Thanks to the Ballard News Tribune for your supportive editorial on marriage equality for same-sex couples ("What's love got to do with it?", August 2). After the devastating decision from our state supreme court, it's nice to read that some people understand that we deserve the same right to marry that our heterosexual neighbors have.

We have read the court's ruling and we are disgusted at the reasons the five members of the majority used against us. Their primary reason is that, if we're allowed to marry, heterosexuals won't have the necessary incentive to procreate and then to take care of the kids they produce: "encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples." "Procreation" appears 26 times in the ruling, five times on one page alone. That's a lot of procreating.

We've talked with some of our heterosexual friends who, parents or not, are also angered by this ruling. It especially irritates the childless couples. They feel rightly appalled at the court's condescension.

The court is holding us to double standards. It acknowledged that the State doesn't require heterosexual couples to be able to have children naturally. But it said that applying the standard to us is rational. It acknowledged that marriage is a fundamental civil right - for heterosexuals but not for gay people. It acknowledged that convicts serving time in prison have a fundamental right to marry - but a class of law-abiding citizens does not. It acknowledged that gender discrimination is illegal. But keeping us from marrying because of our gender is not. It said that violating the right of heterosexuals to privacy in their choice of marriage partner is wrong. But violating it for us is okay. It said that, while our state constitution talks about equal treatment for "all citizens," it means only the majority - yes, the majority - is protected.

The court isn't the only culprit here. It upheld what the legislature said in 1998. And some will say we should have gone to the legislature in the first place. Or even further, that our marriage should be put to a vote of The People. Easy suggestions from those who already have the right to marry and whose marriage isn't questioned by society.

How would heterosexuals feel about having to go to the state legislators for permission to marry their loved one? They'd be outraged and rightfully so. "[T]he right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," as one court put it in 1948. For sixty years our laws have treated marriage as a personal choice between two people, a choice assured by constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection.

Further, how would heterosexuals feel about having to get the okay from this state's voters for their marriage? They would never know because they take for granted the fundamental right to marry, and in America, no one - not even the majority - gets to vote on fundamental rights.

Nevertheless we are now forced to go to the legislature to ask for equality - something guaranteed to us in our constitution that we shouldn't have to ask for. It took 30 years to get a basic anti-discrimination law passed. We're not going to hold our breath for 30 more.

What we will do, and what we ask our friends and neighbors to do, is to vote for good people. It grates on us to do so but we need to ask a favor. Politics has directly affected our home life of 13 years together, so this is now crucial to us.

Three of the supreme court justices are up for re-election this fall, two of whom - Justices Susan Owens and Tom Chambers - agree that we should be allowed to marry. They are good people and need to be re-elected. The third one, Chief Justice Alexander, voted against us. But his challenger offers even less hope. So please, your vote is needed to retain all the incumbents.

Finally, legal marriage is not about love. Or religion, ideals, or procreation. Legal marriage is about hundreds of rights, obligations, protections and responsibilities granted by the state and federal governments. It's also about being allowed to be part of a state-sanctioned institution. We need and deserve the right to legally marry - and the legislature and the court have denied that to us.

The Freedom To Marry: Rites & Rights at www.lmaw.org/freedom, by Ken Molsberry, contains more about the right to marry and the court case.