by Editorial Board
The fair and just vote on Referendum 71 would be for “approved.”
The ballot measure affirms the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners as spelled out in SB 5688, passed in the 2009 legislative session by overwhelming majorities in both houses.
We expect that a majority of voters may agree with the Legislature that this is an issue of equal rights, not the “slippery slope” leading to legalized marriage between same-sex partners, as opponents claim.
Unfortunately, R-71 reflects one of the dangers in a democratic system; there is always the potential that a majority can be found that is willing to take away the rights of a minority.
The new civil union law was to have taken effect on July 26, but anti-gay rights groups such as Protect Marriage Washington were able to just barely get enough petition signatures to force the measure onto the ballot.
Checking the box on the ballot marked “approved” upholds the new state law. The “rejected” box means a voter opposes civil union rights for same-sex couples.
For too long good people have been marginalized over the question of their sexual orientation. It has also been one of the uglier sides of the so-called “culture wars,” driven by fear and the assumed right of some to sit in judgment of others’ lives.
Far from endangering “traditional marriage,” R-71 ensures that domestic partners will have the same rights as anyone to the joys — and burdens — of family life. That includes sharing in the benefits of a spouse’s employment such as health care, savings plans and the same income tax advantages enjoyed by married couples who file jointly.
The measure would also provide for domestic partnerships between older men and women for whom “traditional” marriage could mean significant changes in their financial situations.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a cultural and religious institution reaching back thousands of years, which inarguably makes it “traditional.” Most of the arguments being made against R-71 are based on religious and cultural grounds.
We simply disagree that allowing civil unions among persons of the same sex poses a danger to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Men and women through the ages have been quite capable of endangering their own marriages.
About 50 percent of all marriages in America end in divorce. The causes can include infidelity, alcohol and drug abuse, financial stress and, sometimes, just plain old incompatibility.
It is highly unlikely that denying the rights of same-sex couples will do anything to change that.
Vote “approved” on R-71, a measure that preserves the civil rights of many of our fellow citizens.
=========================================================================
Comments:
by: Duffy on October 26, 2009 - 09:06 AM | Comment # 15660
Well said. I am voting to approve Ref 71. I would like to address people who are scared by this or even unintentionally bigotted. This isn’t about your religious views, in America we have freedom of religion. This is about legal rights for couples. My son is gay, he makes me so proud every day. He is an amazing person and everyone who knows him will agree. He deserves the same rights as any straight person. What if it was your child?
------------------------------by: brexcavator on October 26, 2009 - 09:17 AM | Comment # 15662
the opposing views I have heard on this subject really crack me up. People are worried that this is not only a stepping stone to gay mairage, but also 3 way weddings, and .. ahem.. animal relationships. What a crock, let the gays have the same rights as us. this all rings so familiar to the civil rights era. people were so afraid to grant any rights to colored folks on the grounds that they were somehow less of a person, citizen, human, etc. than the whites. Same thing, differant victim. This does not affect anyne but the gays, if you think this has some impact on your mairage, then ou eed to do some thinking. your mairage is between you andyour spouce. It is no ones business but you and your spouce what happens between the two of you. Get over it, let them hae their rights, they are American citizens.
------------------------------by: melswife on October 28, 2009 - 04:17 PM | Comment # 15906
I find it disgraceful that this newspaper has not only accepted advertising dollars from the Reject 71 side, a view that they have editorilized against but they are having the reject side lie filled ads appear on the weblink for this article? What is up with that?
------------------------------by: mjstamps on October 31, 2009 - 09:56 PM | Comment # 16098
I beg to differ with brexcavator. Our esteemed gay legislators have publicly stated that this is just a stepping stone to marriage, that marriage is their ultimate goal.
Although about 50% of marriages end in divorce, studies show that the most ideal situation in which to raise children is within the confines of a family headed by their mother and father. This arrangement also benefits the state because stable families make for more responsible citizens.
You may call me bigoted, but that is just not true. People are free to make their own choices, but that does not mean that the state or individual citizens should have to endorse those choices when they are not beneficial to society as a whole, and many people disagree with them. In the long run gay marriage will not be good for society, (or domestic partnerships, civil unions, or whatever else you want to call it.)
------------------------------