Reject R-74 and Maureen Walsh


Annie Capestany's letter in support of Referendum 74 argues that "it's just a battle over a word" and "words are very powerful" and R-74 will, for the sake of equality and respect, give gays the right to use and embrace that word -- marriage.

She further argues that said law would reach out to everyone, including that gay kid who feels worthless and is considering suicide. I would think that the ability to "marry" would have little effect on the well-being of a gay child.

But, be that as it may, Ms. Capestany is wrong to suggest that R-74 reaches out to "everyone" as it, in fact, disenfranchises traditional marriages between a man and a woman. It is not just about the word -- it's not just about gays joining in on the use of that word -- marriage. It is totally about redefining marriage.

It eliminates traditional marriage between a man and a woman and in its place everyone is defined as a spouse -- spouse No. 1 and spouse No. 2 (gender is eliminated). There are other consequences of R-74, besides the fact that it fails to recognize that marriage is a sacrament established by God and that this sanctity of marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. It further would impose penalties against those who refuse to recognise or accept gay marriages as defined in the act. There is also the problem as to what our schools would teach our kids about parents and family.

On the same day that Ms. Capestany wrote her letter there was an article written by a Seattle Times columnist indicating that children probably wouldn't be subjected to such a discussion (that man marrying man is perfectly normal) because when "the topic of family comes up, marriage is not all that central to it anymore. So looking out over his or her class, a teacher isn't likely to see much relevance in bringing up marriage, period."

If this guy is correct you can see how far the bulwark of our society -- family and marriage -- has been eroded. So liberals don't see any problem in the further erosion of the family through R-74.

Let's tell Olympia that we still believe in the sanctity of marriage and a family that is best for a child and our society is one that has a mom and a dad as parents. Reject R-74 and Rep. Maureen Walsh along with it.

Jerry Votendahl

Walla Walla



tpeacock says...

'marriage is a sacrament established by God'
I'll be sure to tell my Atheist friends they aren't really married, the JOP must have been too busy to check their religious affiliation.
'It is totally about redefining marriage'
Only if you let it. Although with your legal background one would believe you had an upper hand on this part of the issue, it's nowhere near as dramatic as you anti-R-74 folks are tryng to make it out to be.
'It eliminates traditional marriage between a man and a woman and in its place everyone is defined as a spouse -- spouse No. 1 and spouse No. 2 (gender is eliminated). '
Maybe this is the one caveat that stands to be a boon to the Male half of a marriage that fails. Seems to many Judges give all or most of the assets (even today when the playing field is supposed to be more even) to the Female half. This could really be a blessing in disguise.
'So liberals ' News flash all of you chest thumping so-called conservatives, the only true conservatives are the Amish, the rest of us are part liberal/part conservative. I suggest since your so hung up on words and their definitions, you might try looking up those two words to get a better perspective on their meaning and their relevance to you.
Lastly, Rep. Walsh is one if the few GOP members that is in touch with reality, let's not waste a good thing, she might teach the rest of you something if you allow it to happen.
Or, you can continue with your made up fantasies of why everything wrong in the world is because of our current Pres, and on the vegetable garden his wife is growing.

Posted 16 October 2012, 2:31 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment