A signature, like a vote, is private

I want to thank Judge Benjamin Settle for the courage to stop the release of names of people who signed Referendum 71 ["R-71 signatures kept private," page one, Sept. 11].
Even though I did not sign this one, as a private citizen I think of these petitions as a vote. In signing them, people are essentially voting for or against an issue.

In this country we keep our votes anonymous. If these names are released, everyone will be averse to ever signing a petition again for fear of retribution by the opponents of it.
I hope Settle has the intelligence to make this temporary injunction permanent.

-- John Hed, Covington

Retribution is not free speech; signatures shouldn't be disclosed

The threat of publicly releasing Referndum 71 signatures defines what's wrong with today's political discourse: self-interest.

I signed the petition not because I am against anybody, but because I believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of result. I am 41, never married and sexually abstinent -- not for lack of interest or desire but because of belief and conviction.

That said, I get no break on my health care for living a sexually risk-free life, nor do I enjoy the benefits of married couples or those living in domestic partnership. Equality of result would have me fight for those "rights." Equality of opportunity informs me I will have those benefits, too, someday, should I marry the woman of my dreams.

I signed knowing someone might use my signature against me without knowing me or asking why. Disappointing for sure, but this is still America where we are free to take sides, free to speak up and free to love our neighbors when the dust clears.

I disagree with releasing R-71 names and making them public. Not because I am afraid, but because hatred, anger, retribution and political expediency should never be masked under the guise of free speech.

-- Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Signing a referendum also supports direct democracy

As a teacher of Washington-state history I want to explain that not all the people who signed the petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot oppose extending domestic-partnership rights.

I teach my students about the initiative and referendum process in my class, and we discuss what they will need to consider when they are asked to sign one.

What a citizen is agreeing to is that they want to have that issue come to a statewide vote. In this case, we may have people who signed it because they like direct democracy and believe citizens should be able to vote on as many laws as possible. Or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will get rid of the law, or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will keep the law.

My point is the assumption that all the people who signed it did so for the same reason is not true.

-- Todd Beuke, Sequim

A loving home, a life among discrimination

I will be voting to approve Referendum 71 to provide legal protections for couples and families like mine.

My same-sex wife -- we were married in Canada -- and I are raising two children. Our son is a special-needs child, and our daughter is an honor student who will be a high-school junior this year.

My wife and I co-own our home, have combined bank accounts and live as a married couple in every way. Our household of two kids, two cats, two fish and a yellow lab is a busy one, filled with love and laughter, joy and tears and is deserving of all of the protections and respect of any other.

I am a Metro transit operator, and my wife is an administrative registered nurse with a company providing assisted-living services. We abide by all of the laws of this state and country, pay our taxes and are responsible members of our community.

Despite this, when I was injured at work recently and opened a Labor and Industries claim, I was told my claim would be filed as single with no dependents and that I would be receiving a reduced benefit.

Not only are my wife and I being discriminated against in this instance but our children are as well. Please join me in making Washington a state that protects and respects all of its citizens.

-- Nancy Suppe, Bothell

Let couples that stand a chance be married

I have managed to be married and divorced three times before turning 45. Thankfully, I knew I wasn't good parent material so I avoided advancing that defective gene set. I've also managed to stay unmarried for 20 years and counting.

I am completely offended with the notion that extended rights for domestic partnerships is in any way a threat to me, any marriage I ever had or any marriage anyone else has had or may have.

I want to support and defend any couple that has the courage, commitment and optimism to get married. If their church doesn't have an issue marrying same-sex partners, why should I? As for the state, it's a civil-rights issue. Nothing more, nothing less!

My marriages should not be defended. They failed. I favor marriages that stand a chance.

Can we wake up with civility, humanity and basic human rights and see Referendum 71 for what it is?

-- Sandy Person, Redmond

For the love of families, support extended partnership rights

Thanks for your editorial in support of all Washington families ["Basic fairness, equality for Washington families," editorial, Sept. 2].

To voters who would deny me and my family equal rights, I'm not afraid to let you know who I am.

My partner and I met when we were Peace Corps volunteers 23 years ago. We've traveled the world together. We've cared for each other in illness, in job loss, in moves across the country. We've stood by each other when each of our fathers passed away. Our lives are about love, joy, laughing, dark chocolate and being good stewards of this world.

In our child-raising years, we've become part of communities that include gay and straight parents. We sit side by side at our kids' talent shows -- beaming with equal pride. We share advice and tips on the latest phase in our kids' development. We go to our jobs or are looking for work. As a community we've come together to support each other in our greatest losses and unite for our shared concerns. What is gained by discriminating against any family?

For the love of all families, support equality. Now that it appears destined for the ballot, vote yes on Referendum 71.

-- Cathie Bachy, Seattle

Washington is a place of equality

Editor, The Times:

I was elated to read your editorial ["Basic fairness, equality for Washington families," Opinion, Sept. 2] encouraging voters to approve Referendum 71, upholding the domestic-partnership law, when it comes to the ballot this fall.

The Washington I know is a place where people of all different races, backgrounds, creeds and, yes, sexual orientations can live together in respect, tolerance and equality. It is on those values I hope voters will base their decision on Ref. 71.

This November, voters will face one question: Should this law be approved? I hope voters will also ask themselves another question: Should someone be allowed to commit themselves to someone they love? Truly, that's all this issue asks, and there's only one, simple answer.

Yes, I am a gay man. But I reject the notion that I am intrinsically inferior to others because of this. I hope voters will, too, by turning out to approve Referendum 71.

-- Tucker Cholvin, Snohomish

Keep the conversation in the realm of executive responsibilities

King County executive candidates Dow Constantine and Susan Hutchison have weighed in on marriage benefits for same-sex partners. Now what?

This illustrates how far off base we have drifted in how we choose our elected officials and why they seem so incompetent when in office. Voters and the press continue to ask questions and probe positions that, while interesting, are irrelevant to officials' jobs.

The current example of Referendum 71 and King County executive shows how we drift in how we choose our executive. What does Ref. 71 have to do with overseeing Metro transit and managing the aspects of the county that person is responsible for? Nothing.

Why don't we get back to basics, and see how they are qualified for the job, not how they feel about social and political issues that are out of the scope of their jobs? While it may satisfy our curiosity to know how they feel about same-sex marriage, health-care reform or other popular debates, it obfuscates how competent they will be at the everyday tasks of their jobs.

That suitability will affect us directly. Valuing how they feel about Ref. 71 and other issues is exactly why Mayor Greg Nickels is being booted: He expended more effort toward posturing on global climate change and provided incompetent direct response to the snowfall in Seattle when that was the climate change he should have focused on.

King County executive hopefuls should be focusing on their executive skills, not political skills. Otherwise it's just another snow job.

-- Bob Johnson, Mercer Island

For referendum signers, no special protection

The attempts to block the release of petition-signer information by the backers of Referendum 71 ["Foes sue to block Referendum 71; backers can't hide donors' names," NWFriday, Aug. 28] reminds me of a sketch from 1977's crude "The Kentucky Fried Movie."

The sketch has a daredevil wearing a fire suit, helmet and gloves walk up to a group of black men, yell the "n-word" at the top of his lungs and then run for his life.

The difference is that Ref. 71's heroes want to replace the protective suit with blindfolds for the rest of us. The notion that the despicable and malicious nature of their speech entitles the signers' to special protections from public censure is an absurd and disturbing perversion of the First Amendment.

-- Jonathan Kallay, Seattle

Ref. 71 could be an infectious change

I predict Referendum 71 is going to become a big deal and a defining moment in the history of gay rights.

People have been choked by Proposition 8 in California passing. People have learned. This won't happen again. It will be the beginning of a "Yes, we can" movement that is much bigger than the gay movement, a movement of "Yes, we can take care of our society and our people, no matter who they are."

It will go well beyond Washington state.

-- Emma Le Du, Seattle

There's a reason they want to hide

What comes around goes around. Isn't it ironic, as reported by Lornet Turnbull ["Should donor names be secret," page one, Aug. 12] that the proponents of Referendum 71, who are attempting to harass and threaten the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community by denying us our constitutional rights, are now upset about being intimidated themselves?

They are both cowardly and hypocritical, thus proving themselves to be the weak-kneed bigots that they are (justly) called.

Supporters of controversial causes who are on the side of justice, freedom and equality have no desire to hide, despite real threats. These brave souls have been on the front lines of promoting the human values of tolerance and freedom, and many gave their lives for these causes. We should never forget their sacrifices.

However, those who side with the bigots always choose deception and secrecy. Perhaps the Referendum 71 backers should also don white hoods.

By the way, for those who support marriage and domestic partnership equality for all, the correct vote is yes for Referendum 71.

-- Michael Jacobs, Seattle

The PDC's job is to keep government open

It's pretty simple. The Public Disclosure Commission of Washington state is an official agency. They list the names and hometowns of donors and signers to all public campaigns and candidates, the amount of their contributions and their place of employment. It's the law.

We have a transparent government referendum system that applies to everybody in the same way. Everyone who signs or donates to a referendum will have their name made public. Most people would be proud to stand by their convictions and have their name attached to a referendum they signed on to.

I guess Republicans aren't very proud of their Referendum 71 activity. They don't want anyone to know who supports their referendum. Individually, they deny they are part of the anti-gay movement, yet collectively, they sign on and finance these referendums and then use expensive, high-powered lawyers to obscure who does what.

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

No reason to hide this information

Citizens who prize civil liberties strongly support our state's public-records and freedom-of-information laws. Yet we understand why the lists of donors to the Socialist Workers Party were rightly kept secret -- Trotskyites had suffered seven decades of physical violence/deportation/loss of employment and the like. The fears of the SWP were demonstrably real.

On the other hand, the backers of Referendum 71 are urging nondisclosure of their donors' identities solely on conjectural grounds. No church has ever been firebombed by a posse of dykes on bikes. The fact that some person has posted intemperate remarks on a blog site hardly rises to the same level of well-founded fear.

Should any one person be able to casually overturn established state policy by something as evanescent as an Internet posting? (Wouldn't this give an incentive to supporters of a referendum or initiative to post such comments themselves?)

I hope the Public Disclosure Commission carefully considers this aspect of the dispute it now has put on its Aug. 27 agenda.

-- Phil Bereano, Seattle

Harassment, indeed

I empathize with the clients of Steven Pigeon, attorney for Protect Marriage Washington.

Some people don't need to support referendums to be vulnerable to "bullying, harassment and threats of violence," they just need to walk down the street holding their same-sex partner's hand or, even worse, try to get married.

-- Brett Moyer, Seattle

The Christian view

The question I always find myself asking when it comes to gay marriage is this: What would Jesus think about it? The reason this question comes up is because the vast majority of groups that are opposed to gay marriage claim to be Christian and acting in the best interests of Christianity.

Jesus worked tirelessly for the poor, the downtrodden, the marginalized, the sick, the discarded. He invoked the Old Testament when he instructed people to love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus was concerned about people being treated equally. I can't imagine that he would have wanted today's Christians to work so feverishly to keep a particular group unequal.

Not to mention, not everyone in this country is Christian. Why should I have to submit to your religious laws when I do not attend a Christian church or ascribe to a Christian creed? This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and tolerance. Besides, Senate Bill 5688 concerns law, not religion.

Imagine if all of these "Christian" people who have worked so hard for this referendum put their energies toward helping the homeless, the orphaned, the abused, the infirm -- like Jesus did. So much good could be accomplished.

-- Sabath Mullet, Issaquah

Seductive measure would limit our prosperity

You should be concerned about Initiative 1033 in the upcoming fall election. Before being seduced by the promise of lowered property taxes, please think about the devastating consequences of this initiative, which would limit future government spending to the current year's budget:

1) Washington's unemployment rate is nearing 8 percent and is expected to get worse. How do people recover? They go back to school. How will the (already struggling) public higher-education system be able to respond to the increased demand without increased government funding? They won't.

2) Washington is exposed to myriad natural disasters. How does a community recover after a devastating earthquake or volcanic eruption? Government funds, agencies and programs. How will our community be able to effectively respond in the next disaster if this initiative passes? It won't.

3) Washington's population continues to grow. How does a community deal with population growth, while maintaining infrastructure, housing and social service needs? It doesn't.

If the property tax is a make or break issue for you, then sell and buy cheaper property. Sure, we don't want to pay it, but a yes vote on I-1033 would severely limit our ability to grow and prosper as a community.

-- Mike Nurse, Seattle

Lessons to learn from California's Prop. 8

It appears California's Proposition 8 of last year has spawned a Northwest imitator in our own Referendum 71, which now seems likely to appear on the November ballot here in Washington.

Proponents of gay rights should frame their response to this measure after considering the precedent of California, where a well-funded campaign against gay marriage mobilized religious people and won at the ballot box. We must avoid making the same mistakes as Prop. 8's opponents if we are to preserve the civil rights of gay couples in Washington.

Washington gay-rights groups plan to combat this measure by publicly exposing the signers of the Ref. 71 petition, but this petty tactic did more harm than good in the fight to save gay marriage in California. Rather than resorting to name-calling and negative campaigning, Washington activists should seize this opportunity to advance the case for equal rights and address the religious objections to their views.

We might as well take advantage of our position in the shadow of the Golden State. The greatest tragedy would be if Ref. 71 should pass despite the obvious advantage of knowing how the same debate played out in California.

-- Walter Martin Smith, Seattle

Agenda-driven citizens forget others disagree

Here's the answer to how Referendum 71 gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot ["137,689 names later, gay community asks: How did they do it?" page one, August 3]. Look no further than the first sentence of the article, "The odds seemed almost insurmountable."

There seems to be a disconnect with agenda-driven citizens, our governor included, in the belief that everyone agrees with them. In this case it led to a surprise for the gay-rights activists.

There are a great many of us who desire to keep the definition of marriage as a legal and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman. Not because we hate gays, not because we fear gays, not for religious reasons or fear of change -- but simply because marriage is between a man and a woman. Please accept this as a difference of opinion. I respect your right to your opinion, now please respect mine.

Regarding the recent University of Washington poll suggesting 77 percent of voters believe gay and lesbian couples should have at least some of the same benefits as married couples. This can be accomplished with a civil union. I am not opposed to the recognition of gay and lesbian families as Josh Friedes of Washington Families Standing Together also states, but I am just opposed to same-sex marriage.

It has been very frustrating to be confronted with vitriolic rhetoric concerning my intelligence and character when opposing these issues. I agree voters need to look ahead in their consideration of Ref. 71 because it is critical stepping stone to same-sex marriage, not a step everyone wants to take.

-- Deanna Sundvick, Woodinville

Gregoire's delay tactic only hurt cause, process

What people should be angry about as Bill Dubay, a longtime gay activist, puts it, is Gov. Chris Gregoire's delaying tactic by signing the legislation as late as she could to interfere with the referendum process and the attempted extortion by other activists regarding the signers' names being published online.

Dubay should redirect his concerns to explaining his position clearly and with the thought of what this legislation can or cannot accomplish for the general public. Many signers of the petition may have signed because of the tampering with the referendum process by the governor and gay activists.

I know I would have.

-- Brad Olschefski, Bellevue

McCain's out of touch

Well, I see Gov. Sarah Palin is pretty prickly about her part in the loss in the 2008 election and is trying her best to save face. Choosing her as his running mate lost the election for Sen. John McCain -- not that I think he would have won anyway. His recent return to the national scene shows why.

McCain is so out of touch with what is happening. It always comes down to money that goes to the wealthier section of the nation, of which he is a part. Did Cindy [McCain] whisper in his ear how much it was going to cost her if they raise taxes on her income? They might have to give up one of their houses.

Too bad.

I have a son who owns only one house, and he may have to give it up if something doesn't change soon. Thank heavens McCain did not get elected and continue the increase in government spending like all Republicans do for the wealthy.

-- Lucy Oaks, Redmond

Feminists are Republicans too

Ellen Goodman's non-Diva women's story confirms what many of us have long suspected: feminists only support Democratic women ["Democrats on the rise: the non-Diva women's story of 2008," syndicated column, Nov. 14].

Politics aside, a true feminist would applaud Gov. Sarah Palin for proving that a woman can successfully balance raising a family and handling a challenging career. We have worked for 30 years to achieve this goal only to have a woman who attained it trashed because she's a Republican.

-- Ruth Osborn, Bellevue

What have we become?

In The American Prospect's story "Goodbye and Good Riddance" (http://tinyurl.com/5d38g6), Paul Waldman describes wrongs committed by the Bush administration that produced catastrophic results for the American people. In the story, Waldman says goodbye and good riddance to these wrongs, suggesting that they will be corrected by the next administration. But I question whether simply righting these wrongs will put us on a path to recovery as individuals and as a nation.

Consider this: Were the decisions made by Bush, [Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter"] Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney and others simply products of their thinking as individuals, or were they were products of something more sinister -- perhaps a collective degeneration in thinking brought about by declining respect for each other, for human dignity, for honesty and compassion and for our constitutional rights?

While we blame the Bush administration for all that has gone wrong, shouldn't we take a hard look at ourselves to see who we've become. Have we become a people so unhappy, distrustful and disrespectful that all we can do to lessen our pain is take mind-numbing drugs, lie to each other, accuse each other of being terrorists, sue each other at the drop of a hat and try to win at all costs. If so, our problems run much deeper than the wrongs committed by the Bush regime.

--Roger Chapanis, Sammamish

Practice what you preach

I chuckled at the hypocrisy of your "Election 2008: Tolerance comes slowly" editorial [Nov. 10]. On one hand, you praise increasing tolerance in America, but on the other hand, you show great intolerance of views that differ from your own.

Do you really want a more tolerant society? Then maybe you need to start modeling it yourself.

-- James Woollard, Redmond

People are people

I believe those who spend time attempting to take away our freedom of choice would be better off spending time helping those already walking the Earth who need assistance with living. I am sure they would be very grateful.

The abstinence-only birth-control idea needs to be shelved too. People are animals, supposedly advanced over the ones we go see in the zoo. Unfortunately, not all think before doing or exercise self-control when needed. We are not perfect and never will be.

How would you like your right to practice your religion taken away?

-- Daniel Schitkovitz, Kirkland

Where's the gene?

The difference in our viewpoints lies in the belief of whether homosexuality comes from nature or nurture ["Scar of intolerance mars historic election," Leonard Pitts Jr., syndicated columnist, Nov. 12]. Pitts says it comes from nature. I believe the truth is somewhere in-between, but more toward nurture. Science has not found a gay gene.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has, over the past 10 years, shifted its viewpoint for explaining homosexuality from mostly biological to one that includes psychological, emotional and social factors.

In 1998, the APA brochure "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" states, "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

The current APA brochure "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" states, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."

Therefore, unless there is conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is entirely biological, treating it similar to racial arguments are invalid.

True, prejudice and bigotry are wrong for any reason.

Although I do not condone the behavior, I don't condemn the person.

-- Stephen Brown, Renton

What's it going to be?

Explain to your daughters why it's OK to discriminate against gays in America.

That's a conversation that I hope President-elect Barack Obama never has to have. And he won't if he's fighting to end the church-sanctioned hate that once again is spreading across the land. But he can't have it both ways; either he uses his power to eradicate the toxic mentality that says gays are inferior, or he joins with those who perpetuate it.

How do we rationalize giving a large segment of our society only a second-class citizenship? If I couldn't explain that to a kid, how could I justify it to myself?

-- Marty Zupan, Seattle

Thomas James Hurst / The Seattle Times

George Durham, left, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the University District, talks with protesters Sunday in front of his church. The Mormon church backed California's successful Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriages.

Separate but equal is not equal

Editor, The Times:

The passage of Proposition 8 in California is just a reminder that gays in America are treated as second-class citizens. Bans on gay marriage and gay adoption were passed this election along with all of the other great things that happened. I am just glad there was not a measure on the ballot to round us all up and throw us into camps, because I am sure that would have passed as well.

I am deeply saddened by all of the conservative voters quoting Scripture and using the Bible in defense of marriage. I am of the understanding that we live with a policy based on the separation of church and state. I wonder if they know how ignorant and scared they sound.

I tuned into "The View" on Wednesday morning, and watched an emotional, teary-eyed Sherri Shepherd explain the sheer joy she felt being able to tell her young son, "anything is possible." I was disappointed only a few days later to see the same woman say, "I am a Christian, and I think marriage is between a man and woman."

I guess anything is possible, as long it doesn't involve gays.

I cannot fathom how people dispute the fact that this is a civil-rights issue. Separate but equal is not equal and segregating and separating a group of people from the same rights that everyone has because of the way they were born is wrong.

I keep hearing the phrase "gay agenda" being lobbed about. The only gay agenda there is, if there is one, is to be accepted for who we are and treated equally.

The large preponderance of ethnic and young voters supporting Proposition 8 is even more maddening, because that is the last group I thought would support discrimination. I thought this country was founded on the belief that "all men are created equal," but maybe it is just the straight ones.

-- Steve Jones, Seattle

They deserve it

Does the union between two loving same-sex people equate in nature and benefit to society as that of heterosexual couples? If it does, then opponents of Proposition 8 failed to make that point.

I suppose it comes down to gays wanting to be accepted for who they are. I can understand that.
Time and science have demonstrated the benefits of a traditional marriage.

Doesn't the diversity of male and female perspectives positively affect how the new generation learns to interact with society? Even in widowhood, the specter of a loving father can be invoked as a model for children to look to.

So why not give heterosexual unions the special status they deserve? If other unions can demonstrate equivalence in nature and benefit to society, they can make the same case for equivalent designation.

Transracial marriage certainly has, although to be fair, no one ever questioned the equivalent nature of this union, only the phony eugenic benefit.

-- Mark Richardson, Issaquah

Oh, the irony

The Times' Monday, Nov. 10, story about a 40-strong mob protesting in front of a Mormon church in the University District left me shocked ["Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support," News].

Here we have a bunch of hate-filled protesters targeting a community of innocent people who couldn't even vote on California's Proposition 8, with no clear objective except to harass and intimidate them.

Matthew Wilson, a protest organizer said, "We want to make it very clear to this church that Washington will not accept divisive or discriminatory actions."

I have a message for Wilson, who organized this "protest." You are the one acting in a divisive and hurtful manner. Clearly the irony of you harassing innocent people in the name of tolerance is lost on you.

-- Christopher Flaat, Redmond

None of us are free

Gregory Turner, thank you for your insight and clear leadership on the issue of same-sex unions from within the faith community ["Gay marriage: Fear and oppression also won at the ballot box," guest commentary, Nov. 7].

I am a gay white male who has spent a lifetime working to promote diversity. I feel redeemed by the election of President-elect Barack Obama to the highest office in the land. But more work remains. None of us are free until all of us are free.

-- Stephen Guy, Seattle

Tax the churches

With the massive entry of churches into politics, it seems time to remove churches from the tax-exempt list.

The Mormon church in Utah sent massive moneys to California to support Proposition 8. The senior bishop in this country is urging pressure on President-elect Obama to change his position on abortion rights.

Better the tax moneys the church escapes go to legitimate government functions instead of support to political arguments.

-- C. Wight Reade, Seattle

Have you no compassion?

Do you think the voters are stupid? Nearly 75 percent endorsed Initiative 1029 because they know that better training of home-care workers means better care for their loved ones ["Initiative 1029: Compassion leads to faulty results," editorial, Nov. 6].

You had a clearly-stated opinion of opposition to the initiative before the election. The voters guide presented both sides of the issue. The people didn't buy your arguments.

Your fixation on SEIU [Service Employees International Union] has clouded your judgment. Look at the long list of supporters of 1029. This initiative had broad support throughout the state from people and organizations who understand the long-term-care system in the state and the need to have a well-trained work force to sustain quality of care.

-- Nancy Dapper, Seattle

A great day to be a chicken

What a strange breed we humans are.

In Arkansas, voters turned against children by decreasing a chance to have a home for those in need of adoption or foster care.

In Florida and Arizona, voters denied same-sex couples the right to marry.

But the strangest of all was California. Not only did voters take away the existing right of some people to marry (Proposition 8), but also they extended rights to chickens (Proposition 2).

Yup, chickens gained rights, humans had them withdrawn.

What a strange breed we humans are.

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Liberty and justice for all

After the election, it is a blessing toward the uphill climb of justice. But we still have losses. I appreciated the speeches given by Sen. John McCain, President-elect Barack Obama and particularly Ralph Nader.

The corporate gods and media are still primarily in control and devoted to only a two-party system. We can only hope the body of the new administration will be diverse, bipartisan and inclusive of the other parties, so that Americans will see a pool of the very best ideas to offer our nation and the world.

Perhaps women will see equality soon and the military will shortly cease the unjust practice of dishonorably discharging some of their very best for being gay.

We can hope. Yes we can.

America's historic presidential election brings a new era of fairness and inclusivity. Sadly however, the majority of voters in California, Arizona, Arkansas and Florida have voted again to exclude some Americans from the fundamental promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Obama's story gives us hope for a more perfect and more fully inclusive union. There is more work to be done in order to make our most cherished ideals a reality.

So many have worked tirelessly to defeat discriminatory ballot measures. I share their pain and disappointment. So many gay couples and families are more vulnerable because of this legislation [California's Proposition 8].

The misinformation campaigns regarding God's gay children continues and we face daunting struggles. But the seeds of justice are here, too. Those who voted for discrimination are mere footnotes to larger trends in public opinion, which are shifting in favor of legal recognition of same-sex couples.

The promise of liberty and justice for all continues to be refined.
-- Cindy Hadden, Centralia

Thank you

Thanks to everyone who voted to pass this very important initiative. Those who are ill need medical care and compassion. Those who are ill and dying need compassion and freedom of choice. Thank you for making that happen.

-- Barbara Gust, Lynnwood

Change hasn't come for everyone

Fifty years ago, racial discrimination was still legal in many states. Some states, like Washington, had civil-rights laws. Many others did not. Civil-rights legislation was going nowhere in Congress. A black person was a second-class citizen back then. Racial prejudice was still quite acceptable and even fashionable. Around that time a young senator from Massachusetts [Former President John F. Kennedy Jr.] was promising a more-just society.

The scourge of bigotry has not gone away. It has only moved elsewhere within our society. Gay, lesbian and transgender persons are the current fashionable targets. Some states have civil-rights laws that cover us. Most do not. Congress is unable to do anything. Prejudice against people like us is still accepted as the results of anti-gay ballot measures from California, Arizona and Florida have shown. Now a young senator from Illinois promises a more-just society. We'll see.

Forgive me for my restrained joy over the election results. It still feels like the bad old days to me.

-- Erick Spencer, Seattle

There is hope

Wednesday morning, The Seattle Times mentioned Barack's Obama's appeal to African Americans and a coalition of younger and disaffected voters, as well as the economy and the Iraq war.

Although I fully support Obama for all of those reasons, that is not why I voted for him. I voted for Obama because he gives hope to equality for gay and lesbian Americans as well as everyone else. And what I heard in his acceptance speech was that he proclaimed victory not only for African Americans, Latinos and whites, but equality for Native Americans and Asians, gays and lesbians and disabled and non-disabled. He
truly stood up to his promise for a better, more-equal America.

Though discrimination reared its ugly head in initiatives passed in Arizona, California and Florida, we defeated the homophobia of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's and Sen. John McCain's campaigns.

What Obama's win meant to me was hope for a better tomorrow when I will gain the same rights and liberties as my heterosexual neighbors.

-- Benjamin Barrett, Seattle

A civil-rights setback

As a lesbian, watching the 2008 elections, I felt sad to see Proposition 8 [gay-marriage ban] pass with the California voters. This is a setback in civil rights, maintaining inequality, as heterosexuals are preserved with privilege and power and the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community continues to be marginalized.

The campaign for Proposition 8 was based on fear and intolerance. The arguments we heard from Proposition 8 proponents were basically the same arguments we heard from people opposing interracial marriage.

It is ironic that these pious, religious conservatives want to "protect" their children, yet are the first to bring up sexuality.

For me, as I would guess many heterosexuals would agree, marriage is so much more than sexuality.

Marriage is a lifetime commitment to love, honor and be faithful to one's partner. The formal ceremony is a time of celebration and declaration of love in the presence of friends, family and community.

Just like heterosexuals, I am a mother, have an extended family and am an active member in my community and church. My stand to legalize gay marriage is asking for my community to recognize my partner as my spouse. This includes my partner being included in family functions, social functions at work and inclusion in the community as a couple. We are asking to have the same rights heterosexual couples have.

-- Coral Blankinship, Mountlake Terrace

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Today, while so proud that we have put President-elect Barack Obama into the highest office, I am also incredibly disappointed at how evident it is that we still have so far to go.

It is true that this is a historic election. We overwhelmingly voted in our first black President, but we also voted a felon into Senate. We've prevented the possible right to refuse distribution of birth control by not defining a "person" at fertilization, but denied thousands of "unwanted" children placements in loving homes (straight unmarried couples and sufficient singles also adopt and foster kids, Arkansas.)

We told 18,000 couples, who just celebrated the happiest day of their lives that they don't count and their love and happiness is not constitutional.

How do we, in this great nation, fight to keep guns in the homes of complete strangers and then allow someone to tell us who is worthy enough to be legally recognized as a married couple?

How can we elect to the presidency a man whose parents would've been committing a crime just 50 years ago by merely drinking out of the same water fountain and then tell Ellen DeGeneres and Portia di Rossi, "Sorry, that marriage certificate that you happily and tearfully signed, isn't worth Lehman Brothers stock"?

How can people be that threatened by same-sex marriages? How can the marriage of two people you don't even know lesson the value that you give your own? And is one man-one woman really the end all and be all when divorce rates are at 50 percent?

If you can answer any of my questions without mentioning God or religion, I would like to hear you out; if not, you're violating the separation of church and state. I would further argue that, especially in the case of the recent legislation passed in California and Arkansas, we are not a nation abiding by the spirit that we have "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I just hope that it does not take this country another 50 years to recognize all people as equal in the eyes of our state and national governments.

Don't get me wrong, I cried and am still crying buckets of joyful tears for our president-elect. I just wish things had gone differently elsewhere.

-- Amy H, Seattle

Don't be selfish

I hope you have voted, or will vote for, Initiative 1000.

I have watched too much of the suffering that accompanies dying. I have had to stand by three of the most important women in my life on their journey though those last weeks of pain: my mother (of breast cancer), my first wife (of ovarian cancer) and now my second wife (of primary peritoneal cancer).

I do not know whether any one of them would have chosen to ask for an earlier release from their suffering. Most dying people do not.

I do wish fervently they could have had the option.

Of course, pain can be controlled better now than it could be 60 years ago, or even 40 years ago. But only at the great cost of erasing something essential in us. Powerful narcotics do things to your head.

Some people who claim to know God's will insist that it would have been murder to allow them to die a few days or weeks earlier.

I believe rather that God gains nothing, and we who watch gain nothing, and those who die gain nothing, by being forced to endure those additional days of needless, mind-bending pain and drugs.

I cannot believe that a merciful God could insist we have to drag anguish out to the very last minute, while the one you love slips in and out of a drugged consciousness, with lines of hurt etched on every inch of her/his face.

A few extra days at the end of 80 years, or even 40 years, of a full life does not seem very significant in an eternity.

We betray our own selfishness by hanging on to those who are dying in pain because we cannot bear to lose them. Whether it is on religious or humanitarian grounds, every part of me cries out to release them, if they are ready to go, while their minds are still clear enough for loving, final relationships to be rich and full.

-- Blaine Hammond, Seattle

Don't quit your day job

I have grown tired of the expensive commercials featuring actor Martin Sheen opposing the properly labeled death with dignity proposition [1000].

The language used by Sheen as spokesman for the opposition is disgusting. Not only does the commercial invalidate the rights of any individual suffering enough to be classified as terminally ill, it virtually accuses any such person of potentially committing a criminal act.

Sheen and those who have financed his program have no right to invade the individual rights of people in agony. Moreover, they imply without saying that the right to end one's life might be forced upon those involved.

It is Sheen who is conducting an inappropriate campaign for those obviously paying lots of money for his efforts, whether he personally benefits or not.

In short, he should get out of the lives of those who are suffering and get back to acting.

-- Joseph Honick, Bainbridge Island

Good for insurance companies, bad for society

On the surface, Initiative 1000 sounds like a personal choice we may want. However, a competent, rational person who wants to end their life early will find a way to do so ["Washington's Initiative 1000 is modeled on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act," page one, Oct. 13].

We already have the right to refuse treatment; we have advance directives, we have sedation for the imminently dying. Patients gain the least from this law, HMOs and insurance companies benefit the most.
The 77 million baby boomers lurching toward their declining years will strain the profits of HMOs and insurance companies.

The original writer of the Oregon "death with dignity" legislation was an HMO executive.

HMOs and insurance companies have by far the most to gain from a Yes vote. Assisted suicide cheaply eliminates some of their most costly policyholders, thereby improving corporate profits.

Booth Gardner, the frontman for the initiative, admitted in the New York Times (12/02/07) that this is only a first step toward a gradual shift of the culture so laws with more latitude will be passed. "I wish we could do a more liberal law . . . We're not going to go farther than that now."

Stop it now.

-- Cassy Escalona, Shoreline

It could be you

From the time I was in seventh grade, to the end of my freshmen year in high school, I watched as my mom slowly slipped away, losing a horrible fight to cancer. It is hard to watch someone you love so much deteriorate right before your very eyes into almost nothing.

That is why I support Initiative 1000. I-1000 will allow for physician-assisted suicide and will give patients the option of taking away their pain and suffering.

The process of euthanasia is not a daylong process; in fact, the minimum wait time is 15 days. In those 15 days, the patient must be proved to be an "adult of sound mind," must receive approval from two qualified physicians, and they must have at least two witnesses present during the signing of the documents.

Every step in the euthanasia process is very meticulous and must be followed precisely with no exceptions.
I strongly encourage voters to overlook their political or moral views on Initiative 1000 and vote yes,
because in a few years it could be you or even a loved one who is suffering; and wouldn't it be nice to be given the option of determining how your life will end?

-- Ami Throckmorton, Mukilteo

This isn't Monty Python

Radio advertisements featuring violins and reassuring words like dignity, safe and no mistakes, may cause us to lose sight of what Washington state's "Death with Dignity" initiative is really all about.

Initiative 1000 legalizes killing sick people. The image of Monty Python's medieval peasant exclaiming "I'm not dead yet" as he's whacked on the head and thrown atop a pile of corpses comes to mind.

The proponents of I-1000 use great words, but sadly have no idea what they mean.

When it comes to the word "dignity," the implied suggestion is that terminally ill people have already lost their dignity. But in truth, dignity does not come and go based on health and is certainly not found in suicide.

We are assured I-1000 is "safe," but suggesting that the most vulnerable people in our society contemplate suicide is really the opposite of keeping people safe.

"No mistakes" refers to Oregon's legislation and newest form of health care, which kills all its beneficiaries. I suppose it's only a matter of time before an Oregon doctor makes a "mistake" and is hit with a wrongful-life lawsuit. Oregon's law is the mistake.

-- Christopher Larsen, SeaTac

Let this choice be personal

My father was a hero, a decorated Marine officer who fought through three amphibious landings in WWII. He struggled for his own survival and for the protection of the soldiers who surrounded him. He often wondered what made his own life so precious that the Lord had spared him in the midst of so much horrific death.

Yet there he was six months ago at his 90th birthday party, telling guests that they couldn't leave without signing the petition for the Death With Dignity Initiative.

Why would a man so full of gratitude for the sanctity of life support such a thing?

Because by age 90 he'd seen so many friends and their families suffer heartbreaking illnesses. He agonized for those who suffered through that pain and fear all alone, without a family's support. He saw how carefully the law was written to prevent abuse. It creates the right to a reasonable choice of how to deal with end-stage terminal illness.

And although my father died peacefully and naturally soon after turning 90, he supported the initiative because he thought he'd need it himself.

Plenty of voices clamor to tell us this is wrong. For example, the archbishop found it in his heart to publish a four-page newsletter with all the associated costs to his flock for publication and mailing -- every word harped against I-1000. He then had the gall to claim "I am not telling you how to vote …"

Please.

It's a lie to claim you're not telling me how to vote. It's hypocrisy to use the church's righteous power and money only against this issue of personal choice. Lies and hypocrisy will always work in politics, but the truth of I-1000 goes far beyond politics and directly to the heart of our own lives and our precious loved ones.

Patients and their families who bravely choose to endure long illnesses, full of hope and faith to the final breath, deserve our respect, admiration and support. But their struggles should not be forced on others who wish to have the right, through their own prayerful consideration, to decide otherwise.

People deserve a choice, and I-1000 is crafted with the care and dignity that gives us all that choice.

-- Bill Walker, Bothell

Contradictory and wasteful

I'm sure most drivers in the Greater Seattle area know how grueling traffic is.

My commute begins around rush hour on Interstate 5 as I make my way to school in the morning. With elections just around the corner, I wish I could join in to vote NO against Initiative 985 ["I-985: Tim Eyman puts the meddle to the pedal," Joni Balter column, Oct. 19].

My reasoning for opposing this initiative is simple. I-985 will make congestion worse, undermine safety and is unfair to rural residents. An analysis by Independent Transportation Engineers shows traffic worsening if I-985 is taken into effect.

Among other problems, if HOV [High Occupancy Vehicle] lanes are open to all, more highway crashes are at risk due to more vehicles in the lanes

The project would take millions of dollars from elsewhere in the state -- money that could be used for health programs and schools.

HOV lanes were made for a reason; this initiative seems to be contradictory and wasteful.
I-985 causes many strains to people all over the state, at a time when Washington can least afford it.

-- Hannah Maserjian, Seattle

The good old days

Won't it be nice when the election, with its disparaging political ads, is finally over and we once again can give our undivided attention to an overload of erectile-dysfunction pitches filling the vacuum.

--Thomas Frey, Kingston

Think before you vote

King County voters don't realize the repercussions their votes have on their fellow citizens. A story written by Kyung M. Song in early October explained that as the state's voters approved a flat rate in motor-vehicle tax in 1999, they eliminated a dedicated fund for vital services to the most vulnerable. ["Public-health agencies end up on critical list," Local News, Oct. 7.]

In addition to voting out the automobile-tab tax, a proposal to restrict property tax at 1 percent was approved in 2001. With a $93.4 million budget deficit for 2009, health and human services face huge cuts at a time when they are needed the most.

Voters need to look at the long-term effects of their decisions. If property taxes had grown with inflation between 2002 and 2008, King County would have an additional $35 million for the general fund budget and we wouldn't be facing the deficit we are in now.

With that money, we wouldn't need to make cuts to services that bring security or reduce poverty, and we would have a better economy.

When services are cut, homelessness will grow along with crime. And disease control and many other services thousands of people depend on will disappear. The only solution is to raise the taxes and look toward the future.

-- N. Bronte Neel, Seattle

Don't use it if you don't want it
The time has come for a law allowing terminally ill people to end their pain and suffering at a time of their choosing, but always with the appropriate safeguards that are spelled out in Initiative 1000.

Having witnessed my son's excruciatingly painful death from cancer, I think it is only humane to provide a means whereby he might have been able to escape at least a little of that agony.

For those who do not believe this is a good idea, you would not be required to take advantage of such a law if it were in place, but please don't deprive others of the opportunity when they are in agony in the closing days of their lives.

The decision to take one's own life is an intensely personal one, and one which should only be taken after careful soul-searching and, of course, only within the safeguards required under the proposed law.
-- Sylvia Moore, Seattle