A good many of us who support gay marriage honor family and marriage as much as you do, Seattleblues; we just don't define--and by extension, honor--these institutions in the same way, or on the same terms. To imply that we hate these institutions--even those of us participating therein--is clearly your favorite (only?) rhetorical tool (indeed, I'm hard-pressed to find, in an analysis of your previous battles, another weapon in your arsenal), but you've yet to illustrate why we should give it any credence.

You may feel free to vote as you will, of course, and for whatever reason. We, in turn, will continue to oppose your interests. History appears to be swinging in our favor.

Of course, again you require correction (which you will neither accept nor logically refute [the latter being, perhaps, most significant]) when you assert that this is a matter of consequences for choices. The "consequence" of not being able to marry is a fabrication built into the construct. It's not a natural consequence of homosexuality, since marriage, in itself, is not natural. So again we ask why we, as a society, bestow that privilege, and whether that reason applies to same-sex couples. And again, I point out that none of the many benefits that we many childless opposite-sex married couples offer to civilization at large would be offered in any lesser quantities by same-sex couples.

Regardless what happens, all my employees have instructions to pull any bid they've written for a client they know to be gay or lesbian. I won't hire a known gay man or lesbian. I won't patronize professional services from a firm employing gays or lesbians, and have notified two firms of this decision and the reason for it. Of my rental units 2 are inhabited by gay couples. Their leases won't be renewed, nor will I rent to any other gay or lesbian couples. I won't support with one dollar of my money a depraved lifestyle at odds with simple human biology.

See, I've been rather solid in my policy of never referring to you as a bigot. This goes beyond opposing policy, however; this is an active campaign to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. Do you have any argument as to why this position is one of anything other than bigotry?

You folks want war, war it must be.

You should hope not. As things stand, you could still be given quarter.

See, gays and lesbians make up at most 3% of the population . . .

Depends on what you're measuring. Those who engage primarily or exclusively in homosexual acts, as a result of having little or no heterosexual interest, will tend to fit your mold; however, if you include all those who engage periodically in such acts, the numbers tend to be closer to 10%. If you expand to include anyone who has had just one such experience, the percentage is likely to be considerably higher.

. . . usually concentrated in one area, such as Capitol Hill.

Usually, but not because that's the only place they grow. In fact, study after study has shown that homosexuality occurs at nigh identical rates in all cultures (numbers in, say, Iran being identical to those in the Netherlands). This suggests that superficial differences with regards to population density, class, or IQ only reflect that, upon reaching age of majority, smart, financially solvent homosexuals will tend to move where they will be allowed to function socially and economically in order to "come out."

Of course, with regards to your business, I think you'll find that those who support homosexuals constitute far, far more than 3% of the population . . . or of your market share.

I don't do business in Seattle's urban core very often. Even if I did, I sell tasteful and well crafted items, not rainbow flags or gaudy 'modern' furniture or trendy overpriced clothing or sex toys. In short, I don't think gays make up much of my client base anyway.

My guess is that you'd be pretty surprised. So far as there is a "gay aesthetic" (and that's a dubious assertion to begin with), it tends to be more conservative than you're assuming it is.

Nor am I breaking any law the Constitution should abide. With whom I associate in a business or personal capacity is my right to decide, not yours or anyone elses. If someone wishes to sue me for this decision they may win, but they won't get dime one out of me. I'd sooner go to jail than pay a morally and Constitutionally unfounded judgement.

The voice of my compassion hopes you would not leave your children to grow up fatherless out of a principle that suggests the myths in which you believe and/or the socio-economic institutions, defined according to tradition and undefended by logical argument, to which you hew earns you the right to relegate those who define these institutions differently to second-class citizenship. That voice hopes equally that if you did so, the lesson your children would learn from it would center on your profound errors in moral and philosophical judgment.

I'm not proud of the fact that there's another part of me that relishes the idea of your doing some time, but I'm clearly not too ashamed to admit it. So it goes.

If someone wants to insist on being an ill mannered barbarian, being treated that way is their own fault.

I, for one, have given you every opportunity to engage politely and rationally; you, in return, have offered not one logical rebuttal to any point I've ever made. Instead, I've been accused again and again of "hating" marriage (despite being married), with no illustration forthcoming as to the truth of this accusation. That is to say, I have treated you politely, and you have responded barbarically. By your reasoning, at this point, my treating you barbarically would be justified. Is that really the message you meant to send?