Spokane7
62°
October 20, 2009 in City
High court blocks release of R-71 names
Sponsors want identities of petition signers protected
OLYMPIA — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed referendum petitions to bring expanded rights for gay couples up for a public vote in November.
The court’s action maintains a hold placed Monday by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who temporarily blocked a federal appeals court ruling that had ordered the release of the names. Justice John Paul Stevens was the only member of the court who indicated he would have turned down the stay request.
The court said its order would remain in effect while it decides whether to take up a request by Protect Marriage Washington, the group that wants to reverse the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the so-called “everything but marriage” law, which grants registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married couples. While most domestic partners are gay and lesbian couples, under state law opposite-gender seniors also can register as domestic partners.
Conservative Christian groups that sponsored R-71 want to keep the signed petitions out of public view because they fear harassment from gay-rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post the names of petition signers on the Internet.
The conservative groups lost a fight to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret.
Washington state Secretary of State Sam Reed said that the Supreme Court “is simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court, and we respect that.”
“We continue to support the view of the 9th Circuit and will do our very best to uphold the voters’ desire for transparent and accountable government,” Reed said in a written statement.
Last Thursday, the appeals court reversed a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma to block release of the petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.
In its brief order, the 9th Circuit panel said Settle used the wrong legal standard in granting the preliminary injunction that barred release of the petitions, and that the injunction therefore must be reversed.
The judges said they would later issue an opinion explaining their reasoning.
Despite the appeals court ruling, the names weren’t immediately released because of a court order that was issued a day earlier by a judge in Thurston County Superior Court.
On Tuesday, Judge Richard Hicks kept that temporary restraining order he issued last week in place, citing the current action at the federal level.
Hicks said that the competing principle of privacy and open government will “have to be reconciled not by a trial court judge in Thurston county, but by a higher court.”
“I think it’s a very important issue and I’m glad it’s drawn the attention that it has,” he said.
James Bopp, Jr., the lead attorney for Protect Marriage Washington, issued a statement Tuesday saying that the Supreme Court “took a large step forward today in protecting the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely.”
“No citizen should ever have their personal property destroyed or receive death threats for exercising their right to engage in the political process,” he said.
© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues 
wsu1983 on October 20 at 9:08 a.m.
We are supposed to have transparency in the petition process. What’s to think about? Release the names of those who actively seek to thwart the quality of life and well-being of thousands of WA families in the name of religion! Instead of trying to keep me and my family second-class citizens how about doing more to ban divorce, since that is truly the “threat” to your sacred institution. Hypocrisy!!
Rifleman__Dodd on October 20 at 9:12 a.m.
RCW 42.56.030
Construction.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 20 at 10:36 a.m.
What does the law say? If the law doesn’t say, the usual process is for the lawmakers to create a law covering the process. On this issue, it looks like there is no clear right or clear wrong. Judges shouldn’t be making law from the bench. Their task is to be judges who interpret what’s on the books.
If the law is unclear or doesn’t do what either side thinks or wants it to do, new law should be made..from the legislators….not the bench.
It seems to take forever to work within the process especially when one side or the other doesn’t believe the law or process favors them. Tough cookies says Daisy! Make a law that guides the process. It takes time but it’s worth it. Propagandists will always try to color the issues and make issues fit the law. It should be the other way around.
Obviously it’s the vote that’ll settle this particular R-71. Proponents/opponenets shouldn’t be trying to interpret things at the 11th hour to favor their side or punish the other. VOTE!
Believer on October 20 at 12:33 p.m.
How come you are allowed to find out whether I signed my name to a petition to get something on a ballot that you then cannot find out how I voted in the general election? I don’t understand the logic. Once it is determined that a legal voter signed a petition, what right does anyone have to know who you are? Isn’t part of the reason that our votes are unpublished because of the harassment issue? Doesn’t it stand to reason that by virtue of someone’s name being on a piece of legislation that could be public, that in itself would deter someone from signing or voting their conscious out of fear of retribution? How come one segment (a very small percentage at that) feel that they should legislate everyone else’s morality?
Shane0312 on October 20 at 2:07 p.m.
Im just tired of hearing what a sacred and spirtual institution marriage is. Marriage was created as a transference of ownership of a piece of property. The father “gives away” the bride. And remember it wasnt that long ago that it was for the woman to love, honor and OBEY. The church was originally against marriage and didnt fully embrace the concept til around the 1200’s. Also to cite religeous rhetoric really misses the point. In America, or so we are told, people are not allowed to force their moral and religeous beliefs upon you. Like prohibition laws that are outdated, this one man one woman idea belongs in the dark ages. We all know the adages, love is blind, love knows no bounds , etc. Those who espouse that belief are being contradictory to themselves to try and impose their ideal upon people that do not fit the mold. For a marriage the Beatles said it best “all you need is love”.
Believer on October 20 at 2:43 p.m.
Okay Sugar Shane……In ancient Rome and Greece, marriage was a method of producing legal heirs for the male. Yes, women were treated like chattel some of the time, but women are still second-class citizens in America—don’t let rhetoric fool you. For all of the equality, women still earn about 80% of what men earn for the same job and work. If that doesn’t scream second-class, I don’t know what does. The Bible mentions marriage in Genesis. Christianity has always embraced marriage so I am not sure what “church” you are referring to. In America, the morals of the majority are supposed to be what the entire country is supposed to follow. That is called being a Democratic Republic. We have a freedom of religion, meaning that we can choose or not choose to follow any religion we so desire without consequences to our basic freedoms, including liberty. In other words, we cannot be put in jail for not embracing a specific state-sponsored religion. But don’t for one second believe that morals are not foisted upon us by the majority rule daily. The minority believe that it is okay to molest children, the majority do not. The minority believe that it is okay to take from someone who has more when you have nothing, the majority do not. And the minority believe that marriage is okay for everyone, and the majority believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even ancient cultures believed that, regardless of what was occurring outside the marriage bed. Please explain why the minority get to push their morality upon the majority.
Jpublic on October 20 at 3:36 p.m.
All special rights awarded the homosexuals should be federally suspended until laws are put into place to protect the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and religious practice awarded us by the constitution.
The government does not have the right to force those who hold the belief that the homosexual life style is a sin, to support or even participate in such unions.
Recent examples;
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
•A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
•A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
•Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
•A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.”
But gay groups and liberal legal scholars say they are prevailing because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.
“We are not required to pay the price for other people’s religious views about us,” said Jennifer Pizer, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group.
chefxh on October 20 at 3:42 p.m.
This isn’t about the history of marriage, or anybody’s idea of what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to say about my sex life, but about transparency of government.
Let us not confuse the secrecy of the ballot, which is in no way threatened — or even involved in this case — with the protection of the public from fraudulent or illegal petition signatures, the legitimacy of which should be proveable in order for the signatures to count. You don’t have to sign your name to your ballot, but you have to give your name and address on petitions, and that information has to be legitimate. Just as one must prove oneself registered, and legally, before casting a secret ballot, so should it be before adding one’s political support to a petition for referendum.
I have already voted to APPROVE REFERENDUM 71, and I urge all Washington voters to do the same.
chefxh on October 20 at 4:02 p.m.
“The homosexual lifestyle?” Please.
Look here, you arbiters of morals: the republic is about PRESERVING the rights of the MINORITY or ALL are unfree. No matter how I live my legal American life, I am your equal, and must — MUST be treated as such. No second-class citizens here. If I don’t share your religion, or diet, or lawncare habits, or whatever, it is none of your business so long as I don’t step on your personal rights. If you think my being queer is a sin, thank your tightwad god it’s one you don’t commit, and leave me out of it.
If you examine the logic of certain arguments, notably the “if a man can marry a man, then why not a pig, or a stump?” you’ll see the fear and ignorance of people who want to point fingers and tell me that I’m a sinner. I have my own conscience, thank you very much, and the state of my soul is none of your business. Extrapolating my marriage to my partner to people marrying livestock or inanimate objects is insulting, both to everyone currently married and to those of us who can only look in from outside the circle of equals.
Don’t insult my intelligence by insisting I follow a path of your choosing. Don’t tell me that I’m less than you because of how I was made. I was created as I am, not recruited or forced or enticed into some deviancy. Speculating as to what “happened” to me to “make” me this way is offensive. Presuming that I can, or should, change my basic nature to fit your narrow theology is arrogant.
Denying me my right to live my life as I choose within the law is un-American and a matter of equality. You can believe whatever foolishness gets you through the night, and I won’t kick, but when you start telling me I can’t have what you have as a basic civil right, you will have a fight on your hands.
siouxmoody on October 20 at 4:34 p.m.
Ok people- if you are going to toss out amendment rights at least interprert them correctly;
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
THIS LOOSELY TRANSLATED MEANS NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED BECAUSE OF YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Jpublic just as you should not be “forced” to support gay marriage neither should gays be forced to abide by your religions beliefs. THAT my friend, is called America. You are NOT forced to support it, so stop acting as though you are in these ludicrous attempts to denying others the right to live as they choose. You pay taxes, you vote, you deserve the same rights. So do the gay population. I could not imagine a world where I was not allowed to marry the person I love. I support Gay rights and I’m both straight and Christian.
And Jesus would vote yes in support of Gay marriage. Go read your bible before you throw it in other peoples faces.
Believer on October 20 at 6:38 p.m.
siouxmoody—Jesus would not support gay marriage….You need to read your Bible. He would however, love both sides of the debate. If you recall, Jesus said that He came not to abolish the Law (of the Old Testament) but to fulfill it. If you are going to stand on the Bible, you must correctly represent ALL of it, not just that which you agree with or proves your point. That is what makes being a disciple of Jesus difficult, because our world scoffs at such things as absolutes, no matter who it offends. And I am not afraid of my name being out there as someone who signed a petition. But I feel that if I can vote secretly and just have my name shown to be valid without indicating my voting preferences, then the same people who verify my legal vote should also be trusted to verify my legal right to sign a petition and afford the same protections. It is really no different. My question is why do people NEED to know so desperately who signed? You don’t expect to know who voted, just that it be verified accurate. What really is the difference?
Believer on October 20 at 6:49 p.m.
And chefxh, I don’t see where being married is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, most of the acts that are performed in a homosexual relationship (and some heterosexual ones) were illegal in the 13 founding states. Don’t pretend this is about a “right” when you are trying to redefine what are rights. Nobody is denying you the choice to live your life as you see fit. You can take legal actions that would give your partner and yourself almost all the same benefits of marriage. You can even call it a marriage if you want. But when I was living with my boyfriend and calling ourselves husband and wife didn’t make it so. And demanding that everyone else accept your relationship as normal doesn’t make it so. I’m sorry you feel slighted and I’m sorry that you are so angry. But redefining something and forcing it down someone else’s throat does not create acceptance but it will create resentment.
spokelooneh on October 20 at 6:59 p.m.
All special rights awarded the negroes should be federally suspended until laws are put into place to protect the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and religious practice awarded us by the constitution.
“Recent examples;
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination …”
Jpublic, you copied and pasted all that followed directly from an article in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html
So besides wanting to deny gay folks the same rights you enjoy, you’re also a plagiarist.
I too am a follower of Jesus, and straight, and a strong supporter for equal rights for gay people.
The fact that someone signs their name to a petition to get something on the ballot does NOT automatically mean that they support the legislation being proposed, but think it’s appropriate for the people to vote on. I’ve signed petitions to get measures on the ballot that I oppose, because I am reasonably confident that the voters will reject such a measure.
spokelooneh on October 20 at 7:17 p.m.
“If you are going to stand on the Bible, you must correctly represent ALL of it, not just that which you agree with or proves your point.”
-Believer
Which Bible would that be? KJV? Catholic Bible? New Revised? The new “Conservative Bible” being written as we speak? How about President Thomas Jefferson’s Bible? Perhaps the Geneva Bible of the Puritans?
Speaking of correctly representing ALL of the Bible, I have some questions for you.
“a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.”
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2006/10/17/problem-with-taking-bible-literally/
Pat O'Leary on October 20 at 8:15 p.m.
cheflx and spokaloon both…well said. The right wingers will never be happy until they are the only ones with rights. I will never understand why they are so determined to tell others how to lead their lives. I see signs in yards beseeching all to “protect our children and protect marriage”. You have to wonder how many of these intolerant people have been divorced. With the divorce rate at 50% or better, certainly it affects many of these so called “Christians”. If there is a Jesus…and I like to think so…I’m sure he would be on the side of justice for all…not just for those who claim to speak for him.
Believer on October 20 at 8:44 p.m.
The Law of the Old Testament is the 10 Commandments, but Jesus managed to really boil it down to 2. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength, and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. These cover just about everything in the 10 if you really look at it. And since the Bible also says to honor those in authority, I guess that includes the laws that govern our behavior. Since I am fairly certain that you are not sacrificing a bull, nor trying to sell your child, the blood issue is covered when Jesus was sacrificed, our laws ban the ownership of other people which negates the slavery in Canada issue, what day is really the Sabbath (by whose definition?), all sin is equal in the eyes of God (doesn’t it all really boil down to disobeying Him?), a defect in your sight by what definition (remember, you wanted to play semantics!), Levites were set apart by God (and since I am not Jewish, I guess you have all the wiggle room you want), in this day and age, there are so few that are not unclean that I really don’t think you have to worry about a football (since most are not made out of pigskin anymore anyway), and plant what you want in the field because that is between you and God and I really have no part in it. But then again, murder is illegal and we are to honor those in authority over us. But I do have a part in what classifies a marriage and would like someone to point out anywhere in history that a marriage is not between one man and one woman. But the issue is not whether R-71 should be decided by the people (which it should) but whether anyone has a right to know who signed the petition and for what use that knowledge will be used. And that is where my stand is. If we trust the Secretary of State to verify a valid ballot by a registered voter, the Secretary of State is certainly capable of determining a registered voter signing a petition, without having to release the name of said signer.
spokanada on October 20 at 9:15 p.m.
I think the bible thumpers should reread the book of Deuteonomy Chapter 22 to see what it says about marriage. In short, if the bride is found to not be a virgin then she should be stoned to death by the men of her village.
When are the thumpers going to put that inniative up for vote?
Finally, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage lets make divorce illegal!
Believer on October 20 at 9:24 p.m.
Why are so many people against letting the people decide? What are you afraid of?
spokelooneh on October 20 at 10:25 p.m.
“But I do have a part in what classifies a marriage and would like someone to point out anywhere in history that a marriage is not between one man and one woman.”
-Believer
You’re joking right? Are you not aware of the MANY female spouses that numerous “dignitaries” had in the Bible?
You haven’t actually read the Bible, have you, Believer?
The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives.
Heck, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines according to the Bible.
How DARE you question the revealed Word of God.
Rifleman__Dodd on October 20 at 10:31 p.m.
Uh Believer. Jesus was most certainly gay.
lbbnjsharpe on October 21 at 5:02 a.m.
Were seeing more & more privatization of the public square. Democracy, hum, I don’t think so!
Believer on October 21 at 8:57 a.m.
Spokelooneh: Since we were discussing gay marriage and not polygamy, I was not as careful in my choice of words as I might have been otherwise. And each of those marriages were between one man and one woman, not two women nor two men. Nor was a ceremony held with one man and 50 women (at least not that I know of, but I could be very wrong on that.) But the fact of the matter is that the marriages were between a male and a female. Our laws ban polygamy and since we have to honor those in authority over us, that means that we cannot practice polygamy. However, if it is a relationship between consenting adults, following the logic in most of these posts, why is it illegal? I mean, since we are throwing out my morality and the morality of the majority, why is it wrong to have more than one spouse? So, I guess morality has a place in our laws and historically has had. What morality do we throw out next?
And Rifleman: I know you are simply trying to bait me. And that is fine. On what evidence do you base the “Jesus was most certainly gay” statement? Or is it based on assumption and innuendo?
lbbnjsharpe: We are not a democracy in the pure sense of the word. We are a democratic republic. And we believe in government of the people for the people. And when one segment disagrees with another, the majority rules. At least that is the way of my understanding.
spokelooneh on October 21 at 10:35 a.m.
The “morality” of the majority was behind the Salem Witch trials, the persecution and government prosecution of people in various minority sects such as Quakers, Baptists, Catholics in the Colonies. The morality of the majority justified the heinous practice of slavery, often quoting the Bible to do so. The morality of the majority though ‘Separate, but Equal” was perfectly moral. The morality of the majority believed and legislated against interracial marriage until the decision, ironically, in a case call Loving which the Supreme Court ruled for interracial marriage in 1967. A majority of the people at the time probably didn’t approve of that, and a significant minority today probably wrongly believes that interracial marriage is “against God”.
In other words, the supposed morality of the majority has been demonstrably wrong and immoral.
The issue at hand is not gay marriage, it’s everything but marriage for same sex couples. I predict it will pass handily.
Believer on October 21 at 12:37 p.m.
Time will tell. And yes, there have been heinous abuses by people quoting the Bible as their basis. There have also been heinous abuses by those who deny the existence of God. It flies both ways. But the argument here turned into an argument about gay marriage. The issue is still whether names on a petition should be released and for what purpose. And I believe that nobody has addressed the many valid arguments against that happening.
Lindy on October 21 at 2:11 p.m.
If everybody paid more attention to their own sex lives (and that is what R-71 is about) instead of poking their curious noses under their neighbors tent, we’d all be better off. Just get a life of your own for God sake!
I do however try and live my values with my vote and my pocketbook. I’ll be real interested in who supports this attempt to deny civil rights of some of my friends & neighbors. The initiative signatures and the PDC reports will definitely inform my shopping, donating and volunteering decisions
ericdx on October 21 at 7:28 p.m.
OK now that the idiot loonies have partially hijacked the thread…
I for one do not want my name released. I signed the initiative. I also voted YES. I did not sign it because I supported the initiative, I signed it because I felt that the issue needed to be revisited, and confirmed by a vote of the public. If all of the idiots on here and other sites would just take the time ti analize the issues themselves, instead of relying on the sound bytes, slanted media coverage, and circus like bs that has been going on, then the issue will be resolved the way it should be, by the vote of the people.
The fact is, people want those names to harass others about their choice.
Just because an initiative in controversial does not make it bad. In fact there have been some initiatives in the last sveral years that have done what they needed to do. Not necessarily by changing the laws, because most of them get tossed by the courts, but by showing the legislative idiots in Olympia the true voice of their districts. I-695 passed, and was tossed on a court ruling, but $30 tabs still exist (unfortunatelythey did find a way to add local RTA fees and such) and no idiot in Olympia is going to try to do away with that, because the vast majority of WA residents voted for I-695. The voice of the people was heard. I am not saying I-695 was perfect, right, or even good, but when it passed, it ment that I would not have to pay as much to license a car in WA in 1999 as I would have in CA if I had ben a resident there at the time.
Keep the names private, because I will guarentee, I was not the only one to sign R-71, who voted yes, but I will guarentee that if the names come out, and someone harasses me, I for one would file a civil rights suit against the harasser, against the parties that requested the release of the names, and against the state, and would call for anyone else who received any harassment to join the suit. It would probably become class action.
RoadRunner4 on October 21 at 11:24 p.m.
Ericdx - the holidays will be HELL for you
goldbaker88 on October 24 at 4:24 a.m.
I had a great time reading around your post as I read it extensively. Excellent writing! I am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Regards,
http://www.goldcoinsgain.com
Megan_B on October 27 at 1:10 p.m.
Believer:
(1) Love God more than yourself and (2) love everyone else as much as yourself. That does cover everything in the ten commandments by golly. It’s a great way to live to improve your life, the lives of others, and build wonderful relationships with your neighbors and with God.
Now that being said. If you love everyone else as much as yourself wouldn’t you want everyone else to have the same rights you get to enjoy, regardless of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation? Jesus wants us to love everyone. No… “on one condition(s)…”
It is unfair that it is more expensive to be a same sex couple without the option of getting married. This law doesn’t even grant same-sex marriage, it will only pass on the rights that are obtained through marriage, such as giving your spouse insurance, ability to apply for loans together, etc, etc…
This isn’t just a moral issue as to whether same-sex couple are right or wrong, it is a financial rights fairness issue. Please, stop taking it out of porportion.
ellie on October 28 at 7:23 p.m.
I agree with Believer!!!
Reject R71!