Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: R-74

Nov.
9th

ELECTION: Thanks for approving R-74

My partner and I are representative of less than 10 percent of the households in this state. We are well aware that Referendum 74 would never have been approved without many of our straight friends and neighbors standing with us.

I am 58 and, while I knew this day would eventually come, I had resigned myself to never seeing it. The people of Washington state have proved me wrong.

We want to express how humbled and honored we were to witness the countless hours of volunteer work and millions of dollars donated by people who “didn’t have a dog in

Read more »

Nov.
1st

R-74: Referendum isn’t really about marriage

Referendum 74 is not about marriage. Marriage recognizes the organic symbiotic nature of the physical relationship between male and female humans. Without the reproductive imperative implicit in this connection, marriage has no context. Even in the absence of offspring, this pairing conforms to our biology.

Referendum 74 is not about equality. If this was the case, it would recognize the union of any number or combination of individuals and would not be limited to those relationships that involve an intimate carnal act. No, Referendum 74 is not about love or commitment or fairness or romantic nuptials or “happy ever afters.”

Read more »

Nov.
1st

R74: Just don’t call them marriages

I voted no on Referendum 74 on linguistic, historical and logical grounds. Start with the existing misnomer, “Everything but marriage.”

This to me is like saying that men have all the rights of women but pregnancy, which leads us into the area of “gender neutral.” Some words—uterus, prostate, ovary, testicle for example—are just not neutral. Marriage is another. Throughout history the primary purpose of marriage, in all its forms, has been the bringing together of men and women for the purpose of bringing together a sperm and an egg. Whether or not this occurs, the idea of men and women

Read more »

Oct.
31st

R-74: Gays want financial benefits of marriage

The underlying reason gays want the right to marry is they want the financial benefits traditionally provided to married heterosexual couples, such as discounts on insurance, etc. Once the gays get enough states to recognize gay marriage, they will seek approval at the national level, thereby giving them benefits such as Social Security for a surviving spouse and children, and federal tax breaks.

At least in Washington state, the domestic partnership law specifically excludes related couples (such as two sisters or a brother and sister) who share a household from receiving any of above mentioned financial benefits.

Example: If two

Read more »

Oct.
31st

R-74: Do backers want another ‘house divided’?

Proponents of same-sex marriage want this issue seen in the context of being a civil rights issue. Many others see homosexual relationships not meeting the definition of marriage (as being solely between a man and a woman). Moreover, many states have solidified that latter definition as law in their state constitutions.

It appears that no matter how many liberal states adopt same-sex marriage, there are other conservative states that will never adopt it. Do proponents of same-sex marriage really want to establish two separate nations on this issue, as divided as our nation was before 1865?

If the holier-than-thou proponents

Read more »

Oct.
24th

R-74: Love our neighbors as ourselves

When my wife and I were married in a Baptist church in 2006, we offered the following statement at the bottom of our program: “Samara and Ned recognize that their ability to marry is a privilege and they pray for a day when their friends who are in committed same-sex relationships are afforded the same rights and privileges that they enter into today.”

At the time, it felt right, but also inconsequential. We love all of our friends dearly and equally, and feel compelled to stand up for them when society forces them to sit down.

Now, as a Baptist

Read more »

Oct.
24th

R-74: Our differences make our society great

If you are one of the few undecided for same-sex marriage, please consider this. Other couples getting married will not affect your life. It will not affect your children, grandchildren or your descendants. What will affect them is intolerance, injustice and the ability to live their lives to the fullest extent possible.

When we restrict a way of life for some, we restrict the lives of everyone. Freedom is not about allowing others to live the life we want them to live. Freedom is about recognizing that each of us is different. We each have something to offer the social

Read more »

Oct.
22nd

R-74: Remember Dan Cathy and reject

In August 2008, to Rev. Rick Warren, candidate Barack Obama states his opinion that marriage is between a man and a women and acknowledges that marriage is a sacred institution. The audience applauds. Aside from the muted disappointment expressed by gay activist groups, there is no criticism.

Fast forward to May 2012, and now President Obama declares his support of gay marriage. The media and Hollywood cheer him on. Gay activists are ecstatic, and Democrat politicians are nearly unanimous in their support.

At nearly the same time Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy expresses his view that marriage is between a man

Read more »