Letters to the editor

God is love

Does he care how you interpret it?

Editor, The Times:

Regarding "Boycott sought over bill backing gay rights" [Times, Local News, Jan. 17]: Let's boycott self-important religious leaders who can't seem to get it through their heads that we all have a divine right/responsibility to follow our hearts.

Anarchy, I know, but maybe that's what "God" intended, eh?

— Amy Kramer Hawks, Seattle

Omnia vincit amor

In biblical proportions, some sins are greater than others' preference

As an evangelical seminary student, I struggle with Rev. Ken Hutcherson. The message preached in such a boycott [of Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and other gay-rights supporters] is not the message of Christian love, but rather a message of hate that is echoed throughout many of our churches.

The issue is one in which the Bible does make a clear statement on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. However, when did it get elevated to higher level of sinfulness than other sins we deal with regularly? The Bible is clear that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:3) and that includes the reverend, my gay family member and myself.

However, I think it is convenient that the reverend has chosen the sin that does not require any real change in his world. He will not likely forgo much of his personal comfort in this fight, leading me to think that his time would be better spent fighting sins that permeate most congregations in America, such as divorce and child abuse; why worry about such an issue when there are more pressings issues [the addressing of which] stands to have a greater impact?

— Craig Jacobson, Bellevue

Mob back to the stone age

I read Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, Thurston County, [opposes] including sexual orientation [in law] as something that cannot be discriminated against, specifically his statement, "I just read the Bible for what it says" ["Gay-rights opponent believes 'it's a sin,' " Local News, Jan. 18].

I wonder if, based on the same kind of reading of the Bible, he agrees with Deuteronomy 17:5, which directs us to stone to death people caught in the act of adultery. If he doesn't, and I expect he doesn't, how does he reconcile his rationale for his position regarding gays?

I understand that many people have trouble with this issue, and as citizens they certainly have the right to express this. But when they use "the Bible says so" as their reason, I would hope they apply this rule consistently, or realize that they're choosing which parts of the Bible they want to accept literally, and which parts they don't.

I also would invite them to consider how, according to orthodox Muslim beliefs, Christians and Jews — as infidels — don't even have souls, and to kill them is no crime.

Don't [people] see how very dangerous such literal beliefs in "holy writings" are, and what a terribly slippery slope this is?

— Ben Schrenzel, Renton

On this rock

Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, sponsor of the gay-rights bill, is described [in "Gay-rights opponent believes 'it's a sin,' "] as a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, attends church regularly and does not believe homosexuality is a sin. He defends his position against his political opponents by citing the Bible's support for taking care of the homeless, the hungry and the strangers. These are good acts, but his tactic of opposing one Christian teaching [against] another is fallacious and misleading.

Murray speaks only for himself and those Democrats and voters who agree with him; he does not speak for the Catholic Church, whose teaching on this and other matters is easily available in the Catechism for anyone who wants to seek it out.

I cite what it says about homosexuality: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' ... They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

The church does make an important distinction between homosexual orientation, which is not necessarily in itself sinful, and homosexual acts, which are.

Also, guilt for what is objectively sinful may be mitigated by ignorance, passion and being conditioned by a decadent culture. But Murray's selective interpretation of some parts of Scripture while ignoring others, and his personal opinion that is contrary to the teaching of his church, raise a question concerning his personal integrity.

— Roger Schmeeckle, Seattle

Every work into judgment

As a young constituent of Republican Sen. Bill Finkbeiner's district, I am angry and disappointed by his changed position on HB 2661.

I disagree with [it] because it gives special rights to homosexuals. Their sexual orientation and behavior is not the same as race. They are personal, private issues that we would rather not have to discuss with our employees in our family business.

It is outrageous to think that if we did not hire a homosexual, it would be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line in defining the different terms of sexual orientation?

Also, people change their orientations. How would things be proven? Have the ramifications and unintended consequences of this bill been thought through?

I believe in Christian traditional family values and morals. So whose rights are being denied? Why would I have to be forced to accept something I do not believe in?

— Nathan Brand, Kirkland

Dirty pieces of silver

Sen. Dan Swecker states "... if gay marriage becomes legal, it will overtax the social safety net that supports traditional marriage by allowing gay spouses to tap into Social Security benefits, pensions and health insurance... "

Let me get this straight: As a gay, single man with no children (who, at the risk of sounding gauche, made nearly twice as much money as Swecker last year), I have contributed more to the "social safety net" in both percentages and real dollars than he has; and yet my partner should have no claims to any of those contributions?

Yet at the same time, Swecker's wife, who apparently is a homemaker with no clear economic contribution to the country, is entitled to these benefits simply because she is heterosexual.

So then, are gays simply a cash cow whose purpose is to stay single and subsidize marital benefits for straight people?

According to Swecker, gays can change. Perhaps if I can shrug off this dreadful affliction and take a wife, we too can reap the benefits provided by "sinners" like me.

— Chris Chantler, Seattle

Name game

Not a fan of foofaraw

Not everyone who disagrees with the plan to change the symbol for King County is a racist.

What I don't like is that they changed the name, and now maybe the symbol, without asking my permission. I identify with my community and share its values. Nothing against Dr. King, but I like the crown [logo for King County]. It is a simple, elegant design recognizable to every one with just a glance. It is something I have identified with (and been identified with) for more than 50 years. How dare some pin-headed politicians take it away from me just for their own aggrandizement?

This has nothing to do with Dr. King, or racism, or equal rights, or any of the other social ills that desperately need to be addressed. It is just some small-thinking people taking something away from me. And I don't like it.

How about let's put it to a vote?

— Art Valla, Kenmore

Who's on the million-dollar bill?

According to "County's logo may be changed to honor MLK" [Local News, Jan. 10], in 1986 the "county namesake" was changed from Vice President William King (a "slaveholder") to Martin Luther King Jr. It also cited a county report estimating that it will cost only approximately $600,000 to change logos from a crown to a likeness of MLK on buildings, vehicles, etc.

I am constantly amazed at the new ways our representatives come up with to blow our tax dollars. If they estimate $600,000, it will probably be a couple of million before they are done.

I can't help but wonder how much it's going to cost us when one of them comes up with the idea of changing our state namesake — from George Washington (also a slaveholder) to Denzel Washington.

— David Snowdy, Seattle

Newcastle to Nat King Cole

Gosh, I was hoping for a likeness of Dinah, rather than Denzel. Let's not stop there. Everett could be re-dedicated to honor actor Chad Everett, Agnew to honor Spiro T., etc.

— Hannah Kimball, Bellevue