A swell idea for Judge Settle

The Seattle Times editorial "The good fight" from Sept. 12 agreed with state Attorney General Rob McKenna that names of those who sign referendums may be considered a public record, and should be released. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle has disagreed and blocked the release. I have a suggestion that may afford ground for compromise between McKenna and Judge Settle.

Why not make the names public -- but only after the November election? The actions of those who originally sought the names suggest their interest in the information is not simply public-spirited support of open government, but political intimidation and possibly personal harassment. This could invite vandalism or even physical assault, as occurred recently in California in connection with Proposition 8.

Allowing the release of the names would fulfill the state's commitment to open government. Delaying the release until after the election would defuse the possibility of the information being used to plan attacks on supporters of Referendum 71.

As the editorial said, "Menacing, threatening behavior is unlawful and must be punished." That is all well and good, but release of the names before the election is a temptation to such behavior, and also may have a chilling effect on the referendum process.

Why encourage it? Why not take away the incentive for such behavior by putting off the release of the names?

-- Randall West, Edmonds

Signing a petition should not be taken lightly

Judge Settle's decision about petition signatures being protected under the First Amendment is an alarming action. Signing a petition is a lawmaking action as explained by Secretary of State Sam Reed, and the anticipated threats and harassment cannot be the reason for this ruling.

If I put an unpopular campaign sign in my yard, I may experience threats and harassment too, but I do have the protection of law if someone takes my sign and tries to hit me with it. People who put their name on a petition are doing more than putting an opinion out in the public arena, they are taking the responsibility of a lawmaker. Because petitions make all voters have to consider a revision of law, it is my right as a voter to know who is forcing this issue onto the ballot. I may have to contact Olympia to request this, but it is clearly a matter of public record, and I should not have to provide a compelling public interest.

No matter what you think of R-71, we all have a compelling public interest in keeping the petitions records completely open.

-- Maggie Corrigan, Seattle

Getting it right, the first time around

Jon Hed said signatures on petitions should be private for the same reason voters' identifications are secret, ["A signature, like a vote, is private," Northwest Voices, Opinion, Sept. 12]. Wrong. We voters need to know who wants to influence us and why. Revealing who buys an argument or not is an invasion of privacy that only helps the influence peddlers.

In "Signing also supports direct democracy," Todd Beuke said people who initiate referendums just like direct democracy. In other words, they prefer to spend taxes at the ballot box to second-guess our representatives. Please Beuke, teach your students how government works, what it costs, and how to persuade our representatives to pass the right laws the first time. We do not need more ignorant voters who just want lower taxes.

-- James Bruner, Oak Harbor

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

Have some patience: gays' tactics only hurting cause

It's time for the gay-rights activists (including the "questioning") to take a deep breath, sit down and relax.

They want it all, and they want it now. They refuse to take measure of the political landscape. They decline to delay gratification. They are as persistent as an ill-tempered poodle. They just keep pushing, no matter the cost to our nation.

As an example, they're not satisfied with President Obama's recent decision ["Obama's effort to help gay couples falls flat," page one, June 18] to extend partnership rights to federal employees in same-sex relationships.

But Obama has more on his plate than any of his predecessors: two wars, a national economy in crisis, closing Gitmo, restraining North Korea and Iran, managing Pakistan, tax reform, health-care overhaul, salvaging America's image abroad, a Supreme Court confirmation, the legal mess left by Bush and roadless wilderness areas.

Gays are, to put it bluntly, small fish. Your clamorous, omnipresent pressure on the Obama administration is both distracting and counterproductive. Just back off. Your time will come ... and soon.

What's more, your movement doesn't play fairly. I give you the Seattle Public Utilities case ["Showdown over gays' privacy vs. public rights," NWWednesday, June 17]. A self-acclaimed conservative Christian and "Caucasian with no African-American blood," is requesting that the city provide him copies of e-mails and other communications relevant to meetings of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual, Questioning Employees and Friends group.

Yet, the group is opposing the request on the basis that it might subject its members to harassment and/or retaliation. Give us a break. In a much-publicized effort ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2], the gay movement is seeking to make public the names of all Referendum 71 signatories.

Why does the gay movement wish to publicize details about signatories? The first thing that comes to mind is to discourage citizens from signing the petition. The second? That would be to subject signatories to the same kind of harassment and intimidation the Seattle City Light LGBTQ seeks to avoid.

You can't have it both ways. Or can you? Sorry, I agree to a large extent with the gay agenda, but I hate your tactics.

-- John M. Clark, Aberdeen

Open-records law isn't for harassing gays

City attorneys who are ready to hand over the names and personal information of city employees active in a city gay-rights group to conservative, anti-gay employee Phil Irvin should think again. Do they really want to use the open-records law to aid and abet an anti-gay zealot in harassing and terrorizing gay city employees?

Irvin claims he only wants the information to start his own group of former gays and their allies. Since when do you need a list of gay employees to start a former gay group unless you plan to harass its members?

The gay-rights group uses city meeting rooms, as do other many other employee-based organizations. This does not make it in "the public interest" to ignore the U.S. Constitution, which protects employee privacy rights, their right to organize a group and keep membership lists and minutes private.

We have seen in the past few weeks a doctor murdered by an anti-abortion fanatic, a black guard killed in the Holocaust museum by a lifelong racist and anti-Semite and the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church exposing their hatred of gays, women, blacks and Jews to Seattle churches, synagogues and Garfield High School.

Our city must stand up against the right wing, not support its unholy crusades.

-- Doreen McGrath, Seattle

'Outing' petition signers interferes with democratic process

Your objection to Referendum 71 ["Gay rights, yes; intimidation, no," Opinion, editorial, June 8] rests on the unavailability to petition signers of the 114 pages of copy in Senate Bill 5688 signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Does it occur to you that, in the interest of public service, The Seattle Times could very easily publish these pages? Instead, you would force the citizens to rely on your brief summary of the bill.

I think you missed the main issue of this referendum process. There is an attack mounted by a certain gay and lesbian faction that promises to punish petition signers by "outing" them -- making their names public. This is a direct attack on every citizen's right to participate in the referendum process.

I intend to sign the petition just to preserve this fundamental right. I hope the petition will get the required 120,577 signatures despite the threat of "outing" and your editorial that it should fail.

-- David F. Hamp, Mercer Island

Double standard evident in gay-privacy, public-record debate

I want to applaud Philip Irvin ["Showdown over gays' privacy vs. public rights," NWWednesday, June 17] for his pursuit of doing the right thing in this era of politically correct agendas.

There are probably many individuals who are taking exception to his endeavors, but I am not one of them. For weeks, all we have been hearing or reading about is the gay and lesbian communities' tactics to "out" those individuals who sign the Referendum 71 petition ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2], but now it's offensive to them and an invasion of their privacy when the shoe happens to fit on the other foot.

Is there some type of one-sided argument in this equation, or is the reciprocity factor now appearing to level the playing field and the gay and lesbian community may be uncomfortable because Irvin has exercised his legitimate right for equal treatment?

Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr is absolutely correct that use of public funds, facilities and resources constitutes the requirement and necessity for public disclosure of those who use or benefit from public assets. As the story stated, Carr "would prefer not to disclose the names of meeting attendees," but state law is very clear.

I must also agree that multiculturalism is not an adverse issue. I promote cultural diversity, to a point, when it's clearly a cultural issue. Cultural diversity and "lifestyle" choices are entirely detached from one another. One is part of your lineage and heritage, the other is a personal choice. But it would seem that certain groups and individuals would equate one with the other and that with enough rhetoric, the distinction between cultural diversity and lifestyle diversity would somehow magically disappear.

-- Ric Thomas, East Snohomish County

Rights for gays needn't go to public vote

I have read most of the letters to the editor regarding Referendum 71 on your Web site. They absolutely show why unpopular laws must be passed by legislatures that have respectful discussion, hear testimony from people whose daily lives will be affected and listen to differing opinions showing at least two sides to an argument. As most of us remember, the Civil Rights Bill would never have been passed if it had gone to the voters. I believe it was a law that is right and correct and takes into account real people's lives.

It's very interesting-- and scary as hell -- that so many people think there is something to be feared and hated about granting not-quite-equal rights to 10 percent of the U.S. population who are currently not allowed to marry. I am simply unable to understand why there is any concern or question about adults' abilities to decide if they are ready to marry someone they love and to commit to all the rights and responsibilities represented by that decision.

Please find me someone who can have a civil conversation about what fears are dredged up by the idea of my niece marrying the woman she loves. What on earth difference does it make to John or Jane Q. Public up the street or across town? If it makes a difference, why is that? If it makes some kind of difference, someone needs to find more to keep busy -- how about volunteering in a homeless shelter or a food bank?

I don't really expect to get any positive response from those who have written the hateful and wrongheaded comments online. They have been deluded into thinking this is something on which to expend their energy and attention.

-- Barbara Clark-Elliott, Renton

Who could oppose gay rights for ill boy's family?

Thank you for printing the story of Zyreal Oliver-Chandler ["Waiting for his future," NWMonday, June 15], the 7-year-old African-American boy afflicted with sickle-cell anemia.

While the story's main theme was the lack of minority-population participation in bone-marrow registries and how that adversely affects individuals in those minority communities like Zyreal, there were two very important subthemes coursing in the story.

One was that Zyreal is being raised in a loving, stable family consisting of two gay dads and another adopted sibling. Why supporters of Referendum 71, which would rescind Washington state's recently passed "everything but marriage" domestic-partnership law, would intentionally harm families like the Oliver-Chandler's is beyond my understanding and reeks of bigotry.

The other subtheme challenges the higher level of homophobia in the African-American community. What would Rev. Ken Hutcherson, the anti-gay, black preacher say to Zyreal about the only two parents he has known?

-- Leo N. Egashira, Seattle

Obama not delivering change
on 'don't ask, don't tell'

I'm sure I am not the only gay veteran who welcomes your urging of President Obama to take action on his campaign promise to end the outdated "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the U.S. military ["Don't dawdle on 'don't ask, don't tell,'" editorial, June 15].

Not only is he not taking action, but the U.S. Justice Department, under his authority, is actually defending policy in a case filed in California. Even more offensive to the LGBT community is the Obama Justice Department's defense of the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton and promised to be repealed by President Obama.

So many of us had hopes of change; change from following public opinion to leading it; change from the hypocrisy of telling people what they want to hear on the campaign trail then doing what is convenient when holding the reigns of power.

Clinton thought his midnight signature on both of these anti-gay, discriminatory pieces of legislation would pass with time, but they haunt him still.

We had hoped President Obama would not only have the courage to do what is right but the intelligence to learn from history. We shall continue to hope, and we shall continue to remember.

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Westboro picketers are the real 'out-of-state nuts'

It was strange reading about the picketing of Garfield High School by the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas ["Haters, meet Hanna," NWWednesday, June 10]. But why didn't Danny Westneat's column bear the appropriate headline, which, as it happens, was sitting on the opposite side of the same page: "Out-of-state nuts touch raw nerve" [NWWednesday, June 10]?

--Charles Martin, West Seattle

Gay rights opposition deserves to be 'outed'

I would like to thank The Times for publishing the very enlightening news story "Online tactics questioned in gay-rights campaign" [NWSunday, June 7]. This article is about taking advantage of the right to access public information and publishing the findings on the Internet.

And it's specifically about using this right to "out" those who sign petitions against equal rights. "WhoSigned.org would make it easy to find out where someone lives and that makes some who might sign the petition worry their families, homes and businesses could be targeted. Others have said 'outing' them on a Web site could jeopardize job opportunities," read The Times' story.

As a card-carrying domestic partner, registered with the state of Washington, I found it interesting to learn of yet another cry of "unfair tactics" by the opposition to gay rights. The fact that the LGBT community is no longer willing to hide in the closet must be truly appalling. We are now free to use a medium (the Internet) to speak of our cause without being censored.

For the major part of my work life, everyone in the LGBT community lived under the threat that he or she could be "outed" in the workplace and be summarily fired, no questions asked, no excuse given. That has changed. In most states, the law protects everyone against that kind of discrimination.

So, if we have freedom for all, then the freedom to access public records and "out" those who want to put the LGBT community back in the closet, is part of that freedom.

-- Robert Teichman, Tulalip

Editorial at odds with position on access to information

The Times' editorial in favor of not revealing the identity of those who sign state referendum petitions, including Referendum 71 to overturn equal rights and responsibilities for domestic partnerships, is at odds with The Time's position in favor of providing information to voters about legislators' activities.

When voters seek to enact a statute by initiative or repeal a statute by referendum, voters place themselves in the position of the Legislature. The Times would not countenance secret legislative sponsorship and should not favor secret legislative sponsorship through petition.

Under current law, petition signatures are public. The revelation The Times opposes is a result of technological change that makes it possible for voters to garner the benefits of the current openness requirement.

The fundamental reason to oppose secrecy for petition signers is because legislating should occur only through a process that requires participants to demonstrate the courage of their convictions by public statement (i.e., signing the petition). Just as The Times is in favor of knowing the names of the initiators of a petition (and revealing those names in the newspaper for the benefit of voters), it should be in favor of voters' access to the names of petition signers. Secrecy corrodes democracy.

-- Bob Shirley, Olympia

Divisive tactic is the wrong invitation to dialogue

I am a registered voter and a member of the gay community. I care deeply about domestic-partnership rights being upheld. However, I am also disturbed by WhoSigned. org's plan to publish the names of those who sign the Referendum 71 petition ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2].

This is an inflammatory action regarding a highly emotional topic. It attempts to intimidate people by making them think twice about exercising their legal right for fear that they may have an uninvited visitor at home or an unwanted conversation in line at the grocery store. This is not the sort of invitation to dialogue our community should be promoting.

Common justifications -- it's all public record anyway; it's being done elsewhere; we just want to talk; our intentions are harmless -- mean nothing balanced against the gravity of condoning political intimidation as an acceptable tool.

I urge WhoSigned. org to find a less divisive way to encourage discussion between the gay community and our neighbors.

Our community is commonly accused of holding values detrimental to the well-being of society. To Brian Murphy of WhoSigned.org I say: Do not bless our critics with an act that appears to justify that conclusion.

-- Christen F. Kaufman, University Place

Naming signers a move typical of uncivilized thugs

So members of WhoSigned.org and KnowThyNeighbor.org want to publish Referendum 71 signers' names, eh? I say bring it on. I hope they have enough money to handle all the bullying, harassment, trespassing and similar lawsuits that will be filed against them.

What they are doing is nothing less than what Nazi/Gestapo/KGB groups did to silence dissent. Remember, while the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees "freedom of speech," it does not guarantee the "freedom to be heard" or the "freedom to silence those you disagree with."

Simply put, WhoSigned.org wants nothing less than forced censorship of views and opinions they don't like, which is what Third-World tyrants, dictators, despots, spoiled brats and similar unsavory individuals and groups do.

These groups instead should sponsor a competing referendum for their side and let the Washington voters determine the issue. Is it because they know their side may not win at the ballot box that they behave like uncivilized, Third-World thugs instead?

-- Ken Simmons, Auburn

Expanding some legal rights while limiting others

Despite their hollow protests otherwise, the WhoSigned.org zealots who threaten to publish the names of voters who sign Referendum 71 are indeed attempting to intimidate voters ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2]. For a group that claims to support greater rights and freedoms for all, they hypocritically seek to destroy the rights of others --freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion.

Personally, I make it my practice to sign any initiative or referendum petition that I stumble across whether or not I intend to vote for it. This is because I believe in the power of the ballot box and the freedom that is demonstrated by the initiative or referendum process.

Signing the petition does not necessarily imply support, so why exactly are they "outing" signers? They admit to hoping the "outing" will cause personal shaming or shunning. Do they not see the irony? Their tactics are causing people who would never have signed to now make it a point to sign --not exactly the result intended.

One underlying premise of our Constitution is tolerating and accepting others whether or not you agree with them or even find them offensive. Homosexuals are not the least bit offensive to me, but the tactics of WhoSigned.org are. Greater rights for all? Nope, only people who agree with them.

Hmm ... one group of people trying to limit the legal rights of others they disagree with. Kettle, kettle, you're black!

-- Jennifer Robertson, Bellevue

Mike Groll / The Associated Press

Gay-rights advocate Matthew Arnold-Lloyd of Albany, N.Y., right, meets nose to nose with an unidentified man opposed to gay marriage during a rally outside the Capitol in Albany on April 28.

Declining to sign in opposition of fanatics

Editor, The Times:

I was astounded to read Larry Stickney of Protect Marriage Washington chastise the gay-rights group, WhoSigned.org, for attempting to publish the names of petition signers for Referendum 71 ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2].

Stickney accused the group of "employing hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics," to support their interests. He is a pot calling the kettle black. His right-wing Christian groups have employed these same tactics for years.

As a married 50-year-old heterosexual female, I have no reservations supporting same-sex marriages. Marriage is not a Christian institution; it is a legal contract developed to protect women and children from abuse and abandonment by men and to keep them off welfare.

I have worked in several social-service settings with children in need. I have seen horrible neglect and abuse at the hands of heterosexual couples -- some married, many calling themselves Christians. I have also been blessed to witness children flourish while being raised by loving gay couples.

There is enough hate in this world. Why should we oppose the love between two people of the same sex? Frankly, I would be happy to have my name published for signing the "Decline to Sign Referendum 71" pledge in opposition to fanatics like Stickney.

-- Vivian R. Queija, Seattle

Not afraid to be "outed" by gay-rights groups

I understand that homosexual groups (WhoSigned.org, Equal Rights Washington and KnowThyNeighbor.org) are creating a list of those who sign a petition they dislike, to "out" them. This is typical of hate-filled, intimidating attacks of the homosexual lobby. They seek to "embarrass" signers of Referendum 71 by publishing their names.

Well, they don't have to await the successful acceptance of Referendum 71 and the resulting release of signers' names by the secretary of state to put my name on their list. Larry Stickney, please tell me where I can sign the petition. WhoSigned.org, put my name at the top of that illustrious list right now.

I intend to sign it the first chance I get!

-- Scott Baumann, Bellevue

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Gov. Chris Gregoire is surrounded by politicians, press and onlookers last month as she signs one of three bills that gives registered gay couples in Washington state everything but marriage. Referendum 71 attempts to overturn the 2009 Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill.

Naming signers publicly exposes personal beliefs

Editor, The Times:

We are apparently beginning our journey toward fascism ["Group wants to name names," NWTuesday, June 2]. I don't know exactly when freedom died, but we are now apparently all required to think the same thoughts and believe the same things under threat of being publicly exposed and ridiculed for our personal beliefs.

I sincerely hope the ACLU speaks out against the actions of these groups just as vigorously as they whined about the possibility that the government might be monitoring us when we checked out "Terrorism for Dummies" from the local library.

-- Les Iwamasa, Seattle

Heterosexual divorce, abuse -- what is there to protect?

Larry Stickney of Protect Marriage Washington casts himself as victim of bigotry and hatred? Oh, really?

Isn't this the same Larry Stickney who respects the "sanctity of marriage" so much that he has been married three times? Does he know what "for better or worse" means? Does he know what a sacred vow is?

Isn't this the country where more than 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and where spousal and child abuse is rampant?

Just whom are we protecting the "sacred institution of marriage" from?

-- Jim Conchie, Seattle

Group notifying signers, fair and square

Intimidation often requires that the intimidated is put in a situation that she or he cannot get out of: a trap. Traps are sprung by surprise.

Public notice has been given to anyone on either side of the Referendum 71 issue about what WhoSigned.org is planning. Anyone can figure out how to avoid being intimidated or even approached about signing a public document. If you don't want to have a conversation with your neighbor, or you fear intimidation, it is simple -- don't sign.

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Same-sex couple Shawn Higgins, right, and his partner Robert Franco embrace as they stand on Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco following the California Supreme Court's 6-1 decision to uphold Proposition 8, which makes it illegal for same-sex couples to marry in California.

Ruling is government-sponsored discrimination

Editor, The Times:

Tuesday, for the first time in the history of this country, the justices of the California Supreme Court publicly endorsed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as legal and constitutional ["California ruling stings gay-marriage backers," page one, May 27], and they should be ashamed to look their children in the eyes when they go home.

A founding principle of this country was once that every man and woman had the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no matter what path, lifestyle or religion they followed toward that goal. The fact that a slim majority of prejudiced voters from the so-called moral majority decide that labeling the LGBT community as "abominations" makes it all right to strip them of their rights does not make it legal or right.

I am a heterosexual 47-year-old man who will proudly stand side-by-side with the LGBT community to fight for its rights, because when one group of people can be devalued and dehumanized, then eventually we can all be.

To President Obama, "agent of change": Are we all still equal in the eyes of the law or not, and do you intend to tolerate government-sponsored discrimination?

We need change now.

-- Skot Pierson, Seattle

Which rights will be stripped next?

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutionally protected right to be legally married. One year later, the same court allowed to stand an initiative that stripped same-sex couples of this constitutionally protected right.

Now that the court has decreed that a simple majority can eliminate constitutionally protected rights, who will be next? Should the people of California reverse Loving v. Virginia and declare that marriage may exist only between people of the same race? Or maybe return to the days when Latinos where prohibited from owning property in the state? Might they establish a state religion and make it a criminal action to worship in any fashion other than what is allowed by law?

The door has been opened. Are we prepared for what will inevitably walk through next?

-- Gregory Gadow, Seattle

Europe walks America's talk

Musing over the latest triumph in the apparently endless efforts of Americans to deny equal rights to other Americans, I wonder how it is that Europeans, with centuries of authoritarian rule in their histories, walk the American talk so much more easily than we do.

-- John Medlin, Seattle

All families deserve equal rights

I refuse to sign Referendum 71. As a lesbian and a friend to other homosexuals, I believe it is vital that we keep the rights given through the 2009 Domestic Partnership Bill.

My heterosexual parents are against this referendum as well.

They taught me to be accepting of all people long before I came out to myself. My mother's best friend has a longtime partner and children. I spent a significant time with her family as well as with the families of my parent's heterosexual friends throughout my childhood. From my experience, there is nothing extremely different between them.

My parents and my homosexual and heterosexual friends have been wonderful examples of families. It is very important to me for all of us to be equal. I grew up knowing no other way.

-- Emily McDade, Seattle

An infringement on marriage tradition

I do not wholeheartedly support the Democratic or Republican parties. Not just Republicans have an issue with the cause of homosexual marriage ["Why would the GOP rail against a law that fosters stable families?" Opinion, Lance Dickie column, May 15].

This whole issue is aggravating to me, and not because I am a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. To me, marriage is a tradition of heterosexual human beings. Why is it OK to forcibly alter someone's tradition?

I do not think it would be right to impinge on a Chinese tradition, a Muslim tradition or an African-American tradition just because the tradition does not fit my wants and needs but is attractive to me. That would be ludicrous!

Marriage is a tradition that just happens to be supported by legal rights. Traditions are sometimes ancient, and important to those who establish them.

Traditions are not discriminatory in the fashion that some people are trying to pervert the stance of those who want to preserve them. To call people who value an important tradition "haters" or "bigots" is a bullying tactic and they should be ashamed of themselves for it. Granted there definitely are haters and bigots who oppose gay marriage. I am not one of them no matter how you try to twist it.

I know my own heart and my heart says I couldn't care less what legal rights gay couples or anyone else strive to obtain, but I do care that because someone covets one of my extremely valuable traditions, they think they should have the right to forcibly alter it.

Establish your own traditions and with them, the laws to support them if need be. However, it would really be nice if you would keep your hands off mine.

-- Becky Balch, Arlington

Crumbling foundations of family and society

Marriage is the open commitment of spouses to one another, to their society and, for many, to their creator. What they commit to is the care and protection of each other and the care, protection, guidance, good behavior and education of their offspring.

The family is the basic building-block of society. In contrast, cohabitation mentioned in The Times ["Out-of-wedlock births near 40%," News, May 14] as the growing norm is written on the wind. Gays and lesbians understand this and are fighting for the right to marry.

It is no accident that those suffering the misfortune out-of-wedlock birth are greatly overrepresented in prisons and as dependents on need-based welfare programs. They are disproportionately underachievers in our educational systems. We and our politicians delude ourselves in pretending the welfare state can replace the family as the foundation of society. In recent decades, as the family has eroded, we have poured fortunes into schools, all manner of welfare programs and prisons. We have and will continue to have nothing to show for it.

As the foundation of family crumbles, so must the society upon which it rests.

-- Bruce Hand, Medina

Letters show a lack of understanding

The letters published on the Northwest Voices blog [seattletimes.com, Opinion] on May 13 show some lack of understanding about the issues raised: equal rights and hate crimes.

Lee Fowble of Edmonds writes that hate-crime legislation is unfair and unwarranted, making the erroneous argument that hate-crime legislation is about assigning greater value to some people's lives than others.

This is not what hate-crime legislation is about. It is about terrorism. Attacking a person because of his or her identity is an attack on that identity; the attack terrorizes the entire group of people. It is this act of terrorism that merits the higher degree of punishment.

Frank King of Mill Creek chastises The Times for suggesting that we avoid signature-gatherers for Referendum 71, because apparently extending equal rights to everyone challenges his beliefs. If his belief is that people should not be given equal rights because of how God made them, then the majority of us with a sense of fairness should rightfully avoid the signature-gatherers, and The Times has a First Amendment right to so suggest.

-- Roger Burton, Bothell

Hate crimes have broad, toxic effects

Lee Fowble misunderstands how hate-crime laws work. Punishment is not harsher for these crimes because of the minority status of the victims, but because of the bigoted motives of the perpetrator; the laws focus strictly on those motives. This is why, if a straight person is assaulted because the perp mistakenly believed he was gay, it's still a hate crime.

Why harsher penalties for these crimes? Because they cause greater harm than their parallel, underlying crime. The victims include not merely the immediate victim, but the members of the broader target community to which the victim belongs. Moreover, these crimes have a broadly toxic effect, particularly on minority relations, that the larger society has a real interest in punishing harshly.

So a swastika painted on a synagogue is not treated like ordinary graffiti on an underpass, and a violent gay-bashing assault in which the perps seek out gay victims is not treated as a mere bar fight.

-- David Neiwert, Seattle

Supporters simply defending beliefs

How dare The Times tell its readers to avoid people who are collecting signatures for Referendum 71 ["An unnecessary campaign against gay partners," Opinion, editorial, May 11]. What a stupid thing to say!

The signature-gatherers do not have any contagious disease. They are not aliens from space. In fact, they are up to their elbows in democracy. As the United States is a representative republic, it is our duty to protest when our beliefs are challenged. The supporters of Referendum 71 are defending their beliefs. What's more, if the supporters of gay partnerships gain a victory at the ballot box, the opposition will have to be quiet.

Bring on the debate and the vote; then and only then will it be supported by the people. I think The Seattle Times had better take a look at its words; when free speech goes, so goes the country. It may not be easy or pleasant, but this is free speech.

The paper certainly can support the gay movement in Washington state, but seems to me there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

-- Frank King, Mill Creek

Economy shouldn't influence democracy

So somehow bad economic times requires us to forget about balloting against a very divisive issue like gay partnership and marriage? I think not!

The Times says not to put the state through another rendition of the culture war. You are forgetting that this "culture war" was started by the gay community. We are just trying to hold our own.

Sure, young people (indoctrinated by public schools) favor gay marriage. But when have young people been wise?

Our culture is founded on moral values that the left keeps wanting to redefine. This will end. The pendulum will swing back toward the right. This is a fight worth every bit of effort. To my last breath I will fight against the idea that it is OK for two men or two women to push their behavior in our faces.

-- Christopher Van Auken, Buckley

Value equality? Decline to sign

It seems as though we are still living in the days of Greek mythology. Like Sisyphus, the stone of equality in marriage laws for all Washingtonians had been pushed near the summit of realization through the state Senate's passage of Senate Bill 5688. But just as weary activists were ready to celebrate this victory, as monumental as the civil rights struggle of 40 years ago, along comes another far-right effort to send the stone of equality crashing back down into the abyss of bigotry and hate ["Religious right split on push to undo gay benefits," [News, May 5].

A coalition of "values voters" have filed Referendum 71, which will place SB 5688 before the voters in November. Simply by filing, the right has succeeded in delaying enactment of this expansion of domestic-partnership rights to all areas of state law until at least July 26, the deadline for gathering enough signatures.

For those concerned with marriage equality, there is only one strategy -- decline to sign 71. Don't let the forces of hate and bigotry win another round. When the paid signature gatherer put Referendum 71 before you, be polite, but firmly decline: "No, I don't agree with your petition. All Americans deserve equal protection under the law."

-- David Palmer, Des Moines

Hold taxpayer-funded churches accountable

The government loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue by granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. Translation: We, the citizens of the U.S., pay hundreds of billions of dollars more in taxes so that churches, mosques, temples, etc. can exist in a much-favored tax-exempt environment. The rational here is that they are supposed to do good for society by engaging in activities that help people, unite people and incite the will of others to do even more good and help even more people.

Instead, religious organizations consistently and predictably have lead the most extravagant and expensive anti-gay campaigns in history for the sole purpose of harming people in our society. There is absolutely no benefit gained by a straight person when a gay person is harmed.

We should all know that zero good comes from hurting people. Churches should know this better than anybody, and they do not because so many of them are now largely political entities.

The IRS needs to take action in its role as our fiscal agent. Unless a church, or any other tax-exempt organization, can show that they are causing good for society -- or at the very least not causing harm -- they should not enjoy their taxpayer-subsidized existence.

We are paying, in more ways than one, for the actions of the religious institutions that we voluntarily and involuntarily support. Every single taxpayer supports every single church. It's time for some realistic accountability.

-- James Lenhardt, 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

Catholics: Speak out against injustice

Most of my friends know that I love my former parish, St. Patrick's of Seattle. When I decided to leave the Catholic Church, it was with great regret, but I could not accept the actions of the greater Church.

I still try to practice the teachings of Jesus Christ. He says one of his two most important commandments is, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I feel that is also an important creed of human rights. I cannot read The Seattle Times' article ["Religious right split on push to undo gay benefits," page one, May 5] and explain an acceptable relationship of the referendum to the teachings of Jesus and to human rights.

Some may say that having left the Church, I have no right to speak up against Church actions. My religious belief does not relieve me of the duty to speak out when I see injustice. I believe that Jesus requires that we not only do not sign this bigoted referendum, we must also urge our friends to not sign.

By sending this e-mail, I am putting my action where my mouth is. I urge all Catholic people, from the archbishop to those of us who have fallen away from the Church, to do the same.

-- Jack Smith, Seattle

Ironies of silencing the silent

Irony is apparent in the unfortunate success of the few in Snoqualmie Valley who, through vocal protest, sought to squelch student participation in the Day of Silence (DOS) ["Schools to observe 'Silence' for gays," NW Friday, April 17].

Within a Trojan-horse claim of disruption to learning, motivated by personal beliefs counter to the mission of the DOS, their vocal protest ironically succeeded by silencing those students who chose school absence, or declined to participate in DOS, in order to avoid the conflict.

Further irony is evident in the SnoValley Star newspaper quote of Mount Si student Trey Botten who, in arguing to eliminate the DOS. because of the alleged conflict it causes, said, "There never should be a time in a public school setting where students should feel divided at the school." This is, ironically, the everyday experience of gay, lesbian and other students whose color, creed or preference lies outside the dominant paradigm.

The student leaders and faculty advisers of the DOS. are to be lauded for staying staunch and true to the principles of civility and inclusion at the core of their mission. It is our American legacy and responsibility as members of our excellent democracy to actively assert the place of all in society.

And thus the final, sweet irony: Through vocal protestations to silence the Day of Silence, our collective awareness of and sensitivity to student harassment and discrimination continues to rise.

-- Mike McMann, North Bend

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

A bad idea from the start

As a Vietnam-era veteran, I served with combat veterans, cared for Navy and Marine Corps casualties, and saw firsthand the ravages of war. I was young and patriotic, and proudly served a country I respected. All that changed forever when, shortly before I was discharged, a corpsman who had returned from the front lines only months before was given a bad-conduct discharge after being photographed leaving a gay bar.

He kept his personal life private, so those of us who knew him did not know he was gay.
He had returned from combat with a Bronze Star he received for pulling 26 wounded men off a hill under fire. He was quiet and humble and one of the best corpsmen I knew. Even to survive that kind of bravery was a monumental feat, and he considered it "just part of the job."

The bad-conduct discharge robbed him of his veterans benefits and left him feeling shame for exercising his God-given right to be himself. He was in civilian clothes, off base and off duty when he was caught.

When the policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" was adopted, I knew that unsuspecting gays and lesbians would join the military believing that if they were discreet, they could serve their country and expect to be treated fairly.

This policy was a bad idea from the start. It allows for persecution and discrimination in a setting that lends itself to cruelty. This has to stop.

In addition to the obvious humanitarian reasons, the cost of training and then dismissing qualified, honorable and able men and women is an unconscionable misuse of millions -- perhaps billions -- of dollars of the military budget. Perhaps this money could be better spent on safety equipment to protect those who are willing to risk their lives to serve their country.

-- Kathryn Katz, 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

Cut the ancient anchor preventing full democracy and pride

I believe the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is as outdated as the Vietnam-era G.I. Bill, which has now been modified. We need to cut this anchor, which continues to keep us from being a fully democratic country.

I was a sergeant in the Army Infantry in Iraq and I was able to do my job, even though I am gay. Some of my Army buddies had known about it, but did not care.

I led men in Iraq safely and brought them all home, not because I am gay or straight, but because I am just a man like any other human being.

Let's lift this ancient ban and allow anyone to serve and still be able to keep their pride at the same time.

-- Ricky Mirabal, Renton

Degrading our capability as a 21st-century nation

I am a Vietnam-era veteran. I served in the United States Army Security Agency as a battalion legal specialist for the 1 year, 11 months and 16 days I was overseas.

During this time, I saw examples of discrimination against good soldiers by lousy officers as a matter of official policy. Not only was this discrimination rampant, it was not enforced equally. One gay-enlisted man was sent to the stockade where he was raped; another gay officer was quietly sent home. Both of these men were good soldiers.

It is time that this type of policy be changed!

Being gay is not, in itself, reason for us to say that a man or woman cannot serve our great nation with pride and dignity.

Anti-gay policy is generally supported by people who have never served. Any politician who supports this policy does not belong in a position of authority, unless he or she has had the honor of actively serving our country in the military and seen what this policy does to degrade our capability as a nation in the 21st century.

When I was serving, blacks were still second-grade soldiers. I am not gay; I am decorated and honorably discharged, proud to have served.

I only wish I were young enough to serve again.

-- Mel Nordberg, Seattle

Dishonoring men of honor

As a Vietnam-era veteran, I witnessed discrimination against some excellent and committed military personnel. In fact, one of my childhood friends was booted out of the Air Force because he was gay.

This happened after he had served 18 years in the Air Force. He lost all the years of his service and was not allowed to complete the two years needed to qualify him for retirement.

This was very unfair treatment for a person who served this country with honor.

-- Daniel Spraggins, Edmonds

Serving without fear of nonjudicial punishment

It is time to repeal the U.S military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gay and lesbian soldiers to openly serve their country without fear of nonjudicial punishment, caused by his or her sexual preference.

-- Arthur Hall, Bothell

Proving our military is professional and mature

I strongly support a bill offered by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calf., that would do away with "don't ask, don't tell." There's good reason to reverse this policy.

First and foremost, fighting the danger to our country that we are, we cannot afford to dismiss any qualified, honorable and able members of our military.

For instance, military intelligence is constantly short-handed when it comes to translators. And yet, hundreds of translators have been dismissed since the policy was enacted, including many who speak Arabic, Persian, Pashto and other languages that could help our military intelligence protect our troops and America.

Additionally, at a time when our military is so overextended, allowing members of the military to serve openly, without being discharged, will alleviate the strain so many of our service members feel from repeated deployments.

Our military is professional and mature. Changing the policy will not affect how service members do their jobs or the military's overall cohesiveness.

In fact, it only will make our military stronger.

-- Donna Mansfield, Kirkland

Alleviating burden of being overstretched and overtaxed

The burden of duty placed on the military and their families could be averted if we stop this nonsense and allow competent people to serve our country.

America can no longer dismiss qualified and able members of the military because of their sexual orientation. This is a privacy issue, and we can no longer continue on this path, especially now that our military is so overstretched and overtaxed.

Changing the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" will make us stronger not weaker. We all love this country.

-- Julie Burrell, Lake Forest Park

Tolerance creates a positive environment

If you were a manager of a company would you fire someone because they are black, a woman or Christian? How about someone who is gay or lesbian?

In 34 states across America, it is completely legal to fire someone just for being lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) identified. It's sad something someone can't control that has nothing to do with their job performance can get them fired.

Even if an employer has a policy "protecting" LGBT employees, it doesn't mean employees of the company won't hear degrading and homophobic remarks.

Workplace discrimination should not be tolerated and legal action needs to be taken. There needs to be a federal law protecting LGBT Americans from being fired for their sexual orientation. Some large companies don't even have workplace-discrimination policies. Out of all the Fortune 500 companies, only 328 have a nondiscrimination policy in place.

Nondiscrimination training should also be required by companies with a focus on LGBT tolerance. Some say this is a hindrance to freedom of personal beliefs, but I believe tolerance doesn't cause anyone to have to think a certain way; it causes a positive work environment for all employees.

-- Henk Meyers, Tacoma