Our readers' views June 29

As its executive director and on behalf of YWCA Clark County, I ask Washington voters: Please support registered domestic partnerships and decline to sign Referendum 71 petitions. Our organization opposes Referendum 71 and supports the 2009 Domestic Partnership Expansion Law. We take this position because our mission is to eliminate oppression and build a community of peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all people. This includes oppression based on sexual orientation.

Referendum 71 petitions would require a vote overturning Senate Bill 5688. The new law is needed and appropriate. Our current law limits many partnership benefits to married couples. This new law expands state law, allowing the same benefits for domestic partnerships: heterosexual couples over age 62 and homosexual couples. Registered domestic partners may lose more than 200 rights and responsibilities if Referendum 71 qualifies for the ballot and is passed. The Domestic Partnership Expansion Law takes effect July 26 unless opponents collect 120,577 valid signatures to put Referendum 71 on the ballot. It's time to guarantee the rights of domestic partners. Please do not sign the Referendum 71 petitions.

Kathy Kniep

Vancouver

Regarding Garrison Keillor's June 21 column, "Don't call on Father's Day, I'll be gone," it's certainly no "Little House on the Prairie Companion," that's for sure. Shame on you, Keillor, world-renowned philosopher and father. Many men don't wish to be fathers and choose not to. Keillor chose to tell your children on Father's Day notwithstanding, "I never wanted to be a father."

His insightful revelation, "Father's Day is all about retail sales and zero about me" is spot on. What family would choose to celebrate a lone ranger whose testosterone is amped by a V-12 engine, rather than his children who undoubtedly travel vicariously and only speculatively with their dad on his weekend solo travels with strangers across this nation via radio waves. Probably Keillor's family, his children.

But maybe not because he's "hightailing it out of here, off to the lonely sea and sky to hear the high lonesome whistle blow." As he hightails it out of here, maybe one or two of those people that he passes while driving through little farm towns will be someone he knows. If he looks, real closely, he just might see a glimmer of envy in his children's eyes.

Terry Ann Conley

La Center

In Tana Aichele's June 18 letter, "Inconsistencies seen in freedom," she asked, "Why do we have to overhaul the whole health care system that works fine for 85 percent of us and not so well for 15 percent?" I am a 68-year-old widow blessed with excellent health until last year when I was stricken with two serious diseases. Even though I have Medicare and a supplemental insurance, I am paying thousands of dollars out of my own pocket for co-payments.

There shouldn't be a system with some people getting 85 percent and others getting 15 percent. There should be 100 percent for all the people to get health care. The U.S. is the only large industrialized nation without national health care for all its citizens. Good for Aichele that she is in the 85 percent. I hope for her sake that she stays there.

Sandra L. Adkins

Ridgefield

Yes, Boy Scouts do a lot in the community, but so do Girl Scouts. Wherever we can, we do Gold Award projects that require upwards of 65 hours of service, not including the hours of prerequisites.

For the Flag Day celebration at Officers Row, Boy Scouts were invited to present the giant flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. The Boy Scouts were joined by several Girl Scouts as well. These girls were in uniform and helped to hold the flag with the boys and adults from both organizations. These girls deserve to be recognized for their devotion to country and service to community.

Lenora A. Oftedahl

Vancouver

Here in Clark County, it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about who is accused. I've been charged, tried and convicted of first-degree robbery, two counts of first-degree kidnapping and attempt to elude. I'm African-American and truly believe this had a lot to do with me being maliciously prosecuted.

After two drawn-out trials, one resulted in convictions for robbery and attempt to elude, with a hung jury on the kidnapping charge after three days of deliberation. The second trial was for two counts of kidnapping in the first degree. The alleged victim changed testimony and admitted to lying in the first trial, but the prosecution put forward another trial on the robbery and elude charges.

Every witness testified to a robbery but not to being threatened or harmed, verbally or physically. I should never have been charged with kidnapping. Yet the jury returned guilty verdicts. I'm facing 25 years, but I see cases where killers get 14 years, drive-by shooters get seven years, and robbers with guns get five years. Of course, these sentences were given to white men.

Samuel Ferguson

Vancouver

John D. Letellier, in a June 21 letter, "Reform three-strikes," wrote about three-strikes injustice. I think it's not injustice, at the level he claims, at all.

He claims there should be compassion, exceptions and mitigating factors. There is, for his current and non-future victims. Washington grew tired of those who continued to threaten or hurt others. Trial costs add up. This law set an acceptable allowance, then set the level of accountability it would deal out if there were further incidents. Letellier must not have believed in the three-strikes law because it did not deter him from what he thought was acceptable behavior. He wrote, the law "suppresses the very things that separate us from lower life forms."

He had three chances to decide where he lives. He chose … not us.

Brad Killip

Vancouver

According to Webster's dictionary, a "czar" is a title bestowed a former emperor of Russia or any person having great or unlimited power over others. President Obama has recently appointed more than a dozen czars to "oversee" many aspects of American life.

Article II of the United States Constitution is very specific on powers granted to the executive branch and although I've read it a number of times, I still can't find any reference to granting the president such authority. I'm appalled to think President Obama has appointed any czars. This isn't Russia, and the Constitution authorizes no person to have unlimited power over others.

Jeremy Baenen

Vancouver