In last month’s Reporter, Rev. Lois Van Leer asked voters to approve Referendum 74 and legalize same-sex marriages. Rev. Van Leer claims that approving this referendum is the “loving” thing to do. I disagree.

Same-sex couples say that they have the right to commit to the person they love and that their commitment should be called “marriage,” indistinguishable from “traditional” marriage (marriage between one man and one woman). At its root, the problem with calling these two relationships “the same” is that they are not. Though an argument can be made that same-sex love and commitment is equal to heterosexual love and commitment, marriage is more than love and commitment: it is the beginning of a family unit whereby children enter in.

A traditional marriage family unit offers something unique to any child that joins it: a parental relationship both with someone who is the same gender and someone who is the opposite gender of the child. A same-sex partnership, no matter how much in love or how committed, cannot offer this to children. In this regard, it is not “the same.”

I recognize that due to death, divorce and other circumstances, many children are raised in single-parent homes. But I do not know any child who is raised without a mother or father in their home who would call it “the same.”

Children have an intense need for both a mother and a father. Much research has been done in recent decades which shows the significance of a father’s role in the life of a child. According to the Department of U.S. Health and Human Services, children with fathers in their lives are more secure, better able to deal with their emotions, and are less likely to become depressed than children without fathers (www.childwelfare.gov.)

Are we as a society going reject the conclusions of this research and call a home with two mothers “the same” as a home with a mother and a father?

Approving Referendum 74 is not the “loving” thing to do because the role of motherhood and the role of fatherhood are each significant in the lives of sons and daughters. This debate is not just about adult civil rights; it is also about the rights of children. In parenting, gender is significant and the democracy of children know it. Mothers cannot be fathers and fathers cannot be mothers. Marriage between one man and one women offers children both a mother and a father and this is reason enough to keep it distinct from any other union.

Rather than calling domestic partnerships “marriage,” let us be willing to add more rights to the current domestic partnership law. If same-sex couples would like the right to a legal name change, the right to a military burial next to one another, the right to federal social security, or any other rights that pertain to their relationship as adults, I would not be opposed. But let’s not call a same-sex legal union marriage.

I ask you to consider the rights of our children and continue to define marriage as the legal commitment between one man and one woman: Vote no on Referandum 74.

Claudine Gallacher, Redmond