Just opened my voters pamphlet and was amazed to read about Referendum 71. I thought it was about people being made into abominations or forcing your sexuality on another. Actually, the bill will give domestic partners, heterosexual or homosexual, the financial benefits and legal obligations equal with married people. I kept looking for the derogatory motives of the for and against, but both sides sounded honest and sincere to me. Like most Washingtonians, I must be out of the loop on this one.
The reason I support keeping marriage as is now is basically for the reasons those who want to expand the rights of marriage, they see it as a right, I see it as a responsibility too many of us have failed to realize.
To me, marriage was not about getting benefits, it is a commitment to our spouse and family that we have not been doing a good job of keeping. The benefits were to help make that commitment less of an undertaking. Getting the benefits without marriage appears shortsighted.
Marriage benefits were not meant for heterosexuals who could not get better pension benefits. If we just want to give people benefits, why not just give them to all of us and not discriminate at all to the other classes of people this bill leaves out? Our beliefs on marriage remain intact regardless how this bill is voted upon, but I suggest voting No on 71. Gays and straights deserve a better chance of having a mom and dad in their house growing up. I believe having the standard set that way encourages the better possibility of it.
MICK SHELDON
Kingston
Election 2009
Zabinski will deliver
on his promises
As a resident of Seabeck, I am interested in the upcoming election for Port Commissioner. I am very familiar with one candidate, Roger Zabinski, and am impressed with the extraordinary qualities he will bring to the position. They are badly needed in the political climate we live in today. I have known Roger and his family for a couple of years and am struck by his honesty and sincerity. He is a totally selfless individual and will dedicate himself to serving those he represents. He is a good man of integrity with a deep devotion to his wife and two young daughters. And he is driven by a desire to serve. His motivation is to represent his constituents, stay attuned to their concerns on issues and do what is right by the community.
Seabeck needs attention with respect to the Misery Point boat launch and also the long-running saga of the Seabeck Marina. I can only hope Roger Zabinski, serving as a port commissioner, can help focus attention on these important issues. Roger has family connections in Seabeck. His wife Mary grew up here and Roger really cares about Seabeck along with the other communities in the Port’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, he brings expertise in science, the environment and finance that are all critical to the Port’s mission of economic development, while being a good steward of our community cultures and the exceptional environment of the Puget Sound and Hood Canal. There is a way to move forward with reasonable development, attract new business and residents, while keeping all we have come to love so dearly — to foster a growing economy and provide a promising future for our children in the setting that is unique here on the Kitsap. I think Roger Zabinski is the one to best deliver on this hope in the hearts of so many.
BILL REEDER
Seabeck
Zabinski best
for Port post
After hearing Roger Zabinski at the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce’s Eggs and Issues, I am convinced he is the best candidate for Port of Bremerton, District 1 Commissioner. As a thoughtful scientist and economist, he plans an analytical approach to the operations of the Port, which seem from recent news reports to have been some sort of political football.
With a commitment to the good of the community, he will listen to the people and search for ways to make the marinas and airport self-supporting. He believes the wishes of all the people of the Port, including those in Lake Symington and Seabeck, should be considered.
He would give a fresh, vigorous and intelligent approach to solving old problems of the Port of Bremerton with the welfare of all of us in mind.
JANICE MCLEMORE
Silverdale
Vote no on Referendum 71
Just opened my voters pamphlet and was amazed to read about Referendum 71. I thought it was about people being made into abominations or forcing your sexuality on another. Actually, the bill will give domestic partners, heterosexual or homosexual, the financial benefits and legal obligations equal with married people. I kept looking for the derogatory motives of the for and against, but both sides sounded honest and sincere to me. Like most Washingtonians, I must be out of the loop on this one.
The reason I support keeping marriage as is now is basically for the reasons those who want to expand the rights of marriage, they see it as a right, I see it as a responsibility too many of us have failed to realize.
To me, marriage was not about getting benefits, it is a commitment to our spouse and family that we have not been doing a good job of keeping. The benefits were to help make that commitment less of an undertaking. Getting the benefits without marriage appears shortsighted.
Marriage benefits were not meant for heterosexuals who could not get better pension benefits. If we just want to give people benefits, why not just give them to all of us and not discriminate at all to the other classes of people this bill leaves out? Our beliefs on marriage remain intact regardless how this bill is voted upon, but I suggest voting No on 71. Gays and straights deserve a better chance of having a mom and dad in their house growing up. I believe having the standard set that way encourages the better possibility of it.
MICK SHELDON
Kingston
