Letters to the editor

REWRITING VOWS

In sickness, in health infidelity to promises undermines society

Editor, The Times:

It's a shame that the president who promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" is now sharpening a classic Republican wedge issue — same-sex marriage — to divide the electorate in November ("Same-sex marriage rising to top of political agenda," Times, News, Feb. 6). This is a godsend to the Bush administration because it moves the focus from the real threats to stable marriages in America — unemployment, poverty and social dysfunction.

The best "Defense of Marriage Act" the Bush administration could support is one that addresses the chronic under-employment and unemployment among millions of American married couples. Whether or not a few thousand gay couples get married will have no impact on whether those marriages succeed or not; whether there is health insurance, food on the table and good jobs will.

Of course, Bush has mastered the technique of saying one thing and doing another. He says he's a uniter, but uses this issue to divide Americans. He says he cares about job growth, but he has presided over the only presidency since Herbert Hoover's to actually see a net loss in jobs. He says he wants "no child left behind" in our schools, but doesn't fund his own initiative to help make that happen. He says he wants the U.S. to have the freedom to act unilaterally in Iraq, but when his administration completely mismanages the postwar transition, he asks the U.N. to come in and bail him out.

I hope voters see beyond this rhetorical smokescreen and make a real change this November.
Mike Kelly, Redmond

Till death do this part

With the recent decision by Massachusetts on gay marriage, the Bush administration has reasserted its view that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. I am willing to accept a certain part of that.

Let's call marriage a sacred union and get the government out of it completely. Let the states issue "civil union licenses," available to any couple, and then if that couple wants to get "married," they can go to their religious or spiritual group and have the ceremony performed — with absolutely no government involvement or interest. Then everyone (or perhaps no one) can be happy.
Bill Wiederkehr, Brier

Power tested in me

Last week's decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ("Mass. court clears way for same-sex marriages," page one, Feb. 5) completely ignores and disregards a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution and the very structure of the relationship between us citizens and our state and federal governments. Its Tenth Amendment, the heart of the Constitution, clearly recognizes there are some reserved powers the people have delegated neither to the federal nor state governments.

While the people have delegated to their states the authority to define the property and other legal consequences flowing from entry into or dissolution of a marriage contract, it is highly questionable whether the people have ever delegated the power to redefine marriage to any state or federal government.

Maintaining a close link between human sexuality and biological reproduction is essential for the survival of our species. That is the purpose of all human sexual morality. How could any reasonable judge conclude the people had delegated authority to the state to mutate and genericize such a fundamental institution as marriage into some all-purpose framework for societal recognition of any sort of committed relationship between any two or more individuals, without regard to whether that relationship is even capable of biological reproduction?

The U.S. Supreme Court should reverse on the basis that no state has been delegated legitimate authority to genericize marriage.
John Sullivan, Seattle

To witness the ruin

These people who support the banning of gay marriage are living in a dream world. As it stands, the Constitution will not allow the legislature of any state to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage. This just simply doesn't conform to the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution.

Furthermore, if these homophobes want to ban gay marriage, they will have to amend the Constitution. This means approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and then each state would have to ratify the ban.
Jason Steel, Des Moines

In holy sanctimony

Civil marriage should be replaced by a contract declaring two unrelated individuals' mutual responsibility for each other. These agreements should carry the benefits and obligations now attached to marriage, and the law should recognize current child custody and support provisions.

I'm sure that most parties to these contracts would wish to be married. Those arrangements should be made privately with whoever is willing to conduct a ceremony. No private organization should be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony if it doesn't want to.

Liberals ought to give up their quest to have the government sanctify same-sex unions, and conservatives ought to quit trying to discriminate against gay couples. Get the government out of the romance business and have people decide it for themselves.
Charles Pluckhahn, Seattle

In spite of God

Sean Patrick O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, spoke at an anti-gay-marriage rally to support traditional marriage only, saying "Good strong marriage and family are good for our country, for society."

Dare we hope the good archbishop is about to revoke his bachelor status, marry a woman, and urge thousands of priests, monks and nuns to revoke their bachelor or spinster status and do likewise?

I thought not.
Joe Asher, Seattle

SOUND OF MUSIC

Brings us back to dough

Thanks to reporter Jonathan Martin, The Times, and Mayor Greg Nickels for calling attention to a fact a lot of us in the local music industry have been spouting for some time ("Music helps Seattle economy hum," Local News, Feb. 9). Live local music means dollars for the Seattle economy and draws positive attention to us at a time when we've slipped in (rankings of) a lot of the "best of" lists.

We're starting to see an abundance of tourists at local venues, especially in the summer when the cruise ships are in town. They love to spread out over the city and enjoy what we have to offer in the way of Pop, Soul, Rock, R&B, and Blues musical talent. It becomes a part of their cherished Seattle experience and is something that they never forget.

So please, support your local economy. See some live music tonight!
Jeffrey Hayes, Seattle

EXAMPLE BAD

John scary

In response to Stephen Paine's letter ("Log-splitting image," Northwest Voices, Feb. 6), that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has a resemblance to Abraham Lincoln:

I always thought he more resembled Herman Munster.
John Picinich, Seattle