Here was my response to the reader:

That's an interesting analogy, but a faulty one. The marriage is not "illegal activity" in the sense that you insinuate because the couple is not in violation of any state or local statutes. They will not face any citations or prosecution for getting married in another state. Friends and family might send them a congratulatory card or a set of towels, which usually does not happen in cases of underage drinking.

So far, I'm aware of one email and two phone calls. One of the calls is from an individual who seems to regularly find something in the paper that offends his sensibilities (for instance, he once called to complain about a mention of menstruation in a health story).

I've advised the front-end phone people to direct calls my way, so we can tally the response. So far, the reaction has been pretty tepid.

You know, this reader's email comment is fascinating. For those who are made uncomfortable by gay people, they almost always use the term "immoral." But this person suggests unlawful behavior. If the argument is that getting married is illegal, can that be extended to mean that loving someone of the same sex is criminal activity? I doubt that's what the reader meant, after all, it's not illegal to be a teenager (again using his analogy).

Or is that what he meant?

Steve, thanks for addressing this issue so clearly, I think the policy you outline is a good one.

My guess is the reader wanted to object to the announcement without saying something that made them sound like a total homophobe. They came up with the excuse of the marriage's "legality." Pretty see through, I must say.

I was married in Oregon but had an announcement run in a local paper in Pennsylvania, where my husband was from, for his friends and family. This is no different.

Steve et al... if you go to a past Community Comment Blog... you will find not only an anouncement, but a picture of my Daughter Britta and her new Spouse Jacqui.. there is a string of comments there as well.. and i'd guess it is the first "picture/story" of a gay marriage on the Spokesman Review Web Site.. They got married during what may be the window of opportunity between June and November's election.

Proud Papa John olsen

Oh Britta was never a spokane native or lived here.. j

There's an interesting thing about Washington's marriage law (RCW 26.04.020). It prohibits both same-sex marriage and marriage between first cousins, but if either wedding takes place in another state, Washington will recognize the marriage between the cousins, but not the gay couple.

Not sure what this means in the grand scheme of things. Just found it interesting.

I think your observation suggests at least a couple things, Ken Paulman.

1) The extent of homophobia has nearly no limits when lined up side-by-side with contrasting moral hypocrisy.

2) Washingtonians are more comfortable with marriage and the presumed incest by two people (first cousins) who may procreate than they are with marriage of two unrelated people of the same sex.

Is this the position of the people of the state of Washington? Or do we just attribute it to our "wise" predecessors? If it is a hold over from the past, should we correct it?

here's a link to the "happy family" ... take a look.... john o

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/commcomm/archive/?postID=6032#comments