April 13, 2012 in Opinion


Letters policy

The Spokesman-Review invites original letters of no more than 200 words on topics of public interest. Unfortunately, we don’t have space to publish all letters received, nor are we able to acknowledge their receipt. We accept no more than one letter a month from the same writer. Please include your daytime phone number and street address. The Spokesman-Review retains the nonexclusive right to archive and republish any material submitted for publication.

Send letters to:

Letters to the Editor

The Spokesman-Review

999 W. Riverside Ave.

Spokane, WA 99201

Email: <

Why can’t Measure 1 wait?

I opened my ballot this morning, planning to just vote and return it in today’s mail to have it out of the way. I’ve seen the advertising on TV in favor of the extension, but I hadn’t been aware of the specifics until I read the wording on the ballot itself.

I immediately became angry for a couple of reasons: 1) This is the only measure on the ballot, and I know these elections cost tens of thousands of dollars to issue and process, and 2) I’m flabbergasted that this “special election” is to extend a sales and use tax from 2033 to 2043! I know future budgeting is necessary, but 21 years in the future?

I’m 60 years old now, and I most likely won’t care what happens in most of those years. If it is indeed necessary to plan that far in the future, why is a special election needed? Why not combine it with something else and save the extra expense? I’m tempted to vote no just for these reasons!

Ginnie Todd


Can’t define marriage differently

A recent, ridiculous Jack in the Box commercial has a son saying to his mother, “Mom, I’m getting married.” The mother asks, “Who’s the girl?” “It’s not a girl,” the son replies. “It’s bacon.”

Of course, no one can get married to food, objects, or any other matter. But the reply of “Who’s the girl?” definitely says something. The implication is that the son in this commercial could only get married to a female person in real life.

I have now noticed in dictionaries and Dictionary.com that marriage is not only defined as the legal union of a man and woman, but redefined to include same-sex unions as well. Fortunately, the Macmillan’s Children’s Dictionary lists only marriage as the state of husband and wife.

While listening to Sacred Heart Radio, KTTO AM 970, a correct use of “so-called” was made in reference to Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s signing of a gay marriage bill. Maryland became the eighth state legalizing this, which was never intended by God.

The beautiful lyrics to Noel Paul Stookey’s “The Wedding Song” refer only to marriage as the union of man and wife. May it forever be that way.

Patrick Kirlin

Spokane Valley

Council should skip issue

A resolution regarding marriage equality in Washington state is currently in circulation, with a proposed debate and vote on Monday by the Spokane City Council.

Recommendation: Spokane City Council table this resolution.

It is not an obligation or responsibility of the City Council.

The state Legislature has already passed the measure and the governor has signed it into law. Since this issue may reach the November general election ballot as a referendum and initiative, council members will have the same opportunities as all other citizens in voting on these matters.

Council members have the same rights as other citizens to speak out in forums, debates, or in printed pieces without the need for a council resolution.

Council members will have obligations and responsibilities that may involve controversy in our community that require debate and vote.

There is no reason for the City Council to expend political capital or good will on issues that are not in their jurisdiction.

I urge each member of the Spokane City Council to consider the above recommendations regarding marriage equality and any other issue that does not involve their jurisdiction.

David Wallace


Thoughts and opinions on this story? Click here to comment >>

Get stories like this in a free daily email