Spokane7
68°
February 2, 2012 in City
Senate approves same-sex marriage
House, governor expected to approve contentious measure
Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, left, and his partner Michael Shiosaki acknowledge spectators in the upper gallery Wednesday night in Olympia after the Washington state Senate passed a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage.
(Full-size photo)
OLYMPIA – With votes to spare, the state Senate passed a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington, sending it to the House of Representatives, where it also has enough votes to pass.
The House is expected to take up the measure next week.
Senators passionately but respectfully debated a bill Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, called “as contentious as any this body has considered” and then passed it on a 28-21 vote. A full gallery erupted after the vote.
Those who oppose it should not be accused of bigotry, Murray said. Those who support it should not be accused of religious intolerance.
“This is a difficult personal issue because it is about what is closest to us … family,” he said. “Marriage is how society says you are a family.”
It was a largely partisan vote: Four Republicans voted yes; three Democrats voted no.
During the debate, senators offered deeply personal reasons for their votes for or against.
Murray spoke of his desire to marry his partner of some 21 years, Spokane Valley native Michael Shiosaki, so they could have what Shiosaki’s parents, Fred and Lily, have. Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, described growing up with a father who was gay and whose abilities to be a parent were questioned by society.
“I’m proud to stand on the right side of history,” Ranker said. “And I’m proud of my father.”
Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, said he wasn’t judging anyone but had to vote no because of his religious belief: “I am no better than anyone else and I need the forgiveness of my savior every day. But I have to do what is right. And for me doing the right thing is voting against the bill.”
Supporters adopted some amendments offered by opponents to address concerns that the bill didn’t go far enough to protect churches and religious-based organizations that believe marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. No clergy would have to perform a same-sex marriage and no church would be forced to allow its facility to be used for one.
Faith-based adoption and foster agencies would not be forced to place children in the homes of same-sex couples under amendments added to the bill. Supporters drew the line at amendments that would have allowed any business to refuse to provide goods or services to a same-sex wedding because of religious objections.
Also rejected was an amendment with a referendum clause, to place the bill directly on the November ballot.
“If ever there was an issue of what you send to the voters, this is it,” Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, said. “It’s more basic than our Constitution; it’s a basic unit of society.”
But Sen. Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said the Legislature should reject the concept that “separate is equal” and pass the bill without a referendum clause: “The voters do have the ultimate say … when they elect us and send us here to make these decisions.”
Voters also have the right to collect signatures and put any bill the Legislature passes on the ballot, she added. Supporters and opponents both expect a referendum effort will begin almost as soon as the bill is signed.
Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 02 at 6:12 a.m.
Can’t wait to see people’s names on the petitions to put this on the ballot. See how many of our neighbors are opposed to this bill. Can’t be hiding behind a screen name when you sign the petition for a vote on this. John
drwonderful on February 02 at 6:49 a.m.
How about doing something about jobs, jobs, jobs?
misjustice on February 02 at 7:12 a.m.
@ drwonderful, gay marriage WILL produce job, jobs, jobs; catering groups, rental halls, tuxedo and wedding dress shops, bakeries, florists, DJs, wedding singers, and many more businesses will benefit from the increase in weddings.
YEAH!
Marriage equality = civil rights AND economic stimulus!
Shazamm on February 02 at 7:19 a.m.
This is a sad day for Washington, but in the end, it really doesn’t matter since there is no such thing as “gay” marriage. It is no more possible for two people of the same sex to be married than it is to make and atom out of two electrons or two protons. And for those who try to couch “marriage” in terms of a “basket of rights”, that is really a pathetic way to look at it.
Shazamm on February 02 at 7:20 a.m.
Really “misjustice”, all marriage means to you is “economic stimulus”? That is a pretty sad way of viewing it as well.
Shazamm on February 02 at 7:20 a.m.
Hey, “ChefGus”, is that supposed to be a threat?
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 02 at 7:23 a.m.
Not a threat at all….. you clearly don’t know who I am and what I am about… just nice to know who’s “talking” here on the blogs and elsewhere…. Read Justice Scalia’s Majority Opinion on the recent Supreme court case which was 8 -1 on free speech and our right to know who is opposing us politically… catch up with the real world…:)) best john
misjustice on February 02 at 7:26 a.m.
Well, Shaz, you have your views and I have mine.
My post was in response to drwonderful, btw. Personally, I don’t believe in marriage. But I also don’t believe in denying the right to marry based on sexual orientation.
Afterall, marriage is really nothing more than a contract recognized by the gubmint which bestows certain rights and privileges on the individuals which enter into the contract. Bet you hate that, too Shaz?
Too bad, YOU don’t get to decide for other people what marriage “means”…
Diana on February 02 at 7:30 a.m.
Shazamm, I know, right? Because heterosexual couples have made such a success of it.
And how will the marriage of loving and committed couples affect you in the least? What are you afraid of?
Live and let live and try to lighten up.
rosehips on February 02 at 7:30 a.m.
“It is no more possible for two people of the same sex to be married than it is to make and atom out of two electrons or two protons.”
um, okay. And the Bible says it is no more possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
So Shaz, have you given away your fortune yet? Or maybe you are waiting to do that on your death bed?
rosehips on February 02 at 7:33 a.m.
And to be honest, Shaz is right. It is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married. Not in Washington at least. Not yet. haha
valleyman on February 02 at 7:36 a.m.
Lisa Brown is going to enjoy a very robust challenge next time she is up for election.
@John: Actually, it is a threat whether it’s you saying it or the activists in Seattle who are threatening people who sign petitions they don’t like. Personally, those threats mean zip to me so I will gladly sign any petition, but for a lot of those who live life in the public eye, the threats have real meaning. Why would you want to subject your business or your family to having nut-job protestors in front of your business or home just because you signed a petition? That’s what’s at stake here John, and it is wrong.
gotcha on February 02 at 7:36 a.m.
The bad news, we have to listen to it…. The good new, they can not multiply.
rosehips on February 02 at 7:42 a.m.
gotcha, haha. But don’t it just get yer panties twisted that they can adopt? lol
Diana on February 02 at 7:43 a.m.
“That’s what’s at stake here John, and it is wrong.”
Well, this is America and there’s always pepper spray.
On the other hand, I’m reporting from west Spokane and I can assure you the sky has not fallen.
woamike on February 02 at 7:57 a.m.
@chef, you say:
“Can’t wait to see people’s names on the petitions to put this on the ballot. See how many of our neighbors are opposed to this bill. Can’t be hiding behind a screen name when you sign the petition for a vote on this.”
Then, when someone challenges your motives, you say:
“Not a threat at all….. you clearly don’t know who I am and what I am about… just nice to know who’s “talking” here on the blogs and elsewhere.”
Are we to believe you just have an elevated sense of curiosity? You seem to be near obsessed with people outing themselves. You often berate or harangue them when they don’t. Of course, I’ve never seen you try to get people to out themselves when they agree with your opinion on something.
I’m certain the vast majority of people here are not ashamed of the opinions they hold and would stand by them. However, there are many people out there who cannot deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with their point of view and seek to “punish” those who don’t. With your frequent and on-going badgering of people who wish to remain anonymous, can you not see how some may question your true motive?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 02 at 7:57 a.m.
“It is no more possible for two people of the same sex to be married than it is to make and atom out of two electrons or two protons.”
My sister is a super-devout Christian, to the point where she doesn’t consider Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc. to be Christians. She doesn’t consider their marriages to be legitimate, and she doesn’t consider the children of those marriages to be legitimate. (I guess this would apply to our non-religious parents’ marriage too… but she’s been Saved so I guess it’s OK.) But guess what? The State doesn’t care what she thinks. And anybody who doesn’t care what she thinks… doesn’t have to care what she thinks.
Same goes for you, shazamn. You’re entitled to think what you like about it. I’m entitled to not care what you think. And that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Yay!
gotcha on February 02 at 8:00 a.m.
Brillant rosehips, just brillant.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 02 at 8:12 a.m.
Read the Supreme Court Decision. They state the law in this regard and had an 8-1 decision on this issue. Oh… and there is no credible evidence that anyone on the liberal side has threatened or harmed anyone on the other side in any way… but sure lots of bruises and deaths in the GLBT community over the past half century… happens all the time in this city too… good grief..John
Jeffrey_Grey on February 02 at 8:12 a.m.
“However, there are many people out there who cannot deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with their point of view and seek to “punish” those who don’t.”
You mean like the people who refuse to recognize gay marriage?
terryalan on February 02 at 8:14 a.m.
@woamike…..Mr. Olsen can certainly defend himself and has no need…but dude!!! WHAT orifice did you pull THAT screed out of?
As far as the ‘unfair’ threat of boycotts, etc…HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE wingnuts who refuse to cater to gay marriages and halls that refuse to deal with OUR business?
Of course that’s different…..they are doing so due to fantasy beliefs, not a desire for full civil rights and self preservation.
WHY should I spend my money at some fundie’s business when they would consign me to hell?
Talk about double standards….
woamike on February 02 at 8:16 a.m.
@Chef,
Your blinders are on.
terryalan on February 02 at 8:17 a.m.
wormlike….
I know I am but what are you?
Really? Best you can do?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 02 at 8:23 a.m.
mj,
You can actually make a stronger case for the positive economic impact of allowing gay marriage.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/01/19/marriage-equality-in-washington-state-would-be-good-for-business.aspx
But then what would MicroSoft know about running a business in Washington State?
D Statler on February 02 at 8:28 a.m.
All this wasted time in Olympia. I guess they feel that making gay marriage legal is more important that balancing budgets or REALLY important civil rights legislation Bills on the table. I am very disappointed that Washington was sucked into this mess after already having civil union language. Who is in charge over there anyway?
I hope these same sex marriage partners inform their existing children how mother nature really intended things :^( Walking in accidently on dad and mom won’t work anymore :^)
Diana on February 02 at 8:37 a.m.
Well, D Statler, I’m glad our legislature has the ability to multi-task and work for all the citizens in Washington and not just those who think marriage equality is icky.
I wouldn’t worry about how same sex marriage partners inform their children. They can probably handle it without you.
larry_b on February 02 at 8:42 a.m.
I dont care if people want to marry their car! What I do care about is jobs, taxes, healthcare reform etc. etc. The money wasted on this could have been put to better use. I dont think people really understand the costs daily to us for our reps to be in the house working. Like someone said on the other thread, (Rome burns and we worry about this……..)
terryalan on February 02 at 8:42 a.m.
From the Seattle PI:
A Christian pastor is calling on Christians all over the nation to boycott Starbucks as long as the Seattle company continues to support gay rights.
Believe it or not, this isn’t an initiative spearheaded by Seattle’s Mark Driscoll, head of the ever-growing Mars Hill Church. The ban on Starbucks comes from Steven Andrew, president of USA Christian Ministries.
Andrew called on Christians to stop drinking Starbucks coffee as long as the company continues to support gay rights.
“Starbucks is no longer fashionable. If your church still uses Starbucks, then your pastor is a friend of the world,” Andrew said in a statement. “God calls those who oppose Him ‘haters of God.’”
You might think “haters of God” is pretty strong language, but it gets stronger. Andrew goes on to say “Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to.”
BUT WE SHOULD NOT BOYCOTT THE BIGOTS AGAINST US?????
The_Seer on February 02 at 8:54 a.m.
This is good news for my business, In One Eye and Out the Other Productions.
I will need to hire extra people this summer to handle the overflow of wedding videos this legislation is sure to produce. I can’t wait and am taking steps to show our business is friendly to this group of people who have finally been accorded the same rights the rest of us enjoy.
If you are against gay marriage, don’t have a gay marriage.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 02 at 8:55 a.m.
terryalan et al. – check out this video of Pastor Steven Andrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOv_qelQ-eM&feature=player_embedded
As the gheys would say: GURRRRL!
Albert on February 02 at 9:08 a.m.
Gus your self righteous pride is very apparent - again. I would sign this petition in a quick minute, however I have every expectation that I would suffer the consequences. Why don’t you get off of your “I’m a perfect great guy” and leave well enough alone? WE ALL know who you are, so what?
Shaz you’re 100% correct. We are morally imploding and very soon the Trumpet will render the final rendition. This event was set in place before time began, so stand by for the rest of the show. “Things” are winding down.
jddavis on February 02 at 9:25 a.m.
ChefGus—are you afraid that voters will reject this legislation? Why would you care who signs a petition about anything? Do you believe that only our elected officials should have input on laws?
You have my name, and I’ll be signing the petition because I believe the citizens should have a say in this matter. I’m curious, why do you think citizens shouldn’t have input?
terryalan on February 02 at 9:42 a.m.
jddavis….did the general public get to decide whether YOU have full American civil rights?
didn’t think so….
force_vector on February 02 at 9:51 a.m.
I don’t really understand all the back and forth about signing petitions. There’s nothing wrong with bringing a topic out into the open for full evaluation and discussion. Signing a petition can mean any number of things, from already having a set opinion, to wanting more information that results from having something on a ballot (minus the garbage TV ads anyway). I haven’t personally signed one, but it strikes me as sort of a non-issue.
You guys have a good day arguing.
jddavis on February 02 at 10:03 a.m.
Terryalan—they also didn’t decide what I had for dinner last night. What are you afraid of?
I don’t believe 25 (28 in this case) representatives in Olympia should have exclusive power to implement this or any other law with such wide-ranging impact. If this is the will of the citizens, so be it; if not, so be it.
Whether it is taxes, license tabs, liquor sales, background checks on nursing home care providers, or gay marraige, I believe the people should decide.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 02 at 10:04 a.m.
So the people worried that if they sign a petition against gay marriage they will suffer some kind of violence from gay people? Please, give me a reference where there has been a case of a group of gay people attacking a straight bigot for signing a petition. However, I can give a WHOLE book full of examples of straight people attacking gay people and killing gay people for simply being gay. So yeah, sorry this argument hold NO weight for your straight people since most gay people are about the most non-violent group of people you would ever encounter.
Also, do people really think the government is only working on one issue at a time? If you honestly believe ANY government in this country will only work on one issue at a time and put every other single issue on hold until that one issue is resolved…even if that issue takes years to resolve the issue….thats truly stupid and your just showing your lack of knowledge on how the government works, so nice going on showing your stupidity.
Finally time for my favorite argument to all you haters against gay marriage…..if you don’t like gay marriage then DONT HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE THAT WHY IT WILL NEVER EFFECT YOU.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 02 at 10:10 a.m.
jddavis, so whats the point of having elected officials if you just want to put a vote to everything? Seems a huge waste of tax payer money to have officials that the people already elected to do their job, write the laws for the state (or country) only to then have a vote on every bill again, seems highly inefficient.
Also, I have to ask, do you believe that the civil rights bill should have been put to a public vote? Should the bill allowing interracial marriage have been put to a vote? Should the law allowing women the right to vote be put to a public vote? If you believe that, then you know blacks would still be slaves, whites would still only be allowed to marry another white person and women would not be voting and still be sitting at home pushing out babies not allowed to work.
Somethings shouldn’t go to a vote for the majority to restrict the rights of a few. Thats why we have elected officials.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 02 at 10:12 a.m.
jddavis,
How many people debated, drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence?
The Constitution?
tfs1969 on February 02 at 10:13 a.m.
Great news! It’s about time.
It really will not affect any of the detractors out there one single bit (outside of psychologically), but it will allow married gay partners the ability to get the same legal rights as married heterosexual partners (such as insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, inheritance of properties, etc).
Go ahead and boycott Starbucks - I did that years ago when Schulz traded Gary Payton to the Celtics.
The_Seer on February 02 at 10:17 a.m.
grey: Nice comeback! Did any of the various states who approved the constitution even allow a popular vote?
Any? Or was it decided by the various state legislatures?
Hiker on February 02 at 10:19 a.m.
Well done Washington State Senate. It’s a good day to be a Washingtonian.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 02 at 10:27 a.m.
Seer,
I’ll have to look that one up. I suspect it varied from delegation to delegation.
And are some of you sure you want to leave it up to the people to decide?
http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/2011_ssm.pdf (58% in favor of granting equal rights to same sex marriage - 38% opposed.)
swell_swell on February 02 at 10:41 a.m.
I don’t understand why it is okay and upright for an opposite sex couple who has known each other for a few weeks to marry and divorce in less than a year, yet bad and a threat to society for me to marry my same-sex partner of 20 years. This makes absolutely no sense.
mikeln on February 02 at 10:43 a.m.
Now if they would do the same with the pending vote on pot, just pass it and save us the cost of putting it on a ballot. As far as I can see marriage is a religious activity controlled by the state. As soon as you sign your name to the permit, you’re married, the religious crap after that is just a expensive outlay of time and money. So, nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 02 at 10:50 a.m.
I wish they would have worked on something of substance. I’d have given the gays a pass long ago even though I don’t like the bill. This is what’s ailing Wa. Lots of political stuff but very short on moving the state forward in terms of the management of the problems Gregoire created.
Now if it was murder (abortion) the line of complainers would be long and pols would run away. Not so much on this one because it doesn’t matter. What matters is the financial and economic issues in the state
This reresents nothing. Just a waste of time. Once again, the House and Senate ruled by the Dems wasted your time and money.
And yes John…with all the misplaced glee you can conjure up, it does sound like a threat at first glance. No worries though…in the context of life, this is just “filler”. The Supreme Court on Was kicked this one out years ago. It’ll be back in their court soon. Good luck on this people. A mere distraction from the Dems running the House and Senate while running the state into the ground. BUT politically nice for votes…fringe votes.
SMARTGUY on February 02 at 11:25 a.m.
It must be nice when your biggest problem in the world is that someone you have never met is getting married. I am completly envious. I have to worry about my job, the economy, healthcare costs, sending my children to college, and trying to retire with dignity. It would be really nice if other people being married was my biggest concern.
greenlibertarian on February 02 at 12:14 p.m.
‘Bout time they did the right thing.
thatoneguy (Bruce) on February 02 at 8:55 a.m.
terryalan et al. – check out this video of Pastor Steven Andrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOv_qelQ-eM&feature=player_embedded
As the gheys would say: GURRRRL!
Even my extremely weak gaydar went DING DING DING!!!
These self-loathing closet cases are quite prevalent in megachurches and the like.
Freaks.
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/
rosehips on February 02 at 12:15 p.m.
@Jeffrey,
re: “Today, [Jan. 9, 2012 - JG] Microsoft is joining other Northwest employers Concur, Group Health, Nike, RealNetworks and Vulcan Inc. in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. We believe that passing this bill would be good for our business and good for the state’s economy.”
Ironic how just yesterday Microsoft announced the layoffs of 200 workers in Washington State. I was one of those workers who lost their jobs during the MS purge of 2008. grrrr…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017398184_microsoftlayoffs02.html
bumblebeetuna on February 02 at 12:19 p.m.
Marriage is sacred! Ask Kim Kardashian, Newt, Herman Cain, Bill Clinton, etc. about that.
Seriously, there is nothing f’n sacred about marriage on its face in this country. Two people may have a sacred marriage, but the “sacredness” depends on the individuals and its actions. The fact that I can get a hooker drunk and marry her any time of day in Vegas is undeniable proof that marriage is not a sacred endeavor of any sort.
Local on February 02 at 12:22 p.m.
“It would be really nice if other people being married was my biggest concern.”
Not my biggest concern, and it shouldn’t be this states either but by spending their time and my money they now have made it a priority. So as a taxpayer and a voter my vote will always be NO.
woodj64 on February 02 at 12:25 p.m.
In a society where babes are butchered in the womb, I suppose gay marriage should come as no surprise. How disheartening!
Diana on February 02 at 12:27 p.m.
On the subject of marriage equality, b-b-but, abortion!
SMARTGUY on February 02 at 12:51 p.m.
What does killing unborn children have to do with marriage, no wonder the conservatives are so clueless.
dougfresh on February 02 at 1:04 p.m.
Conservatives should embrace gay marriage because of the abortion issue. They don’t have abortions!
therailroader on February 02 at 1:22 p.m.
HOMOPHOBIA is alive & well in the Pacific NW! Welcome to the 21st century…. Didn’t realize how many people in the NW must have migrated from the South after they lost the Civil War.
Local on February 02 at 2:08 p.m.
HETEROPHOBIA is alive & well in the Pacific NW! Welcome to the 21st century….Didn’t realize how many people in the NW must have migrated from New Orleans after they lost the Civil War.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 02 at 3:55 p.m.
HUMANOPHOBIA is alive and well in the Pacific NW! Welcome to the 21st century… Didn’t realize how many human-impersonators in the NW must have migrated from Planet Zorg after they got hit by the asteroid.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 02 at 3:58 p.m.
HETEROPHOBIA? Yes, straight people have been persecuted for way to long, I am really tired of hearing about all the straight bashing we see, you know, all the straight people being beaten and killed for simply being straight.
The anti-marriage crowd really grasping at straws here.
jddavis on February 02 at 4:23 p.m.
Liberal—sorry it took so long to reply to your earlier question.
Without regard specifically to the topic of this thread, I believe any legislation that is a major shift in law should be put before the people because of special interest influence on elected officials.
I say this without regard for political party, subject, personal beliefs, etc. I respect your position regarding the purpose of elected officials, but do not share your optimistic view of them. A government of the people by the people isn’t realized when complete faith and trust is put upon said elected officials. Certainly you are aware of (and likely share) the frustration with elected officials at all levels, of all political parties.
Local on February 02 at 4:36 p.m.
“The anti-marriage crowd really grasping at straws here.”
No I think a few of you really are.
The railroader used homophobia as a reason people don’t want marriage allowed for gay couples. First off that is a real leap to combine the two thoughts. Can I love a gay person but not approve of their actions? Or are the two mutually exclusive? So I guess if you disapprove of gay marriage you must hate gays. Big leap in logic that doesn’t hold true.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 02 at 4:39 p.m.
jddavis, again, you do know if things like this went to a public vote we still wouldn’t have racial equality, interracial marriage and women’s rights because all those issues would’ve failed badly if put to a public vote.
But, as I have also said, I don’t have a problem with this going to a vote since just a few years ago we passed Ref 71 pretty easily 53% to 47% and public opinion has only increased in favor of gay rights and marriage since then.
garyc on February 02 at 4:41 p.m.
I don’t recall the vote totals when government decided to get involved in heterosexual marriages. Anyone have those?
We surely didn’t just leave that up to elected officials, did we?
Local on February 02 at 4:47 p.m.
“you do know if things like this went to a public vote we still wouldn’t have racial equality, interracial marriage and women’s rights because all those issues would’ve failed badly if put to a public vote.”
Pure speculation on your behalf.
jddavis on February 02 at 4:51 p.m.
Liberal—not sure, but I think those other issues you mention would have passed, although some areas would have rejected them. You may be correct with your predicted results.
Garyc—could be wrong, but I believe marraige was (is) a religious institution that government(s) got involved in as a way to create revenue and provide legal remedies—essentially what Ref 71 accomplished.
greenlibertarian on February 02 at 10:23 p.m.
Bigots LOSE!
gotcha on February 03 at 5:37 a.m.
After watching our state legislators it is obvious to me that our Lisa Brown needs to be removed. Her shelf life is long gone. Even her fellow libs are saying she is no leader. Vote her out, she is part of the problem. Her and Gregoire have screwed this state up to the max.
Local on February 03 at 8:36 a.m.
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
Greenlibertarian have you ever thought your own intolerance towards the opinions of others could place you in the same black kettle?
nottored on February 03 at 10:18 a.m.
Politicians always think that the people don’t have to decide things because we voted for them. Maybe we want to decide things for ourselves. Cut through the political crap.
Give all of us the decision.
JDinSeattle on February 03 at 2:29 p.m.
“Politicians always think that the people don’t have to decide things because we voted for them. Maybe we want to decide things for ourselves. Cut through the political crap.”
Um, perhaps you fell asleep in civics class, but we have a representative democracy where we elect officials to write laws and enact legislation.
Also, majority’s should never vote on a minority’s rights. You probably wouldn’t like it if Seattle brought a referendum to raise taxes on everyone in Spokane so we could get a little break. We outnumber you, so you probably wouldn’t stand a chance, but sure wouldn’t be fair now, would it? Ah, tyranny of the majority.
Congrats to the Washington State Senate on their votes for equality for all Washington citizens. And hello to my neighbors across the state!