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

For homophobes, no marriage

Editor, The Times:

I would like to take a moment to reassure opponents of Referendum 71, those homophobes who want to prevent domestic-partnership rights from expanding.

I don't hate homophobes. I don't fear homophobes. I don't have religious objections to homophobes.

I just don't think they should be allowed to marry.

-- Howard Hance, Snohomish

Confusion, like with Prop. 8, needs to be avoided

The Seattle Times reported that those seeking to overturn extended domestic-partner rights with Referendum 71 have collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November, and The Times published an article immediately below that report with the headline, "Foe of R-71 mulls write-in bid for mayor" [page one, Sept. 1].

This story is about state Sen. Ed Murray, who is a staunch supporter of passing R-71, not a "foe." This incorrect language is sure to confuse voters wondering whether to vote yes or no on R-71. [Editor's note: Murray opposed domestic-partnership rights expansion going to a vote in R-71. Once R-71 gathered enough signatures, however, Murray is a supporter of voting yes on R-71 to extend to domestic partners the same rights as married couples.]

A referendum that has already been passed by the state Legislature is a law; if it goes to the ballot, a yes vote upholds it and a no vote overturns it. While you explain this later in the story, this is not enough for many people who likely read your incorrect headline and moved on.

I am particularly concerned about this misleading headline because of the voter confusion about Proposition 8 in California last November. Polls have shown that many voters on both sides were confused about what their "yes" and "no" votes meant, with many supporters of gay marriage accidentally voting in favor of Proposition 8 and vice versa.

-- Hannah Tracy, Seattle

My marriage doesn't need saving from same-sex 'threat'

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of how marriage between two people of the same gender could be of any threat to my 50-year marriage; it doesn't need any "defense of marriage" group's help.

-- Martin Paup, Seattle

Washington led for women's rights, now for gay rights

I support Referendum 71. It is fair and correct to affirm the rights of Washington's gay and lesbian families. The United States Constitution was written for the people, not just married people, not just single people. For everybody.

Domestic partnerships are not a replacement for full marriage equality. All families deserve true equality under the law. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit the power of government and protect the rights of the people.

Who opposes R-71? People who think our constitutional liberties do not apply to everyone but rather to specific groups they happen to belong to. We have a word for that: intolerance.

This is a time for all who believe in equality of rights to stand up and be counted. Washington state is the nation's leader in women's rights. Let's take the lead on this issue, and make sure our gay and lesbian families enjoy the same protection the rest of us take for granted.

-- Scott Leopold, Everett

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

The Times is promoting gay rights

The Seattle Times' June 27 edition led with two elderly gentlemen on a park bench, lovers for decades ["Diverse fight for equality," page one]. One had a stroke and he and his partner worried about long-term care, finances, etc.

The June 29 Times led with a woman and her partner -- the partner attending Pride festivities for a brief time due to her multiple sclerosis ["Burst of pride, politics," page one]. They, too, were concerned about their partnership and "rights."

Is The Times selling us something?

-- Hubert Smith, Jacksonville, Ore.

Filled with pride, wary of challenges facing gays

During this weekend's Pride festivities, I was eager to celebrate 40 years since the start of the gay-equality movement. As a gay man, I believe the extraordinary advances of just the past year call for great celebration. After all, five states have legalized same-sex marriage since last summer, and our own state recently passed its expanded, "everything but marriage" domestic-partnership bill.

But the past year has also seen some challenges. President Obama has yet to come through on many promises to the LGBT community.

California voters passed Proposition 8 last November, banning same-sex marriages in that state. And sadly, opponents of gay equality have mounted a statewide push to repeal Washington's domestic-partnership law.

Referendum 71 proponents claim they are protecting Washington families, but the measure protects no one. Indeed, if passed, this referendum will do immeasurable harm to countless loving same-sex couples and their families.

While there is much to celebrate this weekend, I hope the looming threat of Referendum 71 will remind us all that serious challenges still lay ahead. I want to remind all Washingtonians that this measure will hurt thousands of families in our state and encourage everyone to decline to sign the Referendum 71 petition.

-- Dan Thies, Seattle

Reflecting on how far gays have come

I think it is a privilege to witness the historic civil-rights battle for same-sex marriage, including the fight over Proposition 8 in California and the fast pace of developments in other states.

Back in the '80s, my first job out of college was with a bank in Colorado. One of my co-workers did not like me. When she heard a rumor that I was gay, she spread it as fast as she could. Many things happened that are too ugly to mention here. I was harassed into leaving. I was young and naive and let them get away with it.

Fast-forward a decade. I gained friends I never expected. Then, during the hard years of the HIV epidemic, I found courage and inner strength I didn't know I possessed as I, along with many, coped with losses.

Fast-forward another decade. I have experienced career success I never imagined. I laugh at myself for not having a partner and own my shortcomings. What a luxury to be able to think in those terms.

-- Charlie Heller, Seattle

Designate different marriages for different needs

Instead of trying to make all relationships fit one definition of marriage, maybe we should have different types of marriages.

There could be the marriage in which couples can only use self control and luck to regulate family size. There could be the marriage in which couples can use chemicals and physical means to regulate family size. There could be the marriage in which couples can have everything but marriage. There could be the scientific marriage, in which the scientists agree that if they cannot find a willing host mom, then they will be responsible for nurturing any lives they help to create.

The confusion we have about marriage would explain why so many couples are choosing to live together without the benefit of marriage.

Marriage counselors will tell couples that "every marriage is different."

-- Tim Carney, Seattle

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Seattle firefighter and paramedic Penny Stone holds up her son, Calder, 4 months, as she cheers with her partner, Karen Kerr, a lieutenant in the San Francisco Fire Department. Gov. Chris Gregoire was being introduced Monday before she signed legislation granting domestic partners additional rights.

Editor, The Times:

When Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network states that there is no reason to redefine marriage ["Rights bill signed for same-sex couples," NWTuesday, May 19], he shows his own misunderstanding of how marriage works. The state gives recognition to a relationship by issuing a marriage license, but it doesn't define individual marriages. Marriages are defined by the two people who are in them.

If the state of Washington issues a marriage license to my same-sex partner and me, it would have no effect whatsoever on Randall's or anyone else's marriage or how they define it. So what is he so upset about?

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Same-sex couples actually help businesses, economy

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has done it again, claiming that gay marriage will financially burden small businesses ["RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 16]. Aside: Since when have Republicans cared about small business?

So let me get this, um, straight: Is it that straight marriage doesn't burden small businesses while gay marriage does, or simply that gay people don't deserve health care and other benefits while straight people do?

Steele's comments are particularly absurd coming, as they do, the day after studies published by UCLA's Williams Institute show that, in the five years since it was instituted, marriage equality has been responsible for pumping over $100 million into Massachusetts' economy.

This is due in part to the young and highly educated professionals working in creative fields that are 2.5 times more likely to move to the state than they were before they could marry there, and in part to the money generated by the more than 12,000 same-sex couples that have tied the knot in the Bay State, spending an average of $7,400 per wedding. Obviously, small businesses are benefiting both from the influx of talent and from the revenue related to weddings to the tune of over $20 million a year.

-- David A. Young, Seattle

Alan Berner / The Seattle Times

Neil Lequia, helping carry the gay pride flag, chants as thousands march to Westlake Park last November protesting passage of California's Prop. 8 banning gay marriage.

Winning the fight, but don't stop fighting

Editor, The Times:

The fight against gay rights in general has always been based on a primitive and childlike fear of change and difference, and religious-right activists in Washington like Joe Fuiten have every reason to fear that time is not on their side ["Debate about gay equality appears to be ending," NW Wednesday, Danny Westneat column, May 6].

But that doesn't mean gay people in my home state of Washington should make the same mistake as their counterparts in California and simply assume that everything will turn out fine as the religious right seeks to put the state Legislature's expansion of domestic-partnership benefits to a popular vote.

Gay-rights activists in Washington need to start making every effort to educate voters. That means reaching out to minorities and religious groups and never being afraid to prominently feature the gay individuals and couples whom the religious right finds offensive simply because they exist.

The book "unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters," by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, found young people increasingly despised the religious right largely because of its anti-gay bigotry, and it's clear that the ideological descendants of Anita Bryant will fade away. But as Danny Westneat points out, they're not going without a fight.

-- Alaric DeArment, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Nobody's business who someone else marries

Being for or against gay marriage is irrelevant; whether anyone has the right to decide who someone else should marry is really the issue.

We don't legally have the right to decide who our children marry once they reach the age of 18. How can we feel justified in deciding who any adult should marry?

Christians often use the biblical statement against homosexuality to back up their political push to prevent gay marriage, yet there are many statements in the Bible that modern Christians no longer adhere too, such as public stoning or wearing linen/wool combinations.

As a Christian myself, I am very familiar with the New Testament. Jesus emphatically tells his followers to examine their own behavior and mind their own business. In fact, he bore his most severe criticism to those who judged others. He also advised people to keep separate from the world. At no point did he encourage anyone to involve themselves in the personal business of other people.

It is simply nobody's business who someone else marries.

-- Iris Smaus, Kingston

Don't fear equality

Domestic partnerships are a start -- a good start -- toward true equality under the law for all families. Now, let's take the next step together. Following in the footsteps of Iowa, Vermont and D.C. ["Gay marriage wins in All-American Iowa," page one, April 4] ["Vermont lifts drive for gay marriage," page one, April 8], let Washington join the vanguard, and give all couples -- straight or gay -- full marriage equality.

In these uncertain times, when people are losing jobs or taking lesser ones, when medical benefits are scarce, when children are frightened and parents are worried, let us wrap all families in the security, the protection, the responsibilities and the rights that come from true marriage equality.

Please don't listen to the lies and the fear. Please listen to the commitment, the respect and the love my gay and lesbian friends have for each other and their children. Please support full, true, legal equality for gays and lesbians who wish to marry.

-- Kathy Byrd, Seattle

Strengthening families helps everyone

Every day, my family is supported by state and federal protections that were granted to my husband and me on our wedding day almost six years ago. Laws relating to property ownership allowed us to buy a home together; those concerning parental rights have supported our ability to raise children.

There are many examples, but the point is that we can contribute to our community because our community has supported and stabilized our family. Why only some families deserve the support of their government is beyond me.

Marriage is under assault from people who don't take it seriously when they enter into it, not from those who have been fighting their whole lives to obtain it.

Those who oppose rights for same-sex couples need to look beyond their own childish squeamishness and realize that strengthening families --all families -- helps everyone.

-- Liz Bromley, Issaquah

When will Washington state catch up?

It is my hope that the four Washington State Supreme Court justices who voted against marriage equality in 2006 (versus three who supported it) will feel chastened and embarrassed that a heartland state (where I lived for two-and-a-half years) has proved more enlightened than us, who pride ourselves on being progressive ["Gay marriage wins in All-American Iowa," page one, April 4].

This ruling is very much like the overturning of miscegenation laws 40 to 50 years ago. Fair and forward-looking jurists like those of Massachusetts, Connecticut, California and Iowa interpreted their constitutions to their most expansive and proper applications and should be proud of their legal judgments.

Others, like the four in Washington state, should be taken to task for a ruling that denies equal protection under the law and relegates real families with children to something less than full members of society.

In a few years, marriage equality will be a no-brainer issue in this country, as it is in the Netherlands, Canada and other enlightened nations. How much longer do we have to wait for equality to apply to everyone in Washington state? How much longer do we have to wait until the un-American Defense of Marriage Act will be abolished by our elected representatives in Washington, D.C.?

-- Leo N. Egashira, Seattle

How will the state define new responsibilities?

I read the story "Iowa high court legalizes gay marriage in state," [seattletimes.com, Nation & World, April 3] and then I read the actual opinion.

In our country, we are at loggerheads over the meaning of marriage. We can't even come to agreement on the meaning of words, much less ideas. Each side declares the other to be myopic, unable to see the whole picture, though I think each views the issue through a kaleidoscope.

For many years, gay-marriage proponents have touted the need for equality in marriage as an expression of equal rights. This decision addresses that problem: "The purpose of Iowa's marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in committed relationships"(Iowa Supreme Court summary).

In reading the actual opinion, I see another facet of this ruling -- perhaps an unintended consequence -- running through Iowa's governments and courts for years to come. That facet is the definition of responsibilities for this new right.

How long will it be before civil courts are handling lawsuits requesting equal protection by straights? Will the straight community file suit to ensure state agencies equally enforce the responsibilities among all parties?

When these unions fail, certainly divorce will be a requirement. What then? Alimony/palimony? If a divorced parent takes on a gay partner, will this relationship end any alimony/palimony? And child support? How will this change once one says, "I do"?

And what of property division? And then there is the question of financial responsibility. How about taxes? Or death?

As for me, I believe the state should get out of the marriage business. License civil unions for everybody, gay and straight. Let churches handle marriage, according to their custom.

-- Bob Boren, Tacoma

Support enhanced domestic partnerships

My dear friend Lou was together with his partner, Joe, for more than 50 years.

They had filled out all the legal forms necessary to make each other their voice if one or the other became sick or was hospitalized. Joe became very ill, and Lou was there to support him and voice his preference to die with dignity. Their close friends were there to give support to both of them through this process.

When Joe passed away, and Lou tried to carry out his wishes for transporting his body to the funeral home, grieving Lou was told that he could no longer make any decisions; it had to be a blood relative. After being Joe's partner for more than 50 years and his voice while in the hospital, Lou was forced to contact Joe's family and have them make the final decisions for releasing the body.

They thought they had made it so each other could be the voice for the other, but at this last moment, the choice was taken away from them.

This would have never happened if they had the same rights as a married couple.

With the support of the people of Washington state for enhanced domestic partnership, no couple that has chosen to register its domestic partnership with the state of Washington will have to endure what happened to my friends Lou and Joe ["Groups ready to battle over gay-benefits bill," page one, March 11].

-- Jim Brown, Seattle

Marriage should be open to all

Marriage is a right. When I was a little girl, I dreamed about getting married and wearing the white dress and having my dad walk me down the aisle.

When I grew up, I was fortunate enough to find a man I love who loves me. When we knew that we wanted to create the rest of our lives together, we decided to solidify it, shout it from the rooftops and share that experience with our families and friends.

If someone else grew up with that same dream of finding their soul mate, and has been blessed enough to do so, they should also have the right to get married and enjoy all of the amazing experiences it brings.

-- Angela Schumacher, Seattle

Equality always in jeopardy,
even as state offers protection

I applaud the Washington state Senate and leadership of Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, for passing the domestic-partnership bill ["Action over gay-benefits bill," Times, page one, March 11]. Even in the face of enormous pressure from the extreme religious right, the Senate saw through their lies and sided with equality.

For too long, the extreme religious right has lied to the public about the identity of gay people. They use fear to scare otherwise kind people into thinking homosexuals will hurt their families.

It saddens me they still think we are a threat to the well-being of this country. I will never understand why one group of people can hate another so deeply.

I am grateful the state Senate was able to see through the religious right's illusion. Senators understand lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens are just as valuable and equal as heterosexual citizens.

I will sleep easier tonight knowing my family will finally be protected in Washington state.

But, even as I celebrate, I understand the extreme religious right is already working hard to steal my inalienable rights. As they do, I request the continued support from my straight friends and neighbors. Without you, my equality will always be in jeopardy.

-- Joseph Mirabella, Seattle

Homosexuality no different from left-handedness

What makes people choose to be left-handed? Why can't they be like the rest of us? Should two left-handed people be allowed to marry?

There was a time not long ago when being left-handed was considered sinful, possessed by the devil or downright sinister. Horrific things were done to try to correct this "condition." But, today we know it's a naturally occurring preference that is not harmful in any way.

In fact, five of the past 14 U.S. presidents have been left-handed, to say nothing of the millions of other talented left-handed people who have contributed to our well-being and happiness.

I hope in my lifetime our society will come to understand sexual preference is similar to left-handedness. It's not for everyone, but no one is trying to make it so.

It's a matter of recognizing there are minor variations in people, but everyone has a place, should be loved for who they are and be allowed to show their love just like anyone else.

-- Mark Johnson, Seattle

Unfit survival of the fittest

How can one say marriage between two people of the same sex should be called an inalienable right ["Inalienable right isn't up to a vote," Northwest Voices, March 9]?

There is no problem with gay people wanting to have stable relationships, however the idea of marriage was created by societies to fulfill a certain purpose and need, best known as survival.

There is absolutely no biological, ethical or moral purpose for the marriage of two people of the same sex.

It is only an aberration of what nature intended for humanity in order to exist. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the survival of species. In fact, it's just the opposite; it solidifies a straight path to extinction.

-- Madeleine Eddy, Mercer Island

Marriage: a civil matter, a contract

It's amazing, in this day and age, religious zealots still wage campaigns of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry.

Equitable legal protection for same-sex couples has nothing whatsoever to do with the religious right's own marriages, relationships or personal freedoms. However, it does have everything to do with this country's promise of equal rights.

It's also about protecting the assets of committed, same-sex partners.

Out of interest, I checked out the "commercial" opponents to this bill posted on YouTube.

They deploy outright lies and fear tactics to espouse their bigoted ideology.

Freedom to marry should be for all law-abiding citizens, including same-sex couples.

Opponents to marriage equality may claim it violates their religious beliefs and, as such, their rights, but marriage is a civil matter. A contract.

Such ardent opposition to equal rights for any other minority group would not be tolerated. So, why is it tolerated -- and even celebrated -- when it happens to our law-abiding gay and lesbian citizens?

-- Stan Brownlow, Seattle

Questioning whether religion should play a role in government at all

The March 5 Times featured a segment about California's Proposition 8 that currently bans gay marriage in the state ["Is Prop. 8 a constitutional wrong?" Times, Nation & World].

The article outlines the opposition to the bill, attempting to overturn it in the California Supreme Court. It also outlines two cases in an attempt to determine whether this is a state or federal issue.

I think it boils down to a more fundamental issue.

I think what should be examined is whether or not it is the government's right to regulate marriage at all. Many who oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons, but was America not founded on the principles that religion should not become entangled with government?

Rather than examining which branch of government should be controlling marriage, I think more focus should be put toward whether there should be any regulation at all. In my mind, it is a violation of the basic principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution to deny any group the right to marry, especially if it is for religious reasons.

-- Mackay Cadell, Seattle

States should not have power to take away an inalienable right

I believe Shannon Minter, a lead attorney in the California Supreme Court case to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in the state, was correct in saying, "This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians" ["Attorneys in Prop. 8 court test a study of opposites," page one, March 5].

I also believe the promise of equality, which this country claims to offer, should include equal marriage rights -- whether the marriage is between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender.

The promise of equal rights is protected by our Constitution. To suggest marriage should be limited to a man and a woman seems, to me, to be a violation of these rights.

Given the U.S. Constitution was written for, and is applicable to, our entire nation, a state constitution should not be able to overstep boundaries that contradict what our national Constitution says.

I do agree the state constitution has power, but approving a proposition that excludes a minority group from marriage rights others are welcome to is not in its realm of power.

Proposition 8 prohibits the right to equality -- an "inalienable right" -- for a minority group. Who is the state, or anyone, to take that right away from them?

-- Amanda Gadian, Seattle

An intentionally unspecific constitution warrants change

Proposition 8: a constitutional wrong?

After reading today's article regarding the constitutionality of California's Prop. 8, I found myself confused. Gay rights are, of course, a heavily debated issue in America. I do not believe, however, that it should be an issue of constitutionality.

Though it does not explicitly allow same-sex marriage, the Constitution does include the Equal Protection Clause, which states all men are created equal and, therefore, deserve equal treatment.

The Constitution is intentionally unspecific, and it wasn't created that way by accident. It was written in a way that, should the future prove it necessary, it can be changed.

As a supporter of gay rights, I believe no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. After all, this is America: a country that came into existence as the result of people standing up against unfair treatment.

Therefore, I believe this article is irrelevant. This is a moral issue, not a matter of constitutionality.

-- Mary Campbell, Seattle

Same rhetoric our forefathers tried to escape

I listened to a local-radio show that discusses highly charged issues. One of the subjects of discussion was the legality of gay marriage, and whether this issue should be left to the public vote or legislative and judicial branches of government to make the decision.

I'm not gay and prior to this radio show didn't have much of an opinion on this issue. While listening to this radio show, however, there were many callers saying gay and lesbian people are wrong and going against the Word of God. This was their justification for why these people should not have the right to marry.

I could not comprehend why anyone would want to restrict someone else's right to marry whoever they want. If it is not directly affecting them, why do people care?

U.S. citizens like to believe we are a free nation and the standard other countries should model themselves after. If this is the case, we should value and protect everyone's basic freedoms and liberties, so long as they do not harm others.

Restricting the marriage rights of gay and lesbian people is oppression.
As long as we continue to oppress the rights of any group of people in our country, we cannot consider ourselves a free country. As a close friend reminded me, "Freedom, like life, is an absolute. People are free or they are not. Such as people are alive or they are not. There is no such thing as partial freedom!"

This country was founded by people seeking a land where they would have freedom of religion. I find it ironic that this same group of people are now trying to oppress other people's rights and liberties based on these same religious beliefs.

The argument has been made that gay marriage is not covered by civil rights because people are not born gay or lesbian. They claim people choose to be gay or lesbian, so they should not enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If this is the case, someone could make the case that people are not born into religion. When I listen to the arguments of religious zealots trying restrict others' liberties and freedoms, it reminds me of the rhetoric our forefathers were trying to get away from when they came here in first place.

"Believe as we do and conform or lose your right to be happy," they said. "Believe as we do and conform or die."
When it comes down to it, there isn't much difference.

-- Sergio Martinez, Federal Way

Protecting the rights of the unpopular

In Sunday's Times, Brian Travis of Lynnwood wrote a letter in which he labeled the supporters of same-sex marriage as "repulsive," "strident" and attempting to "usurp" voters' rights ["A perverse agenda," Northwest Voices, Feb. 1].

It is discouraging to see how little our system of government is understood. Our judiciary system exists, in part, to protect the rights of the unpopular. Had we abided by the wishes of the majority of American voters at critical times in our past, racial desegregation, mixed-race marriages and women's voting rights might still be illegal.

Fortunately, the Freedom Train doesn't run backward. Our unelected judges will do their jobs, impartially, and the prohibition of same-sex marriage will ultimately be ruled by all states to be unconstitutional, because it is.

Each of my sons, gay and straight, shares the same responsibilities as citizens of this country. When will they all share the same rights?

-- Tawney Collins-Feay, Tukwila

Hypocrisy endorsing oppression

A perverse agenda?

In a letter to the editor in Sunday's paper, Brian Travis of Lynnwood finds "same-sex marriage not only repulsive, but also a naked usurpation of the rights of Washington state voters" ["A perverse agenda," Northwest Voices, Feb. 1].

He then goes on to advise supporters of homosexual marriage to place it on the ballot and let those same voters decide.

Talk about repulsive.

In his blatant bigotry and homophobia, Travis in one breath decries "usurpation" of voters' rights and in the next advocates that those same voters should determine (usurp) the rights of an entire group of fellow citizens.

This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. It's hypocrisy that endorses oppression. Across this country, people's rights are being put to a vote. Think about that. Law-abiding, taxpaying citizens' rights are on the ballot.

Now that is a perverse agenda.

-- Rod Barbee, Port Ludlow

Courtney Blethen / The Seattle Times

Impact/Equal Rights Washington and others rallied and marched against Washington state's ban on gay marriage earlier this month. The protesters made their way from Seattle Central Community College down Pine Street to Westlake Park in downtown Seattle, where they gathered signatures for a letter to President Obama.

Editor, The Times:

Today I was pleased to celebrate the future rights of gays and lesbians in Washington state through the "Everything But Marriage" bill ["Domestic-partnership bill would expand protections," Times, Local News, Jan. 28]. While the passage of this bill will help Washington's lesbian and gay communities find much-needed security in these uncertain times, I am saddened by the second-class-citizen status domestic partnerships provide.

It is time for Washingtonians to give their hardworking neighbors, friends, co-workers and family the same dignity and respect of different-sex couples by granting full marriage equality. We need this legal protection now more than ever.

The Washington I know and love has a welcoming heart and an open mind. I believe with your help my family will finally be treated as full and equal citizens.

Please help us reach our goal of full-marriage equality by volunteering, donating money or simply engaging in positive conversations about the issues with your friends and family as we move toward full equality. The gay and lesbian communities will be forever grateful for your help and friendship.

-- Joseph Mirabella, Seattle

A perverse agenda

While I do not oppose domestic partnerships in theory, I do find the ongoing march to same-sex marriage not only repulsive, but also a naked usurpation of the rights of Washington state voters.

If the supporters of homosexual marriage are so strident in their convictions, let them place it on the ballot and obtain the approval from the state electorate.

The fact of the matter is that not a single state in the union has legalized homosexual marriage by election.

Rather, unelected state supreme court judges have taken it upon themselves to advance their own perverse agenda and vision of marriage upon their states' citizens.

-- Brian Travis, Lynnwood

Passive oppression

I've always thought of myself as a fair, open-minded person. I assumed domestic partnerships offered same-sex couples the same domestic, legal and insurance rights as heterosexual couples. Boy, was I wrong.

As important as the progress in domestic partnerships has been, it doesn't provide the same security as marriage; domestic partnerships are used as a way to treat people as second-class citizens.

My ignorance was a kind of passive oppression of my friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Each of us deserves to be treated fairly and have the same chance to realize our hopes and dreams.

Why should I have a different set of rights when we all contribute equally to our communities, jobs and families?

-- Deborah Skorstad, Seattle

Not worthy of front-page coverage

Your lead story in the NW Sunday Section ["Activists pin hopes on Obama," local news, Jan. 11] was about same-sex marriage advocates and a failed rally on Capitol Hill. The article described a small gathering that had about one-tenth the attendance that was expected.

Had this rally been over some other issue, it would have warranted a paragraph on the back page of the local news section. But, The Times gives it front-page, above-the-fold coverage. In reality, the headline should have read: "Failed rally demonstrates lack of support for same-sex marriage."

If you are going to push an agenda, please be more explicit.

-- Mark Morden, Seattle

Demand equality

I'm 47 years old. The civil-rights movement of the 1960s was as familiar to me as the Flintstones and Barbie. I watched as women and minorities stood up and said, "We are equal and demand equality."

While I am proud to be able to share the excitement of the civil-rights movement with my teenage daughter as we march side by side for the equal rights of same-sex couples to marry, I am dismayed that the GLBT [Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender] community has been marginalized for so long. I stand by this community as it, too, stands up to say "We are equal and demand equality."

Each of us deserves to be treated fairly and have the same chance to realize our hopes and dreams. As important as the progress on domestic partnerships has been, they don't provide the same security as marriage, and are used as a way to treat people as second-class citizens.

Even if we disagree on marriage, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It is not for us to judge other people.

-- Deborah Skorstad, Seattle

Keep them separate

As a solution to the issues of equality and civil union vs. marriage, I suggest that all consenting, non-related adults wishing to have the privileges of health decisions, inheritance, etc. apply for and legally obtain a civil union. This would be an entirely secular procedure.

Those desiring a marriage in addition to the civil union may do so in accordance with their religion/church/personal-belief system. This would be an entirely personal choice. Keeping civil unions and marriages separate would fulfill our governmental concept of separation of church and state.

Equality could be achieved by all via the civil union.

-- Dorothy Malinski, Lynnwood

We're smart, too

I take exception to the statement in this editorial that "the smartest among us realize gay marriage is a generational issue" ["Gay marriage protests mark beginning of another civil dialogue," editorial, Nov. 18]. Does that mean that people who are religious and believe that gay marriage is a biblical issue prohibited in the Bible, including 70 percent of African Americans in California, are not smart?

I believe gays have a right to work, to buy or rent a home and to serve in the military, but to marry when the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments is opposed to it, I cannot support.

For whoever wrote this editorial to imply that I'm not smart because I don't support gay marriage is an insult and shows intolerance of my view as well as thousands of other religious people.

-- Dwaine Braddy, Bothell

Don't even try

Here are a few quotes from The Seattle Times editorial staff via the Nov. 18 opinion pages:

"Black citizens voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, largely for religious reasons" ["Gay marriage protests mark beginning of another civil dialogue," Nov. 18].

"The smartest among us realize that gay marriage is a generational issue."

"The irony is that on the same day American voters of all races and religions were electing a black president, black voters were voting in large numbers against gay rights."

I have endured many spectacularly audacious comments from the editorial staff and other guest commentators on your opinion pages but any decent person would be affronted by the above statements.
Black citizens vote based upon a variety of factors, including but not limited to their religious beliefs -- just like white folks.

The real irony is that the demands of a well-to-do political constituency with a taste for free-speech suppression would in any way be compared with the trials and tribulations that black folks went thru for decades.

-- Doug Kanyer, Yakima

Don't blame the electorate

While it's always nice to hear positive words regarding marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, your editorial is based on a myth that's been disproved by fivethirtyeight.com, the single most accurate polling Web site ["Gay marriage protests mark beginning of another civil dialogue," Nov. 18].

The polling describes this idea as "silly," summarizing that while "it's true that if new voters had voted against California's Proposition 8 at the same rates that they voted for President-elect Barack Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance."

If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin." Rather than "educate" our friends in the African-American and Latino communities, as you suggest, we put the blame squarely where it belongs: with the $20 million propaganda campaign funded by the Mormon church, which pumped horrible TV ads based on lies into Californians' homes.

-- Jennifer Hauseman, Seattle

Commendable, but incomplete

Gen. Colin Powell reminds us that division is un-American when it comes to those with different religious backgrounds ["The Muslim who moved Powell," Leonard Pitts Jr., syndicated columnist, Oct. 23].

I agree that it was commendable when he asked the perfect question: "Is there something wrong with being Muslim in America?" This puts the spotlight on those who think that there is, and forces them to justify their bigotry.

The sad thing is, as Powell should know all too well, there are other kinds of bigotry going on in this country that receives its "guidance" from not only the three major religions but is also sanctioned by our own government -- discrimination against gays.

How "powerful" it could have been if Powell spoke out against "all" bigotry -- especially while he was still in the military -- an institution that broke the color line on discrimination.

I believe that most Americans would state unequivocally that discrimination is wrong, and yet by our support of institutions (including churches) that help perpetuate it, we allow it to continue.

That's not un-American; that's inhumane.

-- Marty Zupan, Seattle

Look at it another way

Any gay couple seeking the approval of this judgmental, divorce-ridden society is making a big mistake. Pass whatever law you'd like. My 18-year relationship is not for sale and not in competition with you. We're "married" by any common definition of the word and we don't need your approval, your paper or your blessing.

That said, California's Proposition 8 has definitely caught the national attention of thousands of gays, lesbians and their supporters. Clearly, making an entire segment of society "sit at the back of the bus" is not going to stand the test of time. I don't care how narrow you are, you have to see that such laws are doomed to go the way of segregation. It's just a matter of time.

It's perplexing why a progressive state like California would vote this way. Statistically speaking, gays and lesbians have the largest disposable incomes. Forbes estimates the market for gay "unions" at $16.8 Billion. If California doesn't want that money, perhaps Washington should wake up to it. Aren't we down about $3 billion or so?

Hey Gov. Christine Gregoire, I've got the answer to your budget shortfall: We just have to stop being hypocrites.

-- Randy Sampson, Seattle

The Associated Press

Demonstrators march on the Mormon Temple in New York to speak out against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for its role in the passage of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, Wednesday.p>

Editor, The Times:
I am Mormon. And as such, I am sad and worried about the recent news of hatred and protests aimed at my church and our sacred temples around the country due to the passing of Proposition 102 in Arizona and Proposition 8 in California ["Young, wired and rallying for gay rights," Times, News, Nov. 14].

Can you imagine if Muslims were kept out of their mosques, Jews were barred from entering their synagogues or Buddhists were kept from entering their Temples due to protesters? There would be justifiable outrage and meltdown.

And imagine the explosion of fury there would be if Christians banded together and hatefully protested and disrupted gays and lesbians during a gay-pride parade?

And now we hear of an attack on an innocent church in Michigan. What is going on here? Where is the Justice Department? Or our state and local governments?

I take the slanderous signs and chants personally. I think it is safe to say that faithful LDS [Latter Day Saints], as well as other faithful Christians never teach hate. We believe in Christ. We believe that all human beings are children of God and deserve respect and the love of God. We believe that the marriage of a man and a woman is ordained by God, and has been from the beginning of time.

Am I wrong to think that if gay unions become part of the legal definition of marriage and a civil right, that churches would eventually face harsh treatment by government and the courts when bishops or pastors refuse to perform alternative marriages in their chapels? Or when we teach our beliefs on marriage to our own children in conflict with public schools who would be required to teach alternative marriages in schools as mainstream? Or should we sit back and wait until churches lose tax-free protections for not complying with some new court-imposed civil right?

This is not an issue of gay rights. It is an issue of culture, tradition and faith for the vast majority of Americans vs. an attempt by a minority to create special civil rights for themselves. And these special civil-rights laws, if upheldby misguided judges who legislate from the bench, would surely be destructive to our present constitutional right to freedom of religion and will begin the corruption of a principle we hold sacred.

-- Steve Dockstader, Coolidge, Ariz.