"The wedding gift not yet spoken for is a full set of rights"

Our registry

The wedding gift not yet spoken for is a full set of rights

Editor, the Times:

"Law lets couples be 'partners' " [Times page one, July 23], on the beginning of Washington's domestic-partnership registration, inaccurately suggests that same-sex couples who registered treated the event as equivalent to marriage.

While a small number of couples did celebrate the occasion with veils or makeshift wedding rites on the sidewalk, these informal gestures reflected the mixed emotions of the day: Jewish couples broke plastic cups instead of the traditional glasses, and one woman wearing a veil held a sign saying, "When we get the rest of our rights, we'll wear the rest of the dress."

While same-sex couples now have a number of important rights pertaining to medical decisions and end-of-life issues, the registry affords fewer than two dozen of the 1,400 legal protections and responsibilities of marriage at the state and federal levels.

Being issued a small plastic card is not the same as being issued a marriage license, and "Just Registered" certainly does not have the same ring as "Just Married."

Despite the celebratory atmosphere at the Secretary of State's Office on Monday, registering couples were aware that their new protections are by no means comparable to what opposite-sex couples take for granted.

— Andrew Kohler, Mercer Island

Matching ties would be nice

My spouse and I were one of the first couples to go to Olympia Monday and take advantage of the new registry because equal rights are very, very important to us.

As a committed gay couple, we have worked hard all of our lives, paid our taxes, been faithful church members, done community charity work — just like many heterosexual couples, with no guarantees that our wishes would be carried out should one of us become ill or die.

As a man with multiple sclerosis, I have often been concerned as to whether my chosen spouse would be able to make medical decisions for me in a time of need or be able to inherit my estate without question or hindrance.

I have good reason for concern because in my former 17-year relationship, my partner was killed in an auto accident and his family immediately made my life a living hell, with lawsuits that froze my bank accounts, even though what was in those accounts was money I had earned. It took several months in court for me to win it back.

Even our legal Canadian marriage four years ago did not protect us in the state of Washington.

Thank you to all the people of our fine state who made this first step possible.

— Mark Andersen, Kenmore

Something borrowed

In "Gays find a struggle bringing partners into U.S." [Local News, June 25], Bruce MacDonald, the former Seattleite who moved to Vancouver, B.C., to be able to live with his Thai partner, was quoted as saying, "I was forced to leave my country but by great good fortune I got to a better place." How sadly true. In many significant ways, Canada has supplanted the U.S. as a beacon of freedom and social equity.

Most Americans, particularly our gay and lesbian citizens, would be much better off living under Canada's enlightened social and economic policies. Why, then, don't most of us follow our wistful gazes north? It's because there is hope that the incremental changes occurring in the U.S. will transform the country that we love in the not-too-distant future.

For someone like MacDonald and the other binational couples mentioned in the article, living life apart because of unjust immigration laws and the government's refusal to recognize marriage equality was not an option. Bravo to Mr. MacDonald and his now Thai-Canadian partner, Suratin Rianpracha, for making such a life-affirming statement!

— Leo Egashira, Seattle

Nothing taken away

I am a very happily married man of 13 years. My beautiful wife and I have four boys, a dog and a mortgage on a split-entry home.

When I read about gay partners and the new law that allows them some similar rights, I was disgusted, shocked and appalled. Appalled that anyone would deny these people the simple rights that the rest of us take for granted in a mostly free society.

Rev. Joe Fuiten [pastor of Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell] can chase them from his church if he chooses, tossing his burning interpretation of God's law at them as they leave. I choose to accept them as they are, as we all are: Imperfect. And better off if we all try to live together in a world that chooses love, not hate.

I just went inside to check on my wife and children. They are nestled soundly in their beds, a few snores here and there. The dog wagged his tail, then promptly closed his eyes again. The sun is peeking through the mist as a small plane drones overhead. I can hear cars humming throughout the neighborhood as folks, both straight and gay, head off for work along Dayton Avenue North.

I guess the world didn't end with the new law.

You go, gays.

— Ron Burkell, Shoreline

Clubbing

City misdirects force

"Mayor makes sense about reckless clubs" [editorial, July 20] and the mayor's "crackdown" are both really off-base. The Tabella club in Belltown was not responsible for the recent shooting [near the club]; staff had kicked the shooter out of the club, for causing trouble, much earlier in the evening.

The clubs are essentially being punished for the deeds of the people they take action against. This is insane!

Many other cities manage to have a safe nightclub scene without Draconian licensing requirements. This often includes significant police presence on the streets outside of clubs — which might have gone a long way toward stopping the shooting, which did not happen on Tabella property.

Before Seattle implements any nightclub licenses, it should take a look at its own actions and how it can improve public safety on its own streets and sidewalks.

— Paul Cox, Seattle

Covering for the president

So help me dodge

Regarding "Cheney's in charge during Bush colonoscopy" [News, July 21]: Since Vice President Dick Cheney was "president" on Saturday while President Bush was receiving a medical exam, did that actually make Cheney a part of the executive branch for those few hours? It seems like [it was] a golden opportunity for the National Archives to hand him a subpoena for those records that were withheld while Cheney claimed he was not part of the Bush administration ["House leader challenges Cheney: executive or legislative branch?" News, June 25].

Think he will say he is obliged to turn over paperwork generated only while he was commander in chief?

— Tom Hope, Seattle