Without this ring

On the other hand, the state must withdraw from union in faith

Editor, The Times:
Seattle Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett's "Defending marriage, rejecting injustice and discrimination" (Times guest commentary, March 10) may have clarified the issue in ways he didn't intend. In pointing out the church's "understanding that marriage was created by God," he characterized marriage as a religious institution. To the extent that this is accurate, the state should be constitutionally barred from entering the debate; its legislative or judicial pronouncements, lacking any religious authority, should be irrelevant to the meaning of marriage for the faithful.

Conversely, to the extent that marriage is a civil institution, the state has no business considering the doctrinal positions of the Catholic or any other religion.

The archbishop says that rights for gays "must be granted without damaging the essential character of marriage." But the state already routinely sanctions divorces not recognized by the church, and doubtless attaches other rights, obligations and legal niceties having nothing to do with doctrinal views of marriage's "essential character."

While the archbishop is careful to support the "right of all people to dignity and equality," he offers no suggestion as to how we will provide "equal protection under the law" while giving priority to religious doctrine. However, he has inadvertently spotlighted the fact that the state's responsibility is to the equality of its citizens, not to their religious beliefs.
— Terry Grytness, Olympia

Divining the knowable

Archbishop Brunett defends his church's teaching "that marriage was not created by the church or state but by God ... " Archbishop Brunett has his job, but it is not the business of our state legislators, our courts, or ourselves as citizens of Washington to discern the motivations of a putative God or to stifle appropriate anger in the face of injustice, nor is our charge as citizens limited to building unity around issues upon which we agree.

Instead, our collective obligation is to work on behalf of constitutional principles and practices of social fairness. In this case, that means giving same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities given under the law to opposite-sex couples in the name of marriage, and it means giving the same name, whether "marriage" or some new term, to the institution encompassing those rights and responsibilities, regardless of the gender of the individuals to whom they apply.

Nothing about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples would prevent Archbishop Brunett's church from continuing to discriminate against same-sex couples in what the church, unlike our state, is free to regard as the sacrament of marriage.
— Xavier Callahan, Seattle

Prostrate before power

Hundreds of mainstream Christian, Jewish and other congregations in Washington perform marriages between committed, loving couples of the same sex. But Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett's beliefs trump theirs, and he encourages Roman Catholic faithful to rally against legal recognition of these "so-called" marriages. Brunett then claims a "track record" of rejecting "all unjust discrimination" and "recogniz[ing] the inherent dignity of all people."

In the '60s, the Catholic Church was indeed a force for civil rights and social justice. That was a long time ago. Last year, bishops demanded that Catholics vote for George Bush, who disdains church teaching on most issues but toes the party line on government regulation of private sexual conduct. Sex, to the Catholic bishops, is the litmus test.

This from an institution whose exclusively childless, never-married male leaders covered up rampant child abuse by their clergy. And when the GLBT civil-rights bill almost passed in 1994 and 2004, it was killed by Catholic senators responding to appeals from bishops.

Fortunately, the bishops are not the church. Many Catholic faithful agree with the sign held by a student on the steps of the Temple of Justice last Tuesday: "Our Jesus loves everyone."
— Dave Horn, Seattle

Fruit of the poisoned family tree

Having spent 25 years as an attorney specializing in family law, I must respectfully disagree with Archbishop Brunett. I invite anyone who believes that limiting marriage as a union between a man and woman is for "the good of children and society" to spend a few days in the Family Law Court of the King County Courthouse, where it is painfully clear that the "building block for the family" is crumbling.

True, the union of a man and woman may be able to create children, but such a union does not necessarily give or guarantee those children the best environment for growth and wholesome development.

It would be most appreciated if Archbishop Brunett would continue to defend his teaching of marriage solely within his religious institution, and not impose his beliefs on the rest of society.

And while he is preaching, perhaps he should work to eliminate the sexual abuses within his own church.
— Gail Stagman, Mercer Island

The mirage of true minds

If we were to follow the line of thought that Archbishop Brunett et al. espouse, we would decide that a stipulation of getting married will be that a couple must promise to have children. They must also promise not to get divorced, as this will destroy the lives of their children. Furthermore, daddy must be a strong father figure, as children raised by other than a clearly defined male will be irreparably damaged.

Leave aside for a moment this bunch's assertion, with absolutely no proof, that children raised in situations lacking exactly one man and one woman suffer emotionally. Getting married is a relatively conservative thing to do, and the people who choose to do so are not likely those who intend to undermine the moral foundations of society.

However, since we have now been informed that wedding vows are a weighty proposition, I await the mobilization of the right on behalf of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to outlaw quickie marriages in Las Vegas.
— John Kneeland, London, Ontario, Canada

Battle plan

Fighting an unarmed man

I find it amusing that Ruben Navarrette Jr. accuses me, Democrats and others as failing to understand simple mathematics in "Math-deficient Democrats also need to get specific" (syndicated column, March 10).

Democrat after Democrat has said that they will not offer a Social Security "counter-plan" until George Bush offers a detailed plan of his own. To disparage Democrats for lacking an alternative to a non-existent plan is absurd.

The thing that kills me is that Navarrette points out that Bush has not actually proposed anything! He has only made "a call for reform." Talk about not connecting the dots!

I have enjoyed several of Navarrette's columns in the past, but the recent revelations about the Bush administration covertly paying for positive press make me wonder about motive. I should not be able to pick logic holes in the arguments of professional writers so easily.
— Michael Blake, Seattle

All for love

All or nothing at all

Shame on Boeing's board of directors for reading personal e-mails ("Boeing still investigating Stonecipher paramour," Business & Technology, March 10). Will they fire the supplier of the information as well?

Where does the unethical conduct stop? Sounds like entrapment to me. You go, Harry and Debra!
— Katie Gilkey, Renton

All the things you are

When you Google "dangers of e-mail" you get 2,180,000 returns in .32 seconds, but adding "clueless executives" cuts that number down to a much more manageable 832 hits.
— Scott Coughlin, Seattle