Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: R-74

Oct.
19th

BUSES: Vote for those who have no other options

Thanks to The News Tribune for the strong endorsement of Proposition 1 (editorial, 10-7) and for the excellent coverage of the issues (TNT, 10-14).

I want to call attention to one striking fact in the arguments being made against support of this quite tiny tax increase for the sake of better public transportation. Opponents never even mention the consequences to the riders, those who depend on the transit system to get to work, doctors, food banks, even church on Sunday. It is as those such people do not even exist – or matter.

Proposition 1 – much like

Read more »

Oct.
17th

R-74: Reject effort to redefine marriage

Please vote to reject Referendum 74. Same-sex couples already enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married couples in Washington under the domestic partnerships law from 2009.

Children need both a mom and a dad. Marriage exists for the benefit of children. Social science research and thousands of years of history show that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.

There will be significant consequences if marriage is redefined in Washington. In other states that have redefined marriage, there have been profound consequences for those who express or act on their belief that marriage is

Read more »

Oct.
17th

R-74: Recognize love and same-sex marriage

Please support Referendum 74. Love is the greatest thing we share as human beings, regardless of our religion, politics or gender. It is love that keeps a family together. It is the overflowing cup of love in the family that helps us share that love, in the full light of day, with others.

Love is not about making love. It is 100 percent the other way around: Making love is because of love.

It is not our job as community members to judge the appropriateness of the love and affection of others. Our job, our commandment as community members, is

Read more »

Oct.
11th

R-74: Marriage equality makes stronger families

My church endorses Referendum 74, which affirms marriage equality. We’re not in the habit of endorsing ballot measures. Indeed, it makes us a bit uncomfortable when the line between church and state gets fuzzy. However, this one was too important to sit on the sidelines, especially when there is so much at stake for our gay and lesbian members, friends and family who seek the right to marry.

Marriage equality is about real people – your neighbors and friends who are willing to declare publicly their mutual trust and commitment. As a society we are better off when couples get

Read more »

Oct.
10th

R-74: Deputy major should represent highest ideals

I was impressed by the courage but disappointed by the perspective of Deputy Mayor Joe Lonergan as he explained to the Tacoma City Council why he would vote against endorsement of Referendum 74, which would preserve the right of same-sex couples to be married in Washington state.

Lonergan said he felt obligated to represent the voters of his district and, using stale evidence, posited that a small majority of voters in his district would not support this right.

His position overlooked the rapid change of attitude in our country that makes it probable that the majority of voters would, indeed,

Read more »

Oct.
8th

R-74: Why redefine what God designed?

Don’t be misled by all of the TV ads and hoopla.

Same-sex couples already enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married couples in Washington under the domestic partnerships “Everything But Marriage” law from 2009.

The referendum is about the definition of marriage; it’s not about whether same-sex couples deserve official state recognition of their relationships or the rights and benefits of marriage.

Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is in the public good. It serves the interests of men and women, of children, and of society itself. We as Washingtonians must rally together to

Read more »

Oct.
4th

MARRIAGE: Children deserve a mother and father

Re: “Why that word is so important” (letter, 10-4).

The letter writer reveals just how deeply homosexual “marriage” inverts the purpose of marriage. Is not the essential purpose of marriage to attach fathers and mothers to their children?

Government-created homosexual “marriage” deliberately separates children from at least one of their biological parents. Do children not have the right to a relationship with or to be known by both their father and mother?

Homosexual “marriage” changes the institution from a child-centered institution to a selfish, adult-centered institution. Deliberately conceiving a child who will never know or have a relationship with

Read more »

Oct.
2nd

MARRIAGE: Why that one word is so important

Re: “R-74 fight about one word, thousands of details” (TNT, 9-23).

I was offended by Bob Higley’s assertion that homosexuals are “never just satisfied with where they are.” Is he suggesting that people who are not just like him, like my daughter and her partner, should be satisfied being treated as second-class citizens, being denied some of the privileges to which he is entitled?

They are just like any other two people who fall in love and want to share their lives, committing to be there for one another in good times and hard times, creating a loving, stable

Read more »