By the Herald editorial staff
As far as we can remember, the Herald editorial board has never ducked a tough election issue.
Our position is that voters don't get to take a pass on difficult decisions, so neither should we.
But we're deviating from that long-held policy this year by declining to make a recommendation to voters on Referendum 71, the domestic partnership measure on the statewide ballot.
The fact that we're deeply divided over the issue of gay rights isn't the reason we're abandoning tradition. We are split, but it's not the reason.
We've been at odds over elections before, with editorial board members entrenched on opposing sides, and still managed to make our recommendation.
It's not even unusual.
Normally, we acknowledge the division, give a respectful explanation of the dissenting view, then make the case for the majority opinion as best we can.
An aversion to controversy isn't the reason for leaving R-71 off our list of recommendations either.
A newspaper's opinion page that fails to encourage an open debate on controversial topics of public interest isn't doing its job.
One of the best ways to spark a conversation is to take a position and defend it, then let detractors take their shots. We do it all the time.
But we won't be making a recommendation on this morally divisive and controversial measure. We don't think it can help.
The editorial board's debates on gay rights ultimately led to a stalemate.
We're cemented in positions that are based on conscience and moral grounding. Argument and logic -- the normal currency of our discussions -- can't stand up to the beliefs we each hold.
When we can't sway each other, why imagine we can convince anyone else?
You can't argue away a moral conviction with talking points and reasoning. We know, because we've tried.
For some on our board, the state's expansion of rights for domestic partners, if left unchecked, inevitably will lead to same-sex marriage. As a matter of religious faith and morality, that outcome is unacceptable to them.
They'll vote to reject R-71 and overturn the "everything but marriage" bill passed by the previous Legislature.
For others, it's just as wrong to deny equal rights based on an individual's sexual orientation.
They'll vote to approve R-71 and uphold the expansion of rights for domestic partners.
Either way, our moral compass guides us.
Our different views can't be reconciled. The best we can do is respect each other, acknowledge that we have a right to our beliefs and vote our conscience.
That's our best advice to readers too.
Similar stories:
Why we recommend -- and do you want to help?
Why we recommend -- and do you want to help?
"Who gave you the right to tell us how to vote? Just give us the news and we'll decide how to vote for ourselves."
-- Complaint from some Herald readers
The question above shows up once or twice in every campaign season.
Kennewick School Board
Kennewick School Board
The Kennewick School Board is due for change. Three members largely work as a bloc, sometimes stifling discussion.
Too often, the other two members don't get the chance to contribute all that they're capable of bringing to the table.
That needs to change.
Gay marriage in Washington creates personal divide
Gay marriage in Washington creates personal divide
After 36 years of celebrating anniversaries and Valentine’s Days, of arguments and make-ups, of raising children and growing old, Larry Gettmann and Jack Frisch of Kennewick can’t think of themselves as anything other than “married.”
It doesn’t really matter to them how the state or any church describes them. The only validation they need for their relationship comes from each other.
But soon, Washington likely will confirm in law what Gettmann, 69, and Frisch, 71, already know in their hearts.
They are one of almost 10,000 couples registered as domestic partners whose relationships will be re-defined as marriage under a bill pending in the state Legislature.
Fast focus: What are our values?
Fast focus: What are our values?
"Responsibility" suggests a legal obligation, and that certainly isn't what we should be talking about. More sensible would be a question like "Are there moral and practical reasons why we should make our children's education our highest priority?"
Transportation can be a significant financial or logistic issue for many families, and just as we want our children to have access to the best facilities, teachers, books, technology and other obvious resources that will result in a well-educated, productive society, less obvious resources like transportation, proper meals for kids whose families can't afford them and social services that may be necessary to allow each kid to perform at his highest potential should also be provided.
We call children our most precious resource, and we call education the most important element of the road to success, but it usually turns out that we talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.
KSD must find a balance amid more of the same
KSD must find a balance amid more of the same
In sports it's good to have a team that works well together -- a team where the members are in sync with each other and can anticipate each other's movements.
We can also see value in an elected body working together for common goals.
In both cases, it's a great way to get the ball moving.
Print
Email Story
