A letter to the editor in the Auburn Reporter (March 27, 2009) stated: “I read years ago from a gay activist that if they could make their demands look like a civil rights issue, it will have support. This is not a civil rights issue at all. Sexual orientation is not the same as race or gender. It may be the result of a disastrous childhood or choice, but many have gladly left this ‘category.’ They already have rights. But they want special rights to orient children that this is normal and to persecute all those who will not support that ‘standard.’ “

Recent studies also indicate toxins from some plastics can cause hormonal imbalances.

In 2009, the Washington Legislature gave same-sex couples full, legal equality. If domestic partners wish specific legal rights, a power of attorney could provide them. I am in a traditional marriage, but I had to have a power of attorney before the hospital staff would give me medical information about my husband’s emergency care. So don’t assume discrimination when it is just over-zealous application of the privacy law. Other legal documents could allow transfer of assets after death if that is an issue.

The argument against R-74 in the Voters’ Pamphlet states that sanctions have occurred elsewhere against those who have disagreed with the new definition of marriage: “Church groups have lost their tax exemptions. Small businesses were sued. Wedding professionals have been fined. Charities opposing gay marriage were forced to end services. Young children were taught about gay marriage in pUblic schools.”

The 2009 letter to the editor also states. “I understand the cost of implementing this new gay rights bill is $30 million.”

“Follow the Money” is often said about various issues. What are the real reasons same-sex partners want more rights?

The “fiscal impact” for R-74 was estimated to be insignificant. However, just writing the ballot text involved two government offices and a court. What other costs will be incurred as changes will be needed in related documents?

Another unintended consequence: Will dictionaries throughout the state (only) need to be revised with this new definition of marriage? Marriage, a union between one man and one woman, has been the foundation of society for thousands of years.

Is R-74 just a means of diluting the sanctity of marriage and its importance to the well being of children?

Male-female marriages blend the unique qualities of each gender (Read “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” by John Gray). Spiritual sources state a man’s intellect is to evolve into wisdom and female emotion is to evolve into divine love.

Same-sex partnerships bypass that opportunity for soul growth and deny children the opportunity to learn how to live in a heterosexual society.

– M. Peterson