Our Democrat legislature passed Senate Bill 6239 to (1) allow same-sex couples to "marry," (2) to change earlier legislation (EXCEPT for seniors) to eliminate domestic relationships that supported homosexual co-habitation, and (3) to preserve the right of clergy and churches to refuse to perform, recognize or accommodate any marriage ceremony. Senate Bill 6239 is just the camel's nose under the tent flap, a preamble to future expansion of the ongoing attacks on our culture, which would normalize homosexual marriage, de-normalize heterosexual marriage, and ultimately to require clergy and churches to perform homosexual marriages under the pretext of "equal rights as defined by Legislature or Courts."
Referendum 74 allows us to reject this aggressive attack on heterosexual marriage and family responsibility. Homosexual "marriage" violates the natural parent-child bond in every family, and the right of families for protection by society and by Washington state government. It would essentially reduce families from being a natural God-given unit to merely a collection of adults having some shared financial advantages -- a corporation or barracks --by another name. Children in that arrangement would essentially become pawns, wards of the state, since they just become some incompetent individuals who happen to live at some address, and who should be indoctrinated in government schools to view perversity as acceptable and desirable behavior.
The long march by the secular humanists and radical feminists resulted in the emergence of this homosexual attack, a skirmish in the ongoing war to replace our natural rights endowed by our Creator with authorizations originating in a recent Legislature or Court. Referendum 74 allows us to defeat this attack by the Legislature on we citizens by voting to reject SB 6239.
-- CHUCK FOLEY, Richland
Truth never changes
So many people seem to be in favor of same-sex marriage. They feel this is right for their future and happiness, and because this is right for them, truth depends on their judgment, just as some people like oranges and some apples. But marriage is more than liking apples or oranges or bananas. Marriage is based on natural, moral truth and conscience. Truth and conscience are based on objective verity. Two and two are four, no matter what the coloring of the conscience. This is the first scholastic principle: That a thing is what it is, not what it is not. Two oranges and two oranges are still four oranges. They may be good oranges or bad oranges but they are still oranges. A thing is what it is.
The moral law seeks not only truth but also good. The good of children, the good of man and wife, the good of true love, the good of home and security. When some of these purposes are missing, objectively true love and sharing can't be fully present. Legalizing same-sex marriage and proposing that because it is legalized it is therefore right contradicts Christian as well as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and nearly all other beliefs. Two and two remain four.
Truth is truth, morals are morals, nature is nature, faith is faith, and I am yours, in prayer and affection.
-- D.P. DILLON, Kennewick
All about money
There is no difference between a marriage and a civil union that doesn't involve money. To say that love can be defined, or that a relationship has more merit, because of a piece of paper is testament of how a system based on coercion, incentives, and tax breaks, diminishes humanity. No give-aways, no issue.
-- JEREMY OWEN, Kennewick
The American way
So why is it that the government, church or anyone else should have the ability to tell grown adults who they can or cannot marry? Since when is it a negative thing for two people in love to be joined in matrimony? People do not choose to be homosexual so why do so many Americans choose to be ignorant and deny them the rights to marry. Come on, Americans, remember how much we appreciate freedom. Stand up and approve Ref. 74 and stop denying homosexuals the right to live happily ever after in matrimony.
-- BONNIE JO BURKOS, Richland
Here's the trade: Homosexuals return the word "gay" to its original meaning, "merry," and they can use the word "marriage" to describe their unions. Question: Does "gay" as in "gay, lesbian, and transgender events" only apply to males? OK, I'm being flippant to make a point. Why so much energy over a word? And why now when we have so many important challenges like the economy and education? If proponents are correct that nothing changes except gay "unions" become "marriages," what's stopping them from having a big ceremony (religious, if their religion allows), spending $1,000s, inviting dozens of family and friends, and publicly announcing their love? On the flip side, with so many "straights" choosing to live together without marriage (certificate or ceremony) why should straights care if gays want these things?
Bottom line: I'm really on the fence. Is this issue only about a word or are there some unintended consequences?
-- CHRIS WOLLAMN, Richland