How will you be voting on Referendum 71? Do you think that lesbian and gay couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples?
Position 7
Tom Odell
My personal voting decision on R-71 has little to do with my qualifications as a candidate for the Sammamish City Council election or the many very important city issues that affect our city’s residents as a whole.
Personal choices in election issues in our country are supposed to be a private matter for ordinary citizens as well as elected officials and political candidates.
I prefer to concentrate my efforts and attention on the many issues that will be facing our city as a whole in the coming decade.
Jack Barry
I’ve been happy to clarify my qualifications to serve, and my positions on matters of city governance through these Reporter forums, and want to stay focused on municipal concerns.
Referendum 71 presents an important question to Washington voters, but it truly isn’t relevant to the many questions of Sammamish Council governance. I deeply respect the rights of all citizens, urge voters to consider the matter carefully, and vote!
Position 5
Don Gerend
I did vote Yes on Referendum 71, because I believe that we are stronger as a result of our inclusiveness.
It is important to treat all of our citizens equally and with respect, whether or not their rights and protections are guaranteed under City ordinances or under State or Federal laws.
In this case we are dealing with State law, but the benefits of Referendum 71 inure equally to the citizens of our city.
Inclusiveness also applies to racial and cultural background.
I recently attended the Indian Festival of Lights, Diwali, and was delighted to participate in this wonderful example of how multiculturalism is enriching Sammamish and the surrounding communities.
With respect to Initiative 1033, I voted No because it doesn’t treat all of our citizens equally.
I did vote Yes on King County Charter Amendment No. 4 which provides added protection to some of the region’s treasured lands.
Michael Rutt
I will be voting yes on Referendum 71.
I believe the most powerful elements that our founding fathers established are the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I support the extension of equal rights and protections for all human beings.
Position 3
John Curley
The last question in this series created a nice little brew ha hah.
I understand some candidates didn’t want to answer this one. I will.
I voted yes on R-71. I support Senate Bill 5688.
SB 5688 extends protection of sick leave to care for a domestic partner, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, business succession rights, adoption and child custody.
It allows lawmakers to finish the work they began two years ago.
Opponents of R-71 have said approval will lead to a push for same sex marriage – that R-71 is just the camel’s nose under the tent.
Well, those against have a point. R-71 may very well lead to more of the camel.
And If it does, I am sure we will have a chance to vote on it.
Tom Vance
Of course, this is a controversial issue for many of our citizens, and I suspect for some of my supporters.
I’m proud of the fact that my supporters come from many political backgrounds. I can sit down with someone and agree on issues related to growth management, environmental protections, transit and transportation, parks and recreation, and so many other issues of importance in our City.
And yet we may vote very differently on even numbered election years and may have very different views on some social issues.
I haven’t voted my ballot yet — I’ve been busy running a campaign!
When I do, I’ll be thinking about our economic future when I vote on Initiative 1033, I’ll be concerned with protecting our environment and preserving open space when I consider Charter Amendment 4, and I’ll be thinking about our individual and human rights when I make my decision on Referendum 71.
Position 1
John James, candidate for position 1, did not respond to this question.
Erica Tiliacos
Referendum 71 involves a State level public policy issue, which is clearly outside the mandate of any local City Council.
The Council’s job is to implement State law after it is established and not the other way around.
I also question The Reporter’s premise in offline clarifications that responses will reveal the true character and values of the candidates.
I’d like to clarify that in running for public office, candidates do not surrender their intrinsic rights as citizens and that would include the right to a secret ballot.
Our country and local communities have become far too polarized. We have forgotten how to listen to each other, while maintaining an open mind.
This question is not germane to what is a non-partisan local election, yet it has the potential to polarize and is therefore counterproductive.
The Reporter missed an opportunity for a strong close to an excellent forum.
