Resolution 71: Marriage isn't about getting benefits

Just opened my voters’ pamphlet and was amazed to read about R 71.I thought it was about people being made into abominations or people forcing their sexuality on one another. Actually the bill will give domestic partners, heterosexual or homosexual, the financial benefits and legal obligations equal with married people. I kept looking for the derogatory motives of the for and against, but both sides sounded honest and sincere to me. Like most Washingtonians, I must be out of the loop on this one .

The reason I support keeping marriage as is now is basically for the reasons those who want to expand the rights of marriage, they see it as a right , I see it as a responsibility too many of us have failed to realize. To me marriage is not about getting benefits, it is a commitment to our spouse and family that we have not been doing a good job of keeping lately. The benefits were to help support make that commitment less of an undertaking. Getting the benefits without marriage appears short-sighted. Marriage benefits were not meant for heterosexuals who could not get better pension benefits. If we just want to give people benefits , why not just give them to all of us and not discriminate at all to the other classes of people this bill leaves out .

Regardless our beliefs on marriage remain intact regardless how this bill is voted upon , but I suggest voting No on 71. Gays and straights deserve a better chance of having a mom and dad in their house growing up. I believe having the standard set that way encourages the better possibility of it.

Mick Sheldon

Kingston

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.