Newspaper Endorsements

Editorial: Referendum 74’s canned opposition

From The Seattle Times
November 2, 2012

…[The opposition's] television commercials to reject the state’s same-sex marriage law regurgitate themes from other campaigns. The repudiated ads have no shelf life.

…The circuit-riding, anti-same-sex marriage political consultants are keeping their overhead low by pulling stuff out of the video pantry. They are strangers passing through on the way to someplace else.

Approval of Referendum 74 speaks to a law passed with bipartisan votes in the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire — people who know and understand the people of Washington.

The essence of that understanding was in a statement of support Thursday by former Republican Gov. Dan Evans. He said approving the referendum “just seems right and reflects the fundamental value of fairness that we treasure here in Washington.”

Fresh, honest and homegrown sentiments. Approve Referendum 74.

[Read the entire editorial here]

Approve Referendum 74

From The Seattle Times
October 31, 2012

…Referendum 74 is about allowing gays and lesbians to live their own lives, and raise their families within the laws and covenant of marriage.

…a vote for passage of legislation allowing same-sex marriage is a fundamentally conservative endorsement of families and family values. The law gives gays and lesbians the rights and responsibilities that go with family life, and the opportunity to make the fullest possible expression of that public commitment.

Approve R-74. Acknowledge and respect the desire of loving couples to be legally married partners. Help build families. [Read the entire editorial here]

 

Referendum 74: Vote Yes

From Real Change
October 31, 2012

…Members of the committee strongly agreed that the “freedom to marry, freedom to love, is a civil right, a human right.” It is vital, they said, that same-sex couples be able to see their union “officially sanctified in the eyes of the law.” [Read the entire editorial here]

Vote ‘yes’ on R-74, marriage for all | Editorial

From the Bothell/Kenmore Reporter
October 26, 2012

…The Legislature did the right thing and voters should, too, by approving Referendum 74.

At its heart, R-74 is a vote against discrimination. It gives to all people something simple, but profound – the right to marry.

Many of those who oppose R-74 say gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to redefine marriage. Perhaps that’s because the definition is wrong. At its core, marriage is two people vowing their love and commitment together. What’s important is the love and commitment, not their specific genders.

Voters should reject discrimination – and approve R-74. [Read the entire editorial here]

Vote ‘yes’ on R-74, marriage for all | Editorial

From the Bellevue Reporter
October 25, 2012

…The Legislature did the right thing and voters should, too, by approving Referendum 74.

..At its heart, R-74 is a vote against discrimination. It gives to all people something simple, but profound – the right to marry.

…At its core, marriage is two people vowing their love and commitment together. What’s important is the love and commitment, not their specific genders.

Voters should reject discrimination – and approve R-74.

– Craig Groshart, Bellevue Reporter  [Read the entire editorial here]

 

Endorsements: All couples deserve the right to wed, approve R-74

From The Yakima Herald-Tribune
October 22, 2012

…  It’s not our intent to interpret the Bible, but to weigh in on a civil matter as to whether voters should approve the referendum.

…opponents offer nothing empirical about children having more problems in same-sex households than in dual-gender or single-parent homes. There are more children who need loving homes than there are homes for them, and opponents’ arguments ignore those same-sex couples who now are providing a nurturing environment for children. Having their arrangement recognized as a marriage only strengthens these family ties.

…Opponents also complain that the referendum would “redefine” marriage, an institution that has survived dizzying redefinition in recent decades. Think of how views have changed on divorce, single parenthood, cohabitation and blended families in recent decades. Amid these trends, traditional marriage endures, and it would continue to do so just fine with the addition of same-sex unions.

…The time has come to give all partnerships their proper standing; the time has come to instill for all consenting citizens the right to marry the one they love; the time has come to mark “Approved” and provide a yes vote on Referendum 74. [Read the entire editorial here]

OUR VIEW | In support of charter schools and marriage equality

From the Kitsap Sun
October 19, 2012

…our state should no longer treat one relationship between committed adults differently than another. Same sex couples are members of our neighborhoods, schools, sports teams, churches and families — and their vows to one another should be recognized and respected, as they pose no threat to those between a man and a woman.

The law…protects religious organizations from civil claim of discrimination if they decline to marry a gay couple. Elected representatives from both parties made a bold statement in approving the law, and we encourage voters to approve that leadership with a vote to “approve.” [Read the entire editorial here]

Approve R-74

From The Review  (Sammamish, Wash.)
October 17, 2012

…R-74 offers voters the chance to take the next step, and extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The measure, simply put, is about equality.

The flimsy arguments against R-74 do not hold up against the facts.

…Voters should affirm equality for same-sex couples and approve R-74.  [Read the entire editorial here]

Vote to approve same-sex marriage

From the SnoValley Star
October 17, 2012

Referendum 74 offers Washington voters a chance to expand civil rights to same-sex couples.

…Marriage is a basic civil right, and that word is missing in our current “everything-but-marriage” law.

…Voters should affirm equality for same-sex couples and approve R-74.  [Read the entire editorial here]

 

 

Vote to approve marriage, marijuana

From the Issaquah Press
October 16, 2012

…Washington already affords rights to same-sex couples, but the existing law is incomplete. Marriage is a basic civil right.

…The flimsy arguments against R-74 do not hold up against the facts.

The measure could limit religious freedom, opponents assert. In fact, the law contains ample protections for religious institutions, and no religious institution is required to marry same-sex couples.

…Voters should affirm equality for same-sex couples and approve R-74.  [Read the entire editorial here]

Same-sex marriage: Yes

From the Tri-City Herald
October 14, 2012

…Opponents argue that allowing same-sex marriages will have profound consequences for traditional couples.

We’re sorry, folks, but times have changed. While you’re entitled to your beliefs, those who think only men and women should be allowed to marry are out of touch with reality.

Newspapers throughout Eastern Washington have endorsed Referendum 74 and we join them.

Let people love who they want to love. If that leads them to marriage, we should support them in that decision.

The Tri-City Herald editorial board recommends voters approve Referendum 74. [Read the entire editorial here]

R-74 affirms our changing norms

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Marriage is still important. It promotes commitment, unity, stability, devotion and mutual support. Those are qualities society should encourage for all couples, not held in exclusivity. Same-sex marriage is a state sanction. Its existence will not challenge the teaching and practice of any religious faith.

Society has accepted same-sex couples. It has accepted their existence and affirmed their legal rights. There is no reason not to move to the next step, and accept their equality. Approve Referendum 74. [Read the entire editorial]

Vote for Marriage Equality

From The Herald (Everett, WA)
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

…Today a core liberty that touches thousands of Northwest families — the right of same-sex couples to marry — is in the hands of Washington voters. It’s time for Washington to side with equality, to follow the lead of Gov. Gregoire and the Legislature and legalize same-sex marriage.

…One of the biggest anti-marriage myths, popularized by opponents, revolves around R-74′s legal fallout. In brief, lawsuits won’t take off after same-sex marriage is legalized. That has not been the case in New York and other states that have approved marriage equality. Schools and existing anti-discrimination laws will not be affected.

…The Herald Editorial Board strongly recommends voters embrace equality and support R-74. [Read the entire editorial]

A vote for R-74 is a vote for marriage equality and basic rights

From The Olympian
September 21, 2012

…State governments have been trying to regulate loving relationships between its citizens since the nation was founded, but the truth is finally emerging: government simply has no interest in restricting marriage between any two people, regardless of race, religion, gender or any other qualifier.

… Our state took the first step toward this goal in 2009 with passage of the domestic-partnership law, which voters overwhelmingly approved.

But a civil union is not a marriage. “Everything but marriage” may have granted all the legal and technical rights to loving spouses, but it offered none of the emotional or spiritual expressions of a committed relationship….[Read the entire editorial]

Marriage equality takes a final, logical step

From the Lewiston Tribune
September 20, 2012

Given what’s already in code, the question isn’t so much why extend the law into the nuance of marriage.

Rather, ask: Why not?

…marriage means more than a bundle of contractual rights and privileges. Ask yourself: Would you rather have a domestic partnership or a marriage? The latter confirms inclusion within the community, the former implies second-class citizenship.

Plus domestic partnerships do not convey all of the benefits married couples enjoy in such areas as survivor’s benefits and tax deductions. Some of these gaps could be addressed by state law. The bulk must wait for repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, however.

If the courts are looking to Washington for a signal to proceed, let that be the legacy of R-74. [Read the entire editorial here]

R-74: Yes vote on marriage equality is right for Washington

From the Tacoma News Tribune
Sept. 17, 2012

Earlier this year, the Legislature gave same-sex couples the right to marry. But opponents gathered enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot that requires voters to either affirm of reject marriage equality.

It is our hope that voters will approve R-74, that they will recognize that this is a basic civil rights issue and that it is wrong to continue denying homosexuals the right to marry the one they love. [Read the entire editorial]

Affirm R-74 because state has no role in personal choice

From the Spokane Spokesman-Review

September 16, 2012

Quite simply, there is no government interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Some critics say this special right is justified because government needs to promote the production of children. Yet, such couples can get married whether they have kids or not. Many same-sex couples do raise children. [Read the entire editorial]

 

Uphold legalized gay marriage: Yes

Referendum 74 deserves support from voters

From The (Vancouver, WA) Columbian

September 16, 2012

When The Columbian first endorsed legalized gay marriage more than eight years ago, we acknowledged that many polls showed as much as two-thirds of Americans opposed to such a dramatic shift in custom.

…Times change, but our opinion hasn’t. Washington’s Legislature legalized same-sex marriage earlier this year, and a recent poll showed 56 percent support statewide, with only 38 percent opposition. And our support of Referendum 74 — which would uphold that legislation — is rock solid. [Read the entire editorial]

It’s time for Washington voters to approve same-sex marriage

From The Seattle Times
September 15, 2012

Approve Referendum 74 to legalize same-sex marriage. The state Legislature passed it. Gov. Gregoire signed it. Voters should approve it.

…Domestic partnerships were about legal rights and prerogatives…. They were essential to the practical aspects of a life together, from hospital visitations to raising a family.

The word lost in the formalities of lawmaking was “love.” One central lesson is that love is patient. Legislators and community leaders built a path toward their goal. In 2009, when the domestic-partnership law was referred to voters, it was strongly approved.

…Over time, it was apparent that expansions of law that provided for “everything but marriage” were incomplete. The goal, the fullest expression of love, was marriage.

That desire is being codified around the United States and around the world. Diverse groups concerned with human rights and civil rights endorse same-sex marriage.

The NAACP supports marriage equality…

The U.S. military ended its ban on gays openly serving their country…

…Two people in love are empowered with the rights, duties and responsibilities to build a life together as a married couple.

Once again the state must act together. Mark the ballot to Approve R-74. Love does not fail. [Read the entire editorial]

 

Voters should affirm gay marriage law

Approving Referendum 74 would allow gays to continue to obtain state civil marriage licenses. It does not force churces to perform gay marriage.

From the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

September 13, 2012

A committed, long-term legal relationship is a marriage regardless of what you call it.

The proposal approved by the Legislature does not force churches or clergy to perform gay marriages. Churches, clergy or religious organizations do not have to accept or even acknowledge these marriages.

The law in Washington allows gays to obtain state civil marriage licenses that make their relationship legally binding. Period.

We urge voters to affirm the Legislature’s decision to legalize gay marriage and approve Referendum 74. [Read the entire editorial]