The state is not redefining families

I respectfully disagree with M. Louise Holert’s arguments that same-sex marriage is not a justice issue. [“Same-sex marriage equality bills,” Northwest Voices, Jan. 24.]

I agree with Holert that the raising of children is a fundamental purpose of marriage, but what Holert fails to recognize is that there are already thousands of same-sex families in Washington state raising children. Though it is not (yet) possible for two men or two women to procreate, it is possible for these families to provide loving and stable homes for the biological children of one of the partners, or for adopted children.

It is equally important for these families to have the protection and stability of marriage. The state is not redefining the family — families have already changed and the state needs to keep up.

Holert goes on to argue that the state has no business defining marriage. In fact, the state does have a duty to define who is eligible for marriage licenses, and to grant these marriage licenses so that couples may receive the benefits offered through various state laws.

The state law regarding the granting of marriage licenses is the only thing that is at issue here —Holert is still free to define her family as she sees fit, as is everyone else living in this state.

So we are back to the justice issue — I pay taxes, I vote, I am a law-abiding citizen and contributing member of this state — why should Holert’s family have the right of marriage while mine does not?

— Squire Dahl, Seattle

The state’s role is to issue licenses not procreation

I strongly disagree with M. Louise Holert’s reasoning against same-sex marriage and her statement that “the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation.” Does that mean any couple who cannot have or does not want children should be barred from marriage?

Do adoptive parents qualify to marry if they are not procreating? And what about gay couples who adopt or have a child by other means? There are many reasons to marry.

I respect any religion’s right to not marry a couple for any reason they choose. Many churches will not perform marriages on interfaith or divorced couples. The state’s role is to issue licenses to marry and should not have to determine if a couple will procreate or not in order to get one.

— Nanci Vaeth, Bellevue

The word marriage means something

Letter writer C.C. Lake says she doesn’t understand. What is before the Legislature isn’t about the state or federal constitutions. It isn’t about religion, either. It’s about dictionaries and the immune system of language.

Words have meaning. In every dictionary of every century English has existed, the meaning of “marriage” has been singular: the joining of opposites. Whether it’s garden hoses or hydraulic lines or people, you can’t “marry” two males to beget (to cause; produce as an effect).

But, it goes beyond rhetoric or politics. It is all about money. The book publishers will make a fortune. Local governments will hit the jackpot, a river of a revenue stream that will pour millions into their treasuries. And, there will be new reasons for the majority to hate the government. Oh, didn’t you know that with the incoming there is the outgoing?

Out goes the tax break for married couples. Out goes the tax deduction for kids. And so on and so on it goes. If society doesn’t protect its language from political intrigue it will have no language to yell for help.

— Gordon Willsey, Bothell