Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Enough is enough

Letter by J.A. Hutchens, Tacoma on Aug. 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm with 16 Comments »
August 15, 2012 12:57 pm

With all that is going on in the world, is there nothing else to plaster all over the front and back page of The News Tribune but a “gay marriage,” including pictures (TNT, 8-13)?

Please. It’s getting tiring having this forced upon us all the time. I’m truly sorry that The News Tribune has so blatantly shown its biased journalism.

Leave a comment Comments → 16
  1. When gay marriage is commonplace, then it won’t be news anymore. We don’t see many articles about blacks riding a bus in the seat of their choice or going to school every day in an integrated school, now, do we?

    Until gays have equal rights, then such stories make news, especially since DADT repeal is so fresh on our mind and one of the participants was active duty in the military.

    I am glad TNT is “biased” toward constitutional rights, equal treatment for all people, allowing discussion from pro- and anti- gay marriage advocates and depicting human interest stories that give a fair picture of its impact on real people, not the imaginary evil creatures in some people’s minds.

  2. Frankenchrist says:

    J.A. Hutchens of Tacoma, did something move?

  3. surething says:


  4. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Constitutional rights! Are you serious? What constitutional right do homosexual activists have to undefine marriage for all of society? What constitutional right do homosexual radicals have to abolish all restrictions on marriage?

    O’ that’s right, my bad! It’s the same constitutional right The Supreme Court found in our country’s original document that gives the depraved the right to sodomy.

  5. LeePHill says:

    “The Supreme Court found in our country‚Äôs original document that gives the depraved the right to sodomy.”

    It’s amazing to me how somepeople are so focused on sex. Since you brought it up, I believe that heterosexuals have the right to sodomy, as well.

  6. TPP, grow up!

  7. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Did anyone notice that the folks at the TNT did not allow comments to that article. I hope it resulted in hundreds of subscribers cancelling their paper.

    I would cancel myself but I would miss the 10 full pages of car ads on the weekends. These ads are the most interesting thing I read in the Tribune. Plus I like Larson Automotive Group, they peed on the unions when they built their new building and I LOVED IT.

  8. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    I think we already know how the TNT editorial staff will come down on the gay marriage initiative.

    Liberals always support liberal causes and don’t ever doubt that the Tribune editorial staff is made up of 100% all progressive liberals.

  9. RegisteringFool says:

    tuddo – There is no “constitutional right” to marriage, per se. There is a right to “freely associate”. There is a right to “liberty”. But those “rights” may or may not pertain to the institution we call marriage. Even now, both gays and straights can sign contracts and make covenants for just about anything. Both gays and straights can arrange for and participate in whatever ceremonies they want to participate in.

    The real question is whether the government is going to determine an individual’s status (as an heir, for example, or for right of access to private information about another) on the basis of a particular type of association such as marriage. And when all the hoopla and B.S. is cleared away, it becomes obvious that the real is issue is the money, whether in the nature of entitlements, or insurance benefits, or in inheritances.

    And here’s the rub. Even the money issues can be addressed without redefining marriage. Washington already has a law that does essentially that.

    In short, for all of its good and bad permutations, marriage has always implied at least the possibility of procreation. Now, it appears that it won’t even imply that anymore.

    You may think you are on the high road on this issue. But you are not. Think about it.

  10. averageJose says:

    Well stated RF.

  11. RegisteringFool, the US Supreme Court has said in several decisions that it is a “basic human right” to marry the person of your choice. In fact it was specifically stated as the reason states were abrred from limiting interracial marriage.

    Not all rights are specifically listed in the Constitution. As our founders stated, most of our rights pre-date the Constitution, are not granted by a government, and they noted that that document was not intended to list all of them during the discussion of whether or not the Bill of Rights was even necessary.

    I’ll take the Supreme Court’s understanding of our rights over yours.

    If I wanted to marry a barren woman, I guess you would bar me from doing that, too, since there wouldn’t be even a possibility of procreation.

    Think about it.

  12. writnstuff says:

    RF (by the way, my compliments on an appropriate handle)

    I guess I should have married a rich spouse. Silly me, I thought it was all about love.

  13. writnstuff says:


    BTW, in case you missed the “high road” reference on the other string, think Rosa Parks.

  14. took14theteam says:

    It was probably about playing the piano and working at the DMV…..


  15. Principled,
    The Constitution gaves all of us the right to be treated equally under the law.

    The federal and state governments give married people over 1400 legal advantages to couples who are married.

  16. menopaws says:

    This is a newspaper–not Fox News or Pat Robertson’s show….they print the news…If that is too tough for you to handle—you have your propaganda stations to scurry off too……..It is not the paper’s job to censor the news….Deal with the reality of the changing world…….

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