Split On The Issue Most Respondents Think Same-Sex Marriages Shouldn’t Be Recognized By The State

The stage is set for a referendum on same-sex marriages. Washington state lawmakers couldn’t override Gov. Gary Locke’s veto of a bill banning the practice, but they’re likely to send the issue to the voters on Nov. 4.

If so, and if the readers who have been sharing their views with The Spokesman-Review for three weeks are typical, nobody has to worry about getting to the church on time.

“Marriage has already been defined for centuries in nearly all cultures as a union between men and women for the reproduction and care of the children which are the natural product of that union,” wrote Kimberly Vernon of Spokane, one of 41 readers who replied to “Ring Bearers,” a Feb. 9 feature presenting arguments for and against samegender marriage. Opposition outnumbered support 29-11. (One writer simply questioned marriage for anyone.)

“Society acknowledging the marriage of two people who cannot reproduce from that union further serves to break down the strengthening of the family for which marriage was created,” Vernon said.

Heidi Hunt of Valley, Wash., also is concerned about “the lack of responsibility and commitment and the profusion of promiscuity among the citizens of this country.”

“The question is,” she said, “does allowing gay partners to marry foster promiscuity, irresponsibility and lack of commitment? It does not.”

“The definition of family has changed through the years,” said Deborah Peterson of Moses Lake. “It is such a personal thing; who is to say that one’s definition is wrong because it isn’t traditional? If two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, are responsible, mature citizens, then why should it matter what their sexual orientation is? They pay taxes and contribute to society just like any other person.”

Joseph Van Houtan of Spokane is not so willing to abandon tradition.

“We are a society in this country of mixed races and mixed nationalities. Among the common threads that have bound us as a society, though, have been certain basic things common to all societies such as burial of the dead, adult care of children and marriage of a male and female,” said Van Houtan.

“Even the ancient Greeks, as much as they got into homosexual behavior, did not sanction it for marriage, nor did the Romans,” he added.

“On the contrary,” claims Tony Boccaccio of Spokane, “history has shown that in a democracy, an institution is weakened whenever the rights and responsibilities it protects and affords the people is limited to anything less than to all the people. There can be no room in any of our institutions for discrimination. Period.”

Readers who support gay marriage tended to quote the Constitution and equal rights as for their authorities. Opponents frequently cited the Bible, history and tradition.

Bob Lehman of Spokane referred to scriptural passages in 1 Corinthians, Leviticus, Romans, Jude and 1 Timothy to back him up.

“Homosexuality was a sin then and still is today,” he said.

Patricia Bones of Spokane, a 71-year-old widow and former schoolteacher - and a Christian who feels strongly about her faith - says she used to feel that way, too, but no longer.

“We do and can change our way of thinking,” she said, noting she has a gay family member and had several gay students.

“You cannot help but be confronted with the choices many of the homosexuals must make: be accepted by all - so hide it and don’t talk about it.”

Here are representative excerpts from some of the other responses:

Paul Miller, Spokane: “Equal rights should not be denied due to one’s gender or color, for these are God-given and unchangeable. Homosexuality is different…. Many have been changed by God and have left the practice of homosexuality.”

Mike A. Rel, Spokane: “Anyone who tries to justify same-sex marriages or homosexuality will never achieve that goal for there is no foundation or truth on which to base their twisted beliefs.”

Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Spitzer, Spokane: “We don’t feel that they are asking for special rights - only the rights the rest of us take for granted.”

Floyd H. and Audrey M. Stewart, Loon Lake: “Homosexuality is not a right nor is it natural. It is purely and simply a choice that those who choose to live that way have made and society should not condone it as normal or moral.”

Dick McInerney, Spokane: “Any change in the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would be detrimental to the sanctity and the dignity of marriage.”

Marcia Smith, Spokane: “Legalizing same-sex marriage would contribute to the fabric of civil society by including another group of people in the opportunity to make and keep commitments to each other. How can this possibly be seen to weaken the incentive for heterosexual people to do so?”

Richard Dodge, Spokane: “We have lived for hundreds of years with a family consisting of a man, woman and children. Just because it’s 1997 doesn’t change moral law.”

Wayne Lythgoe, Colbert: “I believe same-sex marriages would be another ‘liberal view’ that will further deteriorate family values. We, as a society, must draw the line somewhere if we are to survive.”

Katie Urbanek, Spokane: “Gay people have the same affectionate and loving feelings toward each other as non-gay persons do. They desire to have homes together and raise families. Yes, contrary to belief, gay people can and do have children. They feel cheated that they do not have the right of marriage and the legal privileges that go with it, and rightfully so.”

Alyce and John Ryan, Liberty Lake: “Seattle may be ready for this but we’re not ready for this state to become another San Francisco, especially in Spokane.”

Barbara Miller, Chattaroy: “How arrogant and self-absorbed is the gay community to even try and inflict this behavioral standard on our nation, which only makes every heterosexual union a joke! Was every civilization (past and present) wrong an only now are the homosexuals in America in 1997 giving us a more glorious way?”

Zola Irwin, Spokane: “Although I consider myself as a liberal-minded citizen, I feel there are times when one must take a stand against going too far and this idea is going too far.”

Stephen R. Sears, M.D., Spokane: “The purpose of marriage is not to give rights or privilege or special favor to heterosexuals…. Since the most nurturing and secure environment for children lies in a relationship with a mother and father it is for that reason alone that the state grants special dispensation to the man and woman who become married.”

Forrest R. Fichthorn, Spokane: “Changing the laws to condone homosexual marriages would be worse than thumbing your nose at God. Did he not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for this same reason?”

Don S. Otis, Sandpoint: “As a society, we must stand firm for traditional forms of family. And by this I mean a husband and wife. Any union that weakens this bond - adultery, abuse, divorce or homosexuality - ought to be seen as a threat to a healthy society.”

Paul L. Weis, Spokane: “Thousands of homosexual couples have lived as officially unrecognized, dedicated and loving couples without destroying the fabric of our society.”

Mai Ling Slaughter, Washington State University: “The people and the government have accepted the fact that as our society changes, so must our laws adjust to fit the needs of the people. Just because the subject delves past the comfort zones of certain individuals doesn’t mean other individuals’ rights should be abolished.”

George Hudak, Spokane: “Now that the AIDS virus is near epidemic levels, I am sure gays would want to legalize marriage in every state so that both partners can now receive from one employer long-term medical care for AIDS while they continue their perverted lifestyle in the name of love.”

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Staff illustration by Molly Quinn