By
Various
October 23, 2009
Editor,
Referendum 71 opponents say the measure will force schools to teach students that gays and lesbians are normal. Should we instead teach them that discrimination is acceptable?
Critics of the domestic-partners law argue the measure will lead to same-sex marriage in Washington. But even those with religious-based objections to homosexuality should defend Americans’ rights to legal equality through domestic partnerships.
Our national history is largely the story of equality and tolerance growing to include Americans of all races, religions, and yes, sexual orientations. To attack the legal rights of a minority group violates our country’s ideals and our Constitution, which requires “equal protection of the laws.” It’s also hateful, un-Christian and wrong.
By voting yes on Referendum 71, Washington voters could be among the nation’s first to say that religion does not justify intolerance, and that all Americans deserve fairness, respect and dignity. Let’s set an example for our nation by standing up for our fellow citizens.
Matt Johanson
Castro Valley, Calif.
In response to “Initiative craftsman Tim Eyman visits U-District to discuss I-1033” by Christine Michelle Brauer, Oct. 21, 2009.
My name is Kuzma Kovzun and I’d like to tell you about Initiative 1033. First of all, Initiative 1033 is nothing to be afraid of. Don’t believe the talk about education budget cuts and eternal recessions, but do some research and find out what this initiative is all about.
Basically, Initiative 1033 caps the growth of all state, county and city taxes to the rate of inflation and population growth. If any of these entities collects taxes over that amount, the extra money will be used to reduce property taxes within that entity’s jurisdiction, respectively. This initiative gives power back to taxpayers and allows them to control the rate at which they’re taxed. The main reason for the huge budget deficit Washington has recently experienced is not so much the economy, but rather irresponsible spending. During times when the economy was booming and tax revenue was high, our governor and other Democrats in congress increased spending without thinking what might happen if the economy went south. In the four years before the recession, the budget increased by 33 percent, significantly higher than the rate of inflation and population growth.
Cities and counties in Washington increased their budgets by similar amounts. When times were good, they spent beyond their means. Then, when the recession happened, suddenly there wasn’t as much tax revenue coming in, and they had to rapidly slash the budgets which ballooned by so much in the previous four years. This created a “fiscal roller coaster.” It’s basically a cycle of extravagant spending followed by a cycle of deep budget cuts. Initiative 1033 will slow the rate of growth during times of plenty so that fiscal roller coasters like the one Washington state is experiencing won’t occur.
In any case, taxes are high enough as they are. Consider this: The reason your rent is so high is because the property taxes are so high in Seattle. If the property tax rises, the landlord simply passes the costs on to the tenants, and rent rises. Try looking for a two-bedroom apartment in Federal Way or Kent, where the property tax is much lower. You can easily find one in the $600-650 range. Strange, right?
Initiative 1033 will force the state, counties and cities in Washington to prioritize what they should spend money on. It gives control back to the citizens of the state, which is the way it should be anyway. Secondary education won’t necessarily be cut. There are plenty of other programs in Washington state that could be cut. How about getting rid of the GAU welfare program? How about spending less on the homeless? How about the government learns how to be more efficient instead of wasteful?
Let’s be honest, tuition rates are never going to go back down. The only reason they jumped by 14 percent this year is due to our government’s irresponsible spending. It’s due to the fiscal roller coaster. With I-1033, this won’t happen. Because there will be no dramatic increases in spending, there will also be no deep budget cuts. If anything, your tuition rates will be lower with I-1033.
I urge you to vote yes on I-1033!
Kuzma Kovzun
Senior
Biochemistry and psychology
---
The Daily is going to be making recommendations on the upcoming state and local election. We will be having open-to-student editorial board meetings on Monday, Oct. 26 to discuss Referendum 71; Tuesday, Oct. 27 to discuss the candidates for Seattle mayor; Thursday, Oct. 29 to discuss Initiative 1033; and Sunday, Nov. 1 to discuss the candidates for King County executive. All meetings will be at 5 p.m. in The Daily’s newsroom, Communications 132. If you have an opinion on one of these items on the ballot and want your voice to be heard by The Daily’s editorial board, come to the meetings.
17 Comments
#1 Marc S.
on October 23, 2009 at 1:08 a.m.(Spokane, WA | UW Community)
Over and over again, gay-rights activists have said and continue to say that the sole purpose of laws and measures such as Ref. 71 is to be just one more stepping stone on the way to their ultimate goal of homo-sexual marriage that will be equal to hetero-sexual marriage in EVERY way. People who say that this is just about "domestic-partnerships" or "we just want the same tax benefits as hetero-sexual couples" are simply not being truthful.
Who should we believe when they tell us why they want this bill? Matt Johanson who writes an editorial to a student newspaper, or ALL of the prominent, vocal, and unashamed NATIONAL gay-rights leaders and activists who are TELLING US that what they really want is "Marriage".
The purpose of marriage is to be a shelter for the relationship of a man and a woman who together create life and have a family. It is not a bargaining chip for the advancement of a disordered and depraved lifestyle.
#2 Thomas
on October 23, 2009 at 8:15 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Kuzma Kovzun's letter so lacks logic that I don't know where to begin! I will address just two points:
Rents are not cheaper in Kent and Federal Way because property taxes are cheaper. He's a conservative--doesn't he understand the law of supply and demand? Rents are higher in the city of Seattle because it is a place where people want to live and where the number of units is limited. Thus, rents go up.
Kovzun says that "your tuition rates will be lower with I-1033." Huh? Don't make that statement without backing it up. The Washington State constitution mandates that the state government must first fund K-12 education and a few other items, such as public safety and corrections. After those few items are funded, there is virtually nothing left to spend on discretionary areas, such as higher education. Thus, your tuition will go up under I-1033!
BE HONEST, Kovzun! This is the second week in a row that you've published a letter in The Daily with deliberate falsehoods!
#3 Kuzma
on October 23, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Kudos to Marc S! I couldn't have said it better myself.
#4 Peter Fuchs
on October 23, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.(Washington, DC | Unverified Name)
The last time I visited Seattle it made the impression of being a terrifically cosmopolitan city. We went to the Seattle Symphony and heard Gerard Schwarz conduct the David Diamond Symphony # 2. In case you don't know David Diamond was a quite well-known homosexual. I took the fact of the performance and its committed nature as an indication that Washington State was an advanced place. But the opposition to basic gay rights that these recent efforts show is pretty amazing. My interest in this issue across the country is because I knew Joe Tyson, now a Catholic bishop, a person I actually used to consider a very close friend in the seminary we both attended at Catholic University in Washington DC, Theological College. To judge by sermons you can hear on line by Joe, he is deft practitioner of priming the money pump for his Archdiocese by inveigling himself with parishioners as a promiser of "covenants". I never imagined he would one day sound like Pat Robinson.. In addition, as the leader of the childrens' schools in Seattle, he wants to kick out gay clubs. This issue is related to basic equality which embraces matters of race and ethnicity. President Obama endorsed this view when he categorically connected gay rights with African American civil rights. Thus, it would also not be unreasonable to assert that Joe Tyson is trying create a new version of Segregation by administrative sleight-of-hand. I will acknowledge his craftiness in it all.. When I knew him forthrightness and candor characterized him. What does that tell you about the apparently psychologically vexed process by which priest become bishops nowadays? But what matters specifically for the University of Washington, and the reason that I visited this site, is that I recall that Joe Tyson had a Master's Degree from your fine school. I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but Mr. Tyson is now a blot on your reputation by pursuing his anti-gay agenda. I feel confident that advanced religious philosophers are correct that the Divine is a source of love and acceptance. In this sense, actions like the Catholic Church's represent a real spiritual atavism. I hope never to run into Mr;.Tyson again in life. But if I did I could only express my bewilderment at his devolution from fair-minded liberal in bizarre rights- inhibitor. Apparently the University of Washington has such a principled stand of tolerance that Mr. Tyson who is pushing a de facto segregation of gay students at Seattle schools is still allowed to hold an awards ceremony for Catholic schools on your campus. (See Youtube for the recent video) My question to your University is following. Given the decency of your editorial on this subject is this appropriate? Let us say that infamous segregationist bishop Verot of Civil War era were brought back to life and wanted to hold an awards ceremony at your University would you let him? How is your overwrought alumnus any different?
#5 Anon
on October 23, 2009 at 10:06 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
"The purpose of marriage is to be a shelter for the relationship of a man and a woman who together create life and have a family."
When will you admit that limiting marriage to heterosexuals does nothing to preserve your utopian definition of it? Can you please drop the delusion of marriage actually being this perfect thing for perfect people?
"It is not a bargaining chip for the advancement of a disordered and depraved lifestyle."
Seriously? I don't even want to start... that's just disappointing.
#6 Rob
on October 23, 2009 at 10:21 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Ref. 71 is moronic. This is not the way to equal rights.
For example, if someone wanted better treatment of cows and wanted them to have the same rights and protections as dogs (which they don't), that'd be a good thing. But trying to reclassify cows as canines isn't the way to get those equal rights. That's just ridiculous.
That's what is happening with ref 71. If you read it, 99% of it is pages of changing the definition of husband & wife to be gender neutral. Changing a name is not the way to achieve equal rights.
Do you think the civil rights movement should have tried to change black people to being called white people to get equal rights? Come on.
If you zoom out your lenses and see the bigger picture, this isn't the way to create equality. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that equality is the right thing and with a different method it will be achieved. That's why so many more people are in favor of domestic partnerships. Come on, we're university students, let's start thinking like it.
#7 Peter Fuchs
on October 23, 2009 at 11:24 a.m.(Washington, DC | Unverified Name)
I just checked in on this site again to see if there was any drive-by billets of wisdom ushering forth. But I am afraid my opinion of the University is sinking if "Rob" is any indication of the "thinking" going on there. Leave aside the issue at hand, Rob's digressions which mix categories and conceptual themes is breathtaking for its denseness. Cats and cows, and blacks and whites??? Are you serious.
I am not so surprised though. The only University of Washington grad I knew, the aforementioned Joe Tyson was bright but completely untutored as to philosophy. Perhaps the philosophical disciplines are weak at this school if a bright guy like Joe could graduate with a Master's degree and not show appreciable philosophical competence. Sadly that is still on display. As to Rob, it is not so much a matter of competence in thinking as evidence of conceptual quicksand. The conservative wilderness calls such a young man, there where there is only a Kacynski-esque evasion of humaneness and perpetual wonder at the fallen trees of ancient shibboleths. By contrast, real conservatism like that espoused by former Senator John Danforth sees the fight against gay rights as mere "cussedness." But first things first, Rob, take a class in Logic.
#8 Anonymous
on October 23, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Just to point out, the analogy about the cows and canines is inaccurate given the situation. That would be comparing two different species. In this case it is more akin to comparing a Golden Retriever wanting the same rights as a Cocker Spaniel.
From a government standpoint, it'd be reclassifying both Golden Retrievers and Cocker Spaniels as "Dogs" and giving them the same benefits. A simple change in terminology and now they have the same rights.
#9 Rob
on October 23, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Peter spent two paragraphs saying something, but I don't think it was anything useful. My logic isn't the best, but it serves the point, that making null a title doesn't fix the problem.
As for #8 Anonymous, your example goes along with my example of color.
By making the terms husband and wife null terms, it doesn't do our society any good. Why not just make it so that:
-Anyone who receives a benefit from work, $, insurance, etc. gets to decide who to share it with.
-Anyone can decide who they want to give their power of attorney to and other powers.
-Just let people give their gov't/work benefits to whoever they want to have them. Then there would be equality.
This doesn't go along with the hordes on all sides with their catchphrases and hot words, but it works.
#10 Marc S.
on October 23, 2009 at 7:12 p.m.(Spokane, WA | UW Community)
Peter- Why are you spending the effort commenting in here? All you've done in your two posts is to try to assassinate the character of someone that you went to seminary with. Is that your entire agenda? Jeez. Well I guess if you're just so mad and upset at him that you just HAD to get it off of your chest, it doesn't really matter that you ended up on the opinion column of a lousy student newspaper.
I know, just let it all out.... Tissue?
Added bonus! You just saved 200 bucks over venting to a therapist.
#11 Marc S.
on October 23, 2009 at 7:16 p.m.(Spokane, WA | UW Community)
Anon - "When will you admit that limiting marriage to heterosexuals does nothing to preserve your utopian definition of it? Can you please drop the delusion of marriage actually being this perfect thing for perfect people?"
If marriage sucks so much, why is it so important for gay community to attain?
#12 Peter Fuchs
on October 23, 2009 at 10:05 p.m.(Washington, DC | Unverified Name)
For Rob and Marc, one of the things I remember from the charming Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle was the many laid back dudes hanging out. They are just too cool, with -it, but not too much. Good for them. I can't help thinking of them with your posts. Your laid back vibe seems just ill-informed as to the seriousness of these issues for the people involved. Your callousness is excusable as the arrogance of youth. It is not excusable in someone like my former friend who is now a bishop in your city. Since you yourself have brought it to the fore, let me be explicit. I wish to destroy the respectability and faux solicitude of the anti-gay position of the Catholic church at this point. As to Joe, he seems to have evaporated what what was most authentic about himself. He is representing an evil position. That deserves no patience. It is despicable to try to deny hospital visitation rights to others. Whatever other long-range troubles one might have are not relevant. This is pure cussedness. As to why here, on this site. Thank Lord Google for that. Also, I think officials should think long and hard about allowing a hate group, which the Catholic church is at this point, any acceptance and convenience. Lastly, Rob, drop the aw-shucks country logic prattle. Being a good man, or a good woman, to say nothing of being a good husband or a good wife is an achievement in this world today. It will not come from government approval or renaming it. It stems from being a good human being. Therapy is very helpful with that. One of the first things you learn, which by the way shows you are naive of it, is that not all anger is bad. The loss of someone as charming and fine as Joe Tyson as a force for good in this world is something worth being angry about.
#13 Katie
on October 24, 2009 at 8:53 a.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
Peter - How dare you call the Catholic church a "hate group." You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself...may God judge you as he sees fit.
#14 Peter Fuchs
on October 24, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.(Washington, DC | Unverified Name)
Katie, while most everyday Catholics are just trying to live their lives as well as everyone else, I think that the Catholic clergy better hope that God judges none of us too harshly. By any realistic standard today the Catholic Church fits the parameters of a hate group. You would have to bear false witness to try to reassemble the recent facts on Church behavior any way else. While the gay issue is important, and especially important to our friends in Seattle, it takes the back burner to the grotesque destruction of childrens' lives countenanced by this same clergy you are defending. I don't know you, and I cast no aspersions on your beliefs per se. Belief is personal, and a right, and ought to stay that way. When we enter the public square we owe our fellow man or fellow woman something else. That is civilized consideration. If we cannot give that we should not be surprised that others are upset and exercised about being disrespected. One does not need to 'dare" to identify the problems of this particular organization. It has been around too long to not have its problems laid bare. That is not what makes it egregious. It is the inability to rectify anything substantially, even when it is a manifest human evil condemned by the majority of humanity. Here's an anecdote to make the point. Just before I left the seminary I was solicited and emotionally assaulted by one of my moral theology professors at Catholic University. He said he "was in love" with me after having me in class and wanted to know if I wanted to have a relationship with him. Of course I said No. Surprise, surprise, a few weeks later things were arranged so that I would no longer be in the seminary. At that point I knew my path lay elsewhere and did not fight it. I only wish I had had the clarity and confidence and wisdom I had today. Not to stay in the seminary. God sometimes works through the evil of others for good. But to identify the creepy under-handed tactics so common to this Church. You cannot really know it till you have seen if up close. I wish no harsh judgment on the average Catholic in pews. I feel nothing but compassion for them. But justice is justice. I do not think God is harsh, but if he were it would be brutally hot in Catholic climes.
#15 Katie
on October 24, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
I am sorry for your particular poor experience with the church, but that by no means represents the organization at large as a whole. Just because you have had a bad experience as a bone of contention between you and the church doesn't mean that it is thoroughly corrupt, and certainly not a "hate group" as you call it. I think you are painting the Church with far too broad a brush, and this is a harmful mistake.
#16 Anonymous
on October 24, 2009 at 5:12 p.m.(Woodinville, WA | Unverified Name)
Peter,
While of course the cases of sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy members is nothing short of abhorrent, it is by no means the only church in which clergy have sinned and done terrible things. Of course God will judge them accordingly when the time comes. However unpleasant this is to be associated with the church - you cannot allow it to supersede everything else.
Furthermore, with regard to the gay issue - I and many others, Catholic and otherwise - feel it is a universal issue of morality which transcends the Catholic faith and religion in general. It is the matter that since the beginning of time, marriage has been around (created by God) for one man and one woman, for the purposes of forming a family and procreating, preserving the human race.It is all part of nature's design. Homosexuality is abhorrent to nature, and to humankind. It is one thing to do as you wish behind closed doors, but when they take it public - to the courthouses, and the government - and demand equality along with heterosexual married couples - they must be judged accordingly.
#17 Peter Fuchs
on October 24, 2009 at 6:28 p.m.(Washington, DC | Unverified Name)
Katie and Anony, it is always intriguing that folks are so committed to transcendental values, but are usually not thorough about it. As someone who has studied the concept of natural law quite thoroughly, in Catholicism and outside of it, I can only say that the even on the very broadest levels the issues are far more complex than you are making it. I don't mean to be cute, but the devil is in the details literally. I am not going to recite the many, many aspects of Catholic moral theology that have changed over the centuries. Not because it is not interesting and ultimately convincing, but because I would not expect it to make a difference to you anyways. I am sure you are lovely people at heart, but it takes some personal effort to understand the world and especially history. By your words you clearly do not want to lift a conceptual finger so to speak. Therefore, your desire to take this out of the realm of personal experiences and put it on the transcendental level, is not going to work realistically because you won't get above the level of your religious preferences. Again, you are welcome to them, but don't forget that they are yours, not others', even if you construe them as the ultimate ones. Thus this leaves me with no other option but another anecdote, and this one's a doozy. It concerns someone who shares your taste for absolutist rhetoric and sureties. Bishop Martin Holley the auxiliary bishop of Washington DC was a well-known sexual predator in the seminary. He was a lot older than me when I met him and he sexually pushed himself on me as a twenty-one year old kid. I learned later he had done this to many others. He was a revolting sexual partner, predatory and gross. I wish I knew what I know now of how to tell these types and avoid them. It is just perfect and so telling that this creep is now a bishop. I see from a Google search that he has done this to others and stimulated some weird ramblings on the internet with his past. I think it is sad that he is around here, and I find his pronouncements, which sound similar to yours, just preposterous. I know you would like to keep this abstract, but there is no other way with folks like you than to be specific. Go talk to the auxiliary bishop of Washington about transcendental values and tell him Peter Fuchs has a long memory.
Post a comment