Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

R-74: Yes vote says God made a mistake

Letter by Vince A. Wagner, University Place on Sep. 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm with 56 Comments »
September 17, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: “Yes vote on marriage equality is right for Washington” (editorial, 9-17).

Would not a yes vote on Referendum 74 actually be a vote in favor of marriage inequality, and in reality be a strange vote in favor of gender equality?

Marriage and family were the first and most important institutions created by God on Earth. His plan is explicit that marriage consists of one male and one female. This instruction clearly rules out homosexual “marriage.”

So, would not a yes vote on R-74 certainly enshrine into law that God made an immense mistake on marriage because male and female have always been interchangeable and equal in purpose? That there is no significant differences between the genders in the role, function and responsibility of husband and wife, father and mother. That neither male or female, husband or wife, father or mother offer any meaningful or critical benefit to the raising of children. That man is woman, and woman is man.

A no vote on R-74 will be a vote against Washington’s obsession with strange gender equality and of it’s persistent rejection of God’s instruction for marriage. A yes vote on R-74 will in fact say yes to marriage inequality and yes to human rebellion, selfishness and self-indulgence with children paying the severe consequences.

Leave a comment Comments → 56
  1. Theocratic urges have no place in our democratic republic.

  2. Vote yes; end of off-spring
    Vote no; humanity continues

  3. jtarleton says:

    Great point Vince….. We are all God’s creation, aren’t we!?

  4. Not me, you believe in your fairy tales, keep them out of others life.

  5. alindasue says:

    I consider acting on homosexual urges (genetic or otherwise) to be sinful in the eyes of my religious beliefs.

    Never-the-less, I will be voting for R-74 because just as the government has no business telling people which church they should attend, they also have no business telling people who they can or cannot marry.

  6. LeePHilI says:

    “Vote yes; end of off-spring
    Vote no; humanity continues”

    So….allowing homosexuals to marry means that all of mankind will become homosexual?

    Well….there’s a new one….LOL

    I talked with God about this and She said that people misrepresent Her Word, just like they misrepresent Obama’s quotes.

  7. Thank you alindasue, that was my point, and the God I know of is not mean and a bigot either.

  8. penumbrage says:

    Did God make a mistake in creating Intersex human beings (the ‘born eunuchs’ of Matthew 19:11-12 who are not strictly male nor strictly female, and that constitute a significant portion of our GLBT community) or is our government making a mistake when they fulfill their obligation to extend this country’s freedoms and rights to ALL citizens, regardless of whether they satisfy specific Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto or Scientologist religious requirements?

  9. It’s easy for the so called God fearing religious types to say my God loves everyone, I’m voting yes because I’m a Christian and follow what good Christians are supposed to do. But when it comes to spending three more pennies for the unfortunate to ride the bus, oh no, God doesn’t want us to help out in that way! I guess you only read the chapter in the Bible that suits your cause.

  10. charliebucket says:

    What a disgusting letter.

    Please keep your religious beliefs out of my civil law.


  11. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Thank God our Founding Fathers didn’t think the way you do!

  12. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Sure, but what right do homosexuals have to force society to accept and celebrate their perversion?

  13. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    homosexual behavior, i.e.; death, disease and despair. It is no fairy tale.

  14. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Great! So lets also promote multiple-partner marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage and necrophile marriage, because after all, the government has no business telling people who they can marry, right?

  15. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Proud to be a blasphemer?

  16. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    What God are you talking about?

  17. No, but referring to something up in the heavens might be.

  18. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Scripture does not teach that eunuchs were/are neither male or female! Try again, please! They had male characteristics.

  19. SwordofPerseus says:

    Vince, what kind of anti psychotic drugs did you stop taking without consulting your physician? Better get back on.

    There is no giant sky fairy (god) deciding what is sinful and what is not, so relax all of you poor deluded souls who imagine that your petulant, irascible father is watching.

    If he (god) is all powerful and does not help when called, then he is vengeful and petty. If he would help but cannot, then he is not all powerful and it is pointless to pray for help. Pretend to care about your fellow humans. It is we humans, not sky fairies, who can truly help each other with meaningful interactions of love and peace and brotherhood. I know that sounds really crazy to most of you but, could we please give it a try?

    TPP- thank reason and sanity the founding fathers did not have to contend with a puritan such as yourself.

    Lee- I think I got a blasphemer badge at satanic summer camp one year. LOL ROTFLMAO :-p

  20. natomony says:

    A vote for Romney means God made a mistake. Nowhere in the bible does it say we can become a God after we die.

  21. truthbusterguy says:

    I am another supporter of “One Man, One Woman Marriage”. I am not against homosexuals getting benefits. I am against homosexuals perverting the sanctity of holy matrimony that God created. So, find another way to get your benefits but leave marriage alone.

    I have never seen a more bigoted, intolerant group of people, than the proponants of Same Sex Marriage. They equate any disagreement with being a member of the SS.

    When it is pointed out, that the only way the APA removed homosexuality as a form of Mental Illness is when the majority of members who changed this view were gay, or in the Case of Prop 8, the judge who presided over it is gay. there is no rebuttal, there is no response.

    Do not allow a handful of gay democrats from Seattle jam this down your throats. Vote to REJECT R-74

  22. sandblower says:

    We know for certain P Patriot has no clue. At least that is resolved!

  23. Its a miracle! Truthbuster and I are on the same page! No vote for me also!

  24. alindasue says:


    In the eyes of the government, marriage is essentially a contract. In order to enter into a contract, one must be able to give legal consent. That would eliminate any marriages to animals, dead bodies, or children since none of them can give legal consent.

    So perhaps I should qualify my statement by saying the government has no business telling consenting adults who they can or cannot marry.

    Although it is not advisable, there is historic precedent for marrying relatives. The term “blue blood” comes from nobility who tended to intermarry and were prone to normally recessive genetic conditions that caused bad circulation.

    There is plenty of precedent for multiple-partner marriage. Polygamy is still practiced in some African cultures as it has for ages. Even in the Bible, Abraham, Jacob (aka Israel), and (if I remember correctly…) King David all had multiple wives.

    Personally, I am in a monogamous relation with my husband of 30 years and plan to stay that way for the rest of eternity. However, the reasons for limiting factors on marriage are generally religion based.

    Which brings us back to what I said before:
    The government has no business telling people what church to attend and, likewise, the government has no business telling (consenting) people who they can or cannot marry.


    This is from the Mormonism 101 FAQ on the church website:

    Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

    Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ’s teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

    Here’s a link to the whole FAQ

  25. truthbusterguy says:


    I knew there was something we could agree on. Now I can hit the sack. And with a woman who is my wife. It’s a beautiful thing.

  26. buddyandelliott says:

    To Vince and all the folks with their panties in bunches over this: I thought that your god didn’t make mistakes, maybe you are mis-interpreting what has been put right in front of your faces.

  27. Is this the same god that let all those catholic priests molest those little boys over and over again???

  28. MyBandito says:

    Dear God,

    Please protect us from your followers.


  29. TP “patriot” Really???!!!?? You think the Founders wanted a theocratic state? Then why did they include that bit about not establishing a state religion.

  30. Theefrinker says:

    The mistake is referring to “God” as something more than an idea.

  31. LeePHilI says:

    How dare “Patriot” blaspheme my God!!!

  32. old_benjamin says:

    So, Alindasue, what’s next? Proposition X supporting group marriage? That really is the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning. At some point, the notion of marriage looses all meaning. That’s what we who oppose same-sex marriage have been arguing all along. If you want to change the definition and the law, then change the dang name too.

  33. old_benjamin says:

    Excuse me, Sword, but if there is no God, why shouldn’t I eat my fellow humans instead of loving them? Why am I any more obligated to care about other creatures than the wild beasts in the jungle? Please don’t impose your value system on me.

  34. old_benjamin, restricting marriage to just one man and one woman was a redefinition of marriage from Biblical times. The Supreme Court upheld that restriction because of demonstrated harm to our democracy and certain legal rights (inheritance, voting,etc).

    If you think a amrriage that is not sanctified in a church is not a real marriage and needs to be called something else, then try to get that law passed.

    Marriage is a basic human right and people get to choose their partner without interference from the government unless that choice creates harm.

    No one is forcing you to change your personal beliefs, but you are trying to force your personal beliefs on others when no harm can be shown and no rational reason can be shown to do so. Fear, myth, and general dislike are not sufficient reasons to have big government dictate how people live their lives.

  35. And, as far as the institution of marriage “created by God”….which version? The vast harems of Solomon? The concubines of Abraham? The ease of repeating “I divorce you” three times? Women as chattel that were owned like the man’s livestock?

  36. “Please don’t impose your value system on me.” – old_b

    Coming from a person who wants to use government to force others to live by his narrow and irrational beliefs, that is really ironic.

  37. scooter6139 says:

    Old – Morality was around a lot longer than your church. Stop trying to claim your god is the reason for a civilized society because you are just making yourself look idiotic. And thanks for pulling the Santorum line of what’s next. Surprised you didn’t go for the full man on dog routine.

    IQof88 – Thanks for demonstrating the utter void of fact on the oppression side. Makes me giggle. Homosexuality is prevalent in most every species of the animal kingdom. And they tolerate it better than we do. We are the only intolerant species on this planet. Maybe we should start calling you IQof18 instead?

  38. old_benjamin says:

    Scooter, nice strawman but no cigar. I asked why I should be loving and kind. I didn’t claim my God was the reason for civilized society. I believe it’s Nietzsche you have a quarrel with. Try to read more carefully and think more clearly.

    BTW: Do you support group marriage? If not, why not?

  39. old_benjamin says:

    Tudds, I wish you were as smart as you think you are. You claim there is no harm done by same-sex marriage. You won’t know until it’s too late, just as libs didn’t know the harm that would be done by the welfarism begun in the sixties. Unfortunately, Ben Franklin was right when he said “Experience keeps a dear school but a fool will learn in no other.”

  40. alindsue, I respect you a lot. You write thoughtful comments and display reason and compassion for others.

    However, your comment about polygamy as represented in the Bible…and this is for you too bBoy, just because harems and polygamy existed in biblical times does in no way suggest that it was what God intended or wanted. Adultery, murder, theft, abuse-of-power — all of these things took place in biblical times; God permitted people freedom to do what’s right, but he didn’t stop them from doing what was not right.

    Likewise, no one has the right to stop someone else from choosing to do what he or she chooses to do — unless of course it is harmful to innocents. This is why I support equal rights for all people including the civil union between same-sex partners.

    This doesn’t mean that folks have no right to try to preserve the institution and the definition of marriage.

  41. sumyungboi says:

    Typically, injecting one’s religious beliefs into an American political debate is a losing tactic. The USA is made up of many religions, and what’s true for one may not be, and probably isn’t, true for the rest.

    That said, however, one could argue the “naturalness” of homosexuality. It may not be what a persons “God” wanted, according to that person, but it certainly is not what nature intended. Nature’s existence, unlike a god, simply can’t be disputed, it’s all around us, we can see that boys have this and girls have that, and it takes both this and that to make a kid. It’s natural instinct among human beings, like many animals, to mate for life.

    I don’t begrudge homosexuals, I doubt you’ll find many people who care what they do. On the other hand, no logical argument can be made that it’s “natural”, and the push to disavow what human instinct and nature say are correct for the purpose of political payback to a small but loud special interest lobby is simply wrong.

  42. ThePrincipledPatriot says:

    Now the “Aroma the Tacoma” has real meaning!!! Have you ever read any more toxic liberal/anti-morallity/anti-God vomit than you have read what is posted above??? I certainly haven’t since I was in San Fran-sicko-psycho, and witnessed a parade of homosexuals dressed as Nazis marching down the street spewing the same gagging retch!

    First, marriage has never been a basic human right. It has always been a basic human restrictive right. What many resist are the homosexual demands that all restrictions on marriage be abolished.

    Second, explain again how homosexual behavior is harmless? Currently homosexuals are #1 in the infection and spread of every sexually transmitted disease known on the planet. #1 in every psychological disorder known on the planet.

    Third, See Genesis chapter 2, Matthew chapter 19 & Mark chapter 10 for God’s design, command and purpose for marriage.

    Fourth, I agree with the letter writer in that homosexuality is the greatest evidence of human rebellion, corruption and self-indulgence, stemming from people rejecting and defying God’s command for sexual behavior. Any nation that justifies homosexual behavior as acceptable is in its final stages of total moral corruption. A fact proven throughout history. (Prime examples: Nazi Germany, Romans, Greeks).

  43. MyBandito says:

    Theprincipaledpatriot- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    This is America, not Nazi Germany.

  44. Ah, the old Nazi Germany argument. I guess next ThePrincipledPatriot will bring out the “Nazi’s didn’t kill Jews” argument, too.

    The blatant lies, myths and rewrites of history in that last post of his gives proof that home-schooling breeds ignorance.

  45. “That said, however, one could argue the “naturalness” of homosexuality.” And will lose.

    “but it certainly is not what nature intended” Nature doesn’t intend, even in figurative sense. Still, homosexuallity is well-documented as occuring among animals. It will be funny if you call this unnatural.

    ” It’s natural instinct among human beings, like many animals, to mate for life.” Wrong; the natural instinct in humans, like other apes (and many other animals), is more like serial monogamy, and limited polygamy to some extent. Real monogamy is rear, and mostly socially (and legally) enforced (marriage).

    “no logical argument can be made that it’s “natural”. Yes, I can. It is wide-spread in nature – there you go, it’s natural. Not that it matters for the purpose of legislation or even morality. I can use the same argument (“unnatural”) to support outlawing or condemning driving.

    Try to educater yourself.

    “push to disavow … for the purpose of political payback to a small but loud special interest lobby is simply wrong”. You seem to intentionally omit the actual arguement for SSM – equality – and spin into negative framing without any support in reality; it’s disonest and disgusting.

    I, and many other heterosexuals like me, support SSM only because it is fair, and for the better for our fellow human beings.

  46. The nature argument is meaningless. Lots of things that are present in nature are not considered morally appropriate, like eating one’s young or killing one’s mate after sex. Since when does nature inform our moral codes?

  47. MyBandito says:

    Soxo- You are correct. To say that homosexuality is unnatural is a meaningless argument. Our morality demands that we treat one another with respect.

  48. Can we get this straight once and for all. If you are intolerant of gays, YOU are the bigot. Because I am intolerant of your intolerance, doesn’t make be one, too. Unbelievable.

  49. ThePrinciplePatriot,

    Based on what studies can you substantiate the claim. . .

    “Homosexuals are #1 in the infection and spread of every sexually transmitted disease known on the planet. #1 in every psychological disorder known on the planet.”

    Please provide a link to the data.

  50. ThePrincipledPatriot says:


    Who said anything about being intolerant of homosexuals? That word is so tired anyway!

    What we are talking about is; do homosexuals have the Constitutional right to abolish all restrictions on marriage and undefine the institution for all of society? Yes or no?

    So, your a bigot if you ask this question? That word is also way tired! I would ask the same question for any unnatural demand to redefine mariage and subvert God’s command for the promise.

    Appears you suffer my friend from Christophobia, morallitiophobia and traditional-valuesophobia. The unbelievable bigotry and intollerance from you Inubav! How’s that for making up phobias like the intollerant left has with this nonsensical homophobia thing.

    And, for starters, try the CDC website on the disease statistics on homosexuality. It will keep you busy for days.

  51. Gotta admit, I’ve always been annoyed by the “phobia” lingo myself. One is not necessarily afraid, or experiencing latent symptoms of this or that just because he/she takes a position that differs from the world.

    And yes, our morality does demand that we treat one another with respect, bandito, which is why I try always to treat people with respect and why I feel no animosity, no fear and no hatred towards homsexual couples. That said, I would like to see the traditional understanding and definition of marriage upheld.

    Perhaps when folks stop being completely governed by their feelings, reasoned debate will be possible.

  52. The feelings are not the problem, Sozo – the problem is that “reasoned debate” does not work for one of the sides. They have to pound the table.

    By the way, you contradict yourself: “I feel no animosity”, but at the same time you would like to prevent them from enjoying the same priviliges as ours, without a valid reason*. That is an act of animosity.

    *I know this is the point of contention, but I maintain that a valid reason has not been put forward. Which gets us back to pounding the table.

  53. sozo – though the term “homophobic” is oftentimes misapplied when the term “heterosexist” is more accurate, that does not mean that there aren’t many who express heterosexist opinions due to their homophobia.

  54. MyBandito says:

    sozo- “which is why I try always to treat people with respect and why I feel no animosity, no fear and no hatred towards homsexual couples. That said, I would like to see the traditional understanding and definition of marriage upheld.”

    Does that mean that it’s a dictionary thing? It’s about the definition of the word, not about who gets to use it?

    You just don’t want them to use your word.

  55. Spew all the lies and hatred you want unPrincipledPatriot. You’re fighting a losing battle. Love will prevail in the end. I’m pretty sure Jesus believed that, too.

  56. notimetobleed says:

    God is just fine.

    A yes vote would only confirm that Vince A. Wagner of University Place made a mistake.

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