So the vulgar stuff that goes on at gay pride parades is what?”

    How about the “reality TV shows on FOX? How about the costumes and gyrations by young women on NFL broadcasts on FOX?

    If it’s “heterosexual” in “nature”, then the conservatives find nothing wrong with it.

  59. sozo, and I don’t go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans with the female topless teases for the heterosexual men or the strip clubs or Las Vegas nude reviews, or those male strippers for women – whatever they are called – all of which are much more pronounced in our society than gay pride parades.

    If you are basing denial of gay marriage on adolescent-minded sex-oriented hijinks in adults who should know better, then heterosexual marriage would have been banned long ago.

    Making generalized statements about a whole group based on a few people is what some people like to do. Its human nature, I know. I can hardly fault you for it. That’s why I keep responding to your nonsensical comments that just show plain ignorance. Education is the best way to relieve the pain of ignorance.

    Since I know a lot more gays in monogamous relationships with stable families than I know cavorting in vulgar displays, then I will base my decisions on that group. And, since studies show that many gays do want monogamous relationships and that number is growing, and those in monagamous relationships are staying that way more and more (only 8% of lesbian partners cheat, while 14% of women in opposite-sex marriages admit cheating), I’d say the facts as well as the perceptions are on my side.

*
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