Response to The Times editorial

The Times editorial “Promote Families: Approve Referendum 71” [Opinion, Oct. 4], continues to misrepresent the issue behind R-71.

The issue is about lesbians, gay men and heterosexual persons over age 62 to have legal rights now accorded to only married heterosexual persons. A family is a group of more than two persons who join together. Thus two lesbians or two gay men are not a family unless they are grouped by another lesbian or gay man, or have or obtain a child into the group as a result of a heterosexual birth by another couple.

For your paper to continue to promote a union by two lesbians or gay men, which is what most of their unions are, is intellectually dishonest. Simply because a small percentage of homosexuals may have a third person involved in their unit does not require that the rights of all two-person homosexuals or heterosexuals over age 62 should have all the benefits of marriage except for the actual legal marriage.

— Edward Jene Bell, Kirkland

Rally against those mocking marriage

If the citizens against R-71 really want to protect the meaning of marriage [“Stakes high in fight over gay rights,” page one, Oct. 4], their time and effort would be better served by rallying against the straights who make a mockery of that union.

Perhaps it is just too daunting to admit and address the high rate of physical and emotional abuse, and the infidelity and multiple divorce patterns that are rampant in our culture.

Talk about protecting our children.

— Judy Kutyna, Seattle

Opponents of R-71 selfish?

The Times Sunday front-page headline “Stakes high in fight over gay rights” is only partially correct.

The stakes are certainly high for the gay and lesbian community. If Referendum 71 is defeated, they lose an opportunity to gain the dignity, happiness and peace of mind that the rest of us take for granted.

They have much to lose.

In contrast, if it is approved, those who oppose extending rights to gays and lesbians have nothing at stake. Their marriages will not be threatened, their children will still be protected, the world will go on the same as always.

One word comes to mind to describe opponents to Referendum 71: selfish.

— David G. Gardner, Seattle

Our species will be just fine

For the life of me, I fail to understand how gay marriage could be a threat to traditional marriage.

The idea that gay relationships pose any threat to the survival of our species is hard to defend when we have some 6 or 7 billion humans crowded on the planet, demonstrating the awesome power of human reproduction.

— C. Wight Reade, Seattle

Freedom of self determination

Our country was founded on the equality of all men and women.

Why should that change based upon the sexuality of the individuals?

Impeding the rights of a select group based upon their sexual orientation is in direct violation of the founding principle of the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed to all according to the Declaration of Independence.

No other minority group has their rights left up to majority vote. Our Founding Fathers intended the protection of all natural rights.

The constitution is based upon six basic principles including individual rights. All people should be free to speak and act on their beliefs without fear. Ultimately all people should have the freedom of self determination.

— Kim Driscoll, Bellevue