I refer to Val Torrens column, “In support of equality, Ref. 71 deserves approval.” I fear Torrens has been misled and that her misapprehensions may be passed on to her readers.

First, Torrens says SB-5688 is not about gay rights. Its sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, certainly thinks it is. Murray leads a gay lifestyle and said when he introduced the bill, “The goal is marriage equality. It’s an important statement that our eyes are on the prize, and the prize is marriage.” (Seattle Times on January 10, 2007). Later he said that SB-5688 was an “incremental approach; a strategic plan” (Seattle Times on May 17, 2007).

Secondly, Torrens accuses those who oppose SB-5688 of perpetrating a ruse but it is those backing SB-5688 who seek to deceive. They say unmarried seniors will benefit and yet such couples can obtain all the benefits offered to them by SB-5688 by a simple power of attorney.

Thirdly, Torrens refers back to the struggle for racial equality, however, not even Jesse Jackson believes gay marriage is a civil right. He says “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” If you are born black, you are black but you have a choice whether to pursue a gay lifestyle.

What the backers of SB-5688 really want is the validation of their gay lifestyle. If SB-5688 stands, Senator Murray will pursue his “incremental approach” with a lawsuit stating that homosexual couples have the substance of “marriage” and should, therefore, have the name also. With that will come more lawsuits requiring public schools to teach that homosexual unions are normal, churches will be required to perform homosexual marriages and those who speak out against this will be subject to legal action — it has happened already in Canada.

Chris Moore

Poulsbo