Letters to the Editor - October 22, 2012

  • Written by Readers

Roger Goodman, state representative of the 45th Legislative District, was recently given MADD’s “Legislator of the Year” award for his efforts in getting interlocking devices installed on cars for convicted drunk drivers. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers noted that it reduces highway deaths from drunk driving by 20 percent.  They called Washington’s law a model for the other 49 states.

Despite his great service to our state, Joel Hussey, his Republican challenger, has accused him of “sponsoring a bill that lightens penalties on drunk drivers and will cost millions because it violates federal funding standards.”

Both accusations are completely false. It is this level of political lying that disenfranchises voters from the truth and, in turn, reveals the character of the accuser.  Voters in the 45th would be wise to take Hussey to task on all of his claims, given the size of this whopper.

Robert Horn, Woodinvill

I’m interested in a vision for Woodinville that can bring out the best in all of us and help us get beyond the “me versus you and us versus them” divisions that separate us. I think the Happiness Initiative can do that.

Thanks to the tiny country of Bhutan, the Gross National Happiness framework was launched through the United Nations using nine domains of happiness: physical health; psychological well-being; time or work-life balance; social connection and community vitality; education; access to arts, culture and recreation; environmental quality and access to nature; good governance; and material well-being.

As a result Seattle was inspired to create the Happiness Initiative that provides a 10-minute online survey ( using the domains to measure happiness both individually and collectively as a city. Besides Seattle the cities of Victoria, B.C., and Eau Claire, Wis., have measured their happiness indicators.

Could we launch a Woodinville Happiness Initiative and announce the survey results at our Celebrate Woodinville event in August 2013?

And then could we have town hall meetings to celebrate what makes us happy and discuss ways to improve those areas that are not so happy?

We welcome your input and invite you to join us for an upbeat and informative 9-minute film from KCTS/9 TV called Measuring Happiness. It will be held Thursday, November 1, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. at Health Moves on 17211 135th Avenue NE, Ste. C-800 here in Woodinville.

If you support this vision and want to help put it into action (one to four hours a week depending on your time balance), please contact Trish at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  We welcome you on our Woodinville Happy Team.

Trish Knox, Woodinville

The homosexual community often calls those opposed to gay marriage, intolerant bigots or theocrats. They are insulting the same people who passed R-71, the anything-but-marriage act. Intolerant bigots or theocrats would not have passed R-71. It seems to me that the activists in the homosexual community are the intolerant ones. Those who would reject R-74 have been very accommodating to the homosexual community as evidenced by granting them the same rights as heterosexual couples. We generally feel that, despite our disagreement with the gay lifestyle, we would live and let live. There currently is nothing stopping a homosexual couple from marrying in a church that agrees with their views or from partaking in whatever sort of ceremony they would want. Given that and the granting of equal rights, redefining marriage for everyone is the intolerant point of view. The heterosexual activist community is disrespecting the traditions and religious beliefs of this country.

They would and have harmed religious freedom in this country all in an effort to legally define marriage as between any two persons. If passed, those who disagree with homosexual marriage for religious or other reasons would be forced to not tolerate the gay lifestyle but would be forced to promote the gay lifestyle.

Already in states where gay marriage is law, young children are being taught about gay marriage at a young age with no opt out or notification for parents.

People with religious objections have been sued for not accommodating gay marriages. It seems to me we already have a good compromise between religious liberty and fair and equal treatment for the homosexual community. A vote against R-74 is not a vote against homosexual rights, it is a vote to protect the current compromise of religious freedom and equal rights for all citizens, gay or straight.

Keith Johnson, via email

The following quote is from an article by Jaime Manson supporting same sex marriage:

“(We) often realize that any human person or relationship that brings love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, generosity or faithfulness into the world is a sign of God’s grace.”

Perhaps this is the reason so many … defend marriage equality: They have recognized these graces can come forth as much through same-sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Those who have (this perspective) recognize that a couple’s ability to enter into a marriage commitment is not contingent on their anatomies, but on the depth, strength and fruitfulness of their bond.

It is precisely this sentiment expressed in “love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, etc…” that the term marriage equality was born. Of course to oppose it would be to support marriage inequality!

Inequality anything intimates abuse, oppression, meanness. Same tactics in the euphemisms chosen in pro-choice vs. …what…?  Pro-“force?!”

The question remains, is it more loving, kind, generous or godly to promote God’s design in marriage or a deviant version of human union?

Looking at stats alone would highly favor heterosexual couples over same sex couples in thorough and scientific studies like the New Family Structures Study found at

In particular, these studies provide hands-down evidence that strengthen the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family.  Why would someone subject children to a myriad of social, financial, emotional and health challenges when it is proven that the depth, strength and fruitfulness of the heterosexual bond so clearly outshines same sex parents, unless of course there is a hidden agenda promoted in the shadows?

That, my friends, is unloving, unkind and selfish.  Let’s call a spade a spade.  Isa 5:20  “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!“

Beware of the redefinition of terms.

Pastor Rich Farinella, Woodin Valley Baptist Church,Woodinville

In reading  Gayle Hickey’s response to a previous letter asking about Dawn McCravey’s stand on state issues, I don’t know any more about Dawn McCravey’s stand than before Mrs. Hickey refuted the letter talking about Dawn’s energy company connections both in Texas and in Washington.  Also, for Mrs. Hickey to dismiss questions of Mrs. McCravey’s stand on other issues because education is what involves the majority of the state budget doesn’t answer questions of McCravey’s stand on other state issues.

Where does the candidate stand on women’s issues?  This year, the Republican party both in Congress and in state legislative bodies across the United States, has spent a surprising amount of both time and money on women’s choice and birth control issues, so it is certainly a valid question for voters to ask Mrs. McCravey.

What about environmental regulations?  What about state employee bargaining rights?

I don’t know if the press doesn’t ask Mrs. McCravey these questions but in the press, I never see anything other than her stand on education.

I look on her website…mainly talk about education.  I attended a public debate this fall, but again only educational issues were addressed. I look for another public forum but I am not aware of another. A state representative handles much more than educational issues, so as a voter in District 1, I want more information on candidate McCravey and I wish there was a way for me to get the information.

Nancy Celms, Bothell

As a mother, grandmother, former Northshore School Board member and champion of education in the state senate for many years, State Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe has made a powerful impact on our schools.

When we re-elect her and send her back to the senate, she will continue her longstanding fight against cuts to schools and work to find a way to fully fund education in our state. In the 20-plus years I have had the good fortune to know Rosemary, she has been a tireless advocate for early learning opportunities and the funding our universities need to make college more affordable for our graduates.

Washington needs Rosemary McAuliffe to continue her work of strengthening the education our students receive in science, technology, engineering and math so they are prepared for the 21st century jobs that await them.

Let’s send her back to the senate for another term as chair of the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee.

Peggy Sherman, Woodinville

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter