WVA Fights Domestic-Partners Law

31 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  toadman on May 04 at 3:39 p.m.

  I support it, in that I believe it’s a good first step to legalizing gay marriage, which I also support.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on May 04 at 3:47 p.m.

  I support it - it also includes couples that are over 65. I think it should also cover couples who have been together for a certain length of time regardless of age. Case in point: Me, younger than 65, together with significant other for 23 years with bills to back me. Ok, we could get married - but then I would inherit all the bad things too - what if he has a stroke and ends up in a nursing home - would I have to cover it with MY funds?

• 

  Sam_Crawford on May 04 at 4:21 p.m.

  If the Washington Values Alliance is against it, I’m probably for it.

  I’m tired of do-gooders trying to impose their values on society.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 04 at 4:37 p.m.

  JeanieS >>> “what if he has a stroke and ends up in a nursing home - would I have to cover it with MY funds?”

  What happens if YOU have a stroke and wind up in a nursing home. Or, maybe just requiring 24 hr care of you. That is a big time expense now, to hire caregivers. If, and when you guys decide to get married, you will both know it is THE time. Can happen anytime, or never.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 04 at 4:47 p.m.

  I doubt the measure will get enough signatures to qualify, but if it does, it’ll lose handily. National polls have gay marriage approaching 50% approval, and civil unions with full marriage rights at 60% approval. The numbers are probably higher in WA State.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 04 at 4:53 p.m.

  50% approval is a stretch. And many saying they approve are only trying to be ‘with it’.

  http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=235

• 

  JeanieSpokane on May 04 at 4:59 p.m.

  HMO - yes, it is a concern. I am the one who works - he doesn’t. He is a backyard mechanic (and a very good one, but still, whatever he makes he puts back into his cars). If I have a stroke - I’m doomed.

• 

  idawa on May 04 at 5:27 p.m.

  HMO - those number you posted are interesting, but not very compelling against spoke’s point. For one, they just poll that nearly half of Americans oppose “gay marriage,” not that they are in opposition to marriage equality, and as you know, in polling the framing of the question is important.

  Regardless, a similar Zogby poll showed that as late as 1991 - only 48% of Americans supported interracial marriage and as late as the mid ‘80s more Americans were opposed to interracial marriage than agreed with it, so does that mean that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn the law/bans on interracial marriage in ‘67 when a full 72% of the population, at the time, disagreed with interracial marriage?

  It seems to me, the key point isn’t your views on “gay marriage,” but your view on whether homosexuality is trait or a choice. A zogby poll commission by Scientific American (April Issue) in 2006 showed the half of Americans believe homosexuality was a trait, and only 45% people believed it was choice. Of those who thought it was a choice, 33% believe that it was also influenced by other factors (a qualified answer). In fact, only 11% of the people polled thought that homosexuality was a conscious choice. And, when you cut into those numbers by demographic, the people that believe it is choice tend to skew older. So, as more and more people come to understand the homosexuality is a trait, marriage equality is the inevitable conclusion. (I aknowledge that there is a good argument to protect marriage equality even if homosexualty is a choice, but that is another debate…)

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 04 at 5:35 p.m.

  idawa. I’m not taking a position on this issue. Merely want to suggest that the majority of Americans don’t want it. It should be left to the voters, imo.

• 

  idawa on May 04 at 7:21 p.m.

  I guess that was what I was trying to get at HMO. If we had left the inter-racial marriage issue up to voters, it wouldn’t have been legal until the ‘90s when it gained majority approval, even then, in some state it still might not be legal if voter were given the choice. Personally, I’ll take a stand on that issue and say that wouldn’t have been okay, and neither is this.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 04 at 8:03 p.m.

  The fundies will have to pour in millions and millions of dollars to try and get this anti-gay measure passed. They’ll lose, however.

  The latest national poll on the matter, released today:

  “A new national poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose legalizing same sex marriages — but there’s a vast generational divide on the issue.

  Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggests they should be considered legal.
  Among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents 35 to 49 years old, and to 41 percent for those 50 to 64 years of age. The poll indicates that only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages as valid.
  …”
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/cnn-poll-generational-gap-on-gay-marriage/

  This is probably the highest support, 44%, for gay marriage, that I’ve seen. But all the polls in the past few years have been trending upwards on the issue.

  Since the WA state law essentially extends all the rights (1000s) of marriage to same sex couples, WITHOUT calling it marriage, it’s extremely unlikely to be repealed via this measure, no matter how much money the fundies and the Mormons spend.

  They COULD spend that money wisely, you know, helping the poor and downtrodden, the sick and elderly, but NOOOOOO, they’re going waste that money trying to take away the rights of gay people.

  Who Would Jesus Take Rights Away From?

• 

  LukeB on May 04 at 8:04 p.m.

  Yeah, lets let the voters decide civil rights issues! We could take the vote back from women and re-institute segregation (hell, why not slavery?). How about throwing those homos into jail again for what they do in the privacy of their own homes?

  There is a reason why the majority does not rule in this country.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 04 at 8:10 p.m.

  And BTW, it’s a choice to be Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Baptist, or any other religion, yet it’s still against the law to deny the rights given to us by our Creator on account of religious preference.

• 

  Nick_Adams on May 04 at 9:07 p.m.

  This thread is exactly why we have courts and not just the populace to weigh in on important matters. Without the court, we’d still have laws that would’ve prohibited Catholic, Jews and Mormons from holding office. We’d still have “seperate, but equal”.

  The Founding Fathers were brilliant to create our system of checks and balances. And the Supreme Court was courageous to assert its ability to declare laws or executive action unconstitutional.

  What many, like hmoff, forget is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not public opinion. Thank God.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 04 at 11:30 p.m.

  For example, if this were to be made public, the decision maker would be facing charges:

  Joe Sixpack is an outstanding employee. Hard worker, always on time, got a couple of promotions, his department has achieved $15M in budgetary savings while improving output, his underlings love him, as do his peers and supervisors, real talent for the future of this company. Oh, of course his performance reviews are top-notch.

  Exectutive: That’s all well and good but I know for fact he’s a Jew. I won’t have those Christ-killers working here. He’s fired. Dirty Jews…

  The law: You’re busted, Exec. Don’t Pass Go, you’re going to jail for illegal discrimination in the workplace.

  ––––––––—

  Stacy Elmer Johntson is an outstanding employee. Hard worker, always on time, got a couple of promotions, his department has achieved $15M in budgetary savings while improving output, his underlings love him, as do his peers and supervisors, real talent for the future of this company. Oh, of course his performance reviews are top-notch.

  Exectutive: Well that’s all well and good, but I know for fact he’s a homo. I won’t have any of those abominaters against God working here. He’s fired.

  The law ( in most states): OK, no problem, screw that homo, too bad. Agreed, decreed by law, fired, no recourse.

  Unfair, unequal treatment, no question.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 04 at 11:42 p.m.

  And yes, before you bray about it, there ARE managers, HR people, and Execs who will make decisions counter to the best interests of their company, just because they are prejudiced. Not all, maybe even most won’t, but there’s a significant minority out there that will, and it’s wrong and should be against the law.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic