We must correct Europe’s muddled mess

The Times performed a great service in reminding the public to get out and vote for R-71 in order to maintain equality in our democracy [“Broad support to approve R-71,” Opinion, Sept. 25].

That’s half of the importance of this referendum. This is the other half: The historic theocracies of Europe made a fine muddle out of exactly what marriage is that we need to straighten out to make it clear for American use.

Either marriage is a civil status and therefore subject to all of the equal protection statutes, or it is a religious institution and therefore not entitled to any legal status, protection, privilege, or benefit under the law.

Either way, it ends up that no one is entitled to tell anybody else whom they can marry.

— Harold R. Pettus, Everett

Not just a concept of protection

Unforeseeable events happen every day. You’re driving to work and you didn’t see the other car coming. You had a hankering for that vanilla-scented candle to freshen your living room and didn’t see it fall over. The band saw just sort of slipped. Circumstances with detrimental repercussions can happen any second, and last a lifetime.

Say this happens to someone you’re in a long-term relationship with. If something bad were to happen to your spouse, visiting them in the hospital, figuring out insurance coverage, or adopting their children wouldn’t be a problem.

Domestic partnerships on the other hand? Not so much.

Gay and lesbian families may not be technically married, but that is no reason to deny them the same rights straight married couples have.

It’s strange to think I can live in a state where some of the most influential people whom I hold higher than myself, such as teachers, friends or future leaders, cannot exercise the same civil rights I have.

For those who are old enough to vote, or have the rhetorical capacity to influence others to do so, remember to vote yes on Referendum 71. It’s not just a concept of protection, it’s a vote for equality.

— Julee Felts, Shoreline