Spokane7
68°
February 9, 2012 in City
Gay marriage wins 55-43 vote, now headed to Gregoire
Referendum likely to follow bill’s signing
Gov. Chris Gregoire is embraced by Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, after the House voted to legalize gay marriage Wednesday in Olympia. Gregoire is likely to sign the bill next week; a date has not yet been set for the ceremonial signing, but a sizable crowd is expected.
(Full-size photo)
OLYMPIA – By a vote of 55-43, the House passed and sent to Gov. Chris Gregoire a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington. Gregoire, who has already called for such legislation, will sign it sometime within the next week.
After nearly two and a half hours of debate, the House passed SB 6239 without amendments, setting Washington up to be the seventh state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage.
In a debate both impassioned and respectful, supporters described struggles and discrimination they or their children have had as homosexuals and likened the current laws to statutes that kept interracial couples from marrying.
“Marriage is the word our society uses to describe a committed, lifelong relationship,” said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, who with his partner is raising four children. “Even TurboTax doesn’t understand ‘domestic partnership.’ ”
Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-Walla Walla, said she wouldn’t want to deny anyone the chance to have the kind of bond she had with her late husband and hoped someday to be able to throw a wedding for her lesbian daughter.
Opponents said the Legislature doesn’t have the authority to change the traditional definition of marriage and should spend its time solving the budget problems or boosting the economy.
Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, said the bill won’t correct past injustice because same-sex couples have rights under the state’s domestic partnership law. Instead, he said, it will create injustices by not allowing business owners with deeply held religious beliefs to refuse service to same-sex couples.
“This bill doesn’t go far enough to protect religious liberty,” Shea said.
The session was already halfway over, yet the House was spending its time addressing a “name change,” said Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane.
Over the course of the debate, speakers from both sides quoted the Bible. Some cited Abraham Lincoln, Frank Sinatra or Groucho Marx; one even made a reference to a Super Bowl commercial for Jack in the Box.
For all the rhetoric, however, the outcome was never in doubt. A handful of amendments were rejected by comfortable margins. Like the vote in the Senate last week, it was not an exclusively partisan vote: two Republicans voted yes with majority Democrats; three Democrats voted no with minority Republicans.
The packed galleries, which had been silent through the debate, erupted in cheers and a few shouts of “thank you” when the tally was announced.
Within minutes of the final vote, Gregoire’s office released a statement that she was “looking forward” to signing the bill into law. A spokeswoman said a date had not yet been set for the ceremonial signing but she anticipated a sizable crowd.
Under law, the governor has five days from the day the legislation is “transmitted” from the House, a process that sometimes takes a day or two.
But any gay marriages in the state are, at the least, months away. The law is likely to be sidetracked by a referendum, which would make it subject to a vote in November. Opponents have said they will file a referendum and attempt to gather the more than 120,000 signatures by June 6 to put it on the general election ballot.
Without those signatures, the law takes effect on June 7; if the petition drive is successful, it doesn’t take effect unless voters approve it in November and the vote is certified Dec. 6.
Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules 
davidthewhat on February 09 at 4:05 a.m.
Chalk one up for the Culture of Death.
DHF on February 09 at 5:08 a.m.
Now until the petitions to overturn this decision comes out. would it be to much to ask these Senators to pull there head out of the other end and start working on things that are important like the ECONOMY,JOBS and fixing the problems that you created with your spending more than you were taking in.
JBlim on February 09 at 5:54 a.m.
wah, wah, wah … .
Shazamm on February 09 at 6:33 a.m.
“Marriage is the word our society uses to describe a committed, lifelong relationship,” said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle.”
These cornballs don’t even understand what real marriage is. I have a committed, lifelong relationship with my kids. I have a committed, lifelong relationship with my cats. I have a committed, lifelong relationship with any number of things. It is far more than that. It is the height of arrogance for such a small group of people to permanently alter a definition that is based in natural law and has been the bedrock of society for over a millennium. We will all pay for this extreme arrogance in the end.
JBlim on February 09 at 6:49 a.m.
” I have a committed, lifelong relationship with my cats… .”
Ewe! Yuk, spare us the details … .
soccermomsusie on February 09 at 7:39 a.m.
OK! Maybe, as a Conservative, now I will warm up to the idea of nonheterosexual marriage. I must admit that I am now OK with Noncaucasians marrying caucasians, which is something the Bible was against, until my pastor gave me a “think-around” patch to make it work.
And I know, one can point to history and show how we Conservatives have been wrong about every stance we have taken. Sure, eventually we will embrace what we opposed, but only twenty or thirty years after you Libtards did.
How many of us now enjoy Medicare, Social Security, clean water, seat belts, car bumpers, 40 hour work weeks (for you suckers who still work), nonheterosexual hair dressers, Glee, GayAntiGay Conservative politicians, etc.
BUT WE WILL NEVER EMBRACE SOCIALISM (like we did at the beginning of the Republican Party and up until about 10 years ago). WE WILL NEVER GO FOR A SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. WE WILL NEVER GO FOR MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. WE WILL NEVER EMBRACE UNIONISTS (like we did until last year). WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!!
MARK MY WORDS!!!
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 7:42 a.m.
“It is the height of arrogance for such a small group of people…”
Last opinion poll I saw showed a majority of Washingtonians support equal marriage rights.
http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/2011_ssm.pdf
Maybe not so small after all? And if that’s so, maybe the arrogance lies somewhere else?
“We will all pay for this extreme arrogance in the end.”
Didn’t some folks make the same dire predictions about freeing the slaves and allowing them to vote? And allowing women to vote? And allowing racially mixed marriages. (Oh gawd! That one right there. Talk about a bullet through the brain for the sanctity of marriage. Allowing ‘those people’ to actually marry a white person! The horror!)
‘Arrogance.’ Yeah, that’s a good description.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 7:48 a.m.
“Culture of Death”?
Remind me again - how many gays-killing-straights hate crimes have we seen lately? As opposed to straights-killing-gays, that is.
bradyc on February 09 at 7:51 a.m.
soccermomsusie, get help please, I’m praying for you.
stitch on February 09 at 8:02 a.m.
bradyc, I’m in for a prayer group.. Would you join us soccermom?
huskerinwa on February 09 at 8:08 a.m.
You don’t go to a church to get a marriage license & no church will be forced to provide ceremonies.
Get over it bigots. Newt harms the sanctity of marriage!
Diana on February 09 at 8:11 a.m.
Fellas, maybe you can pray the gay away, too.
Yeah, spend your time on that.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 09 at 8:30 a.m.
I’m re-posting a comment I made last night on a previous thread:
As I say below: I am not trying to be a smar@ss this time — obviously I disagree with the anti-gay-marriage point of view, but I’d like to understand it (finally) (if I can) instead of just dismissing it.
*********************
“Thanks for making the term “Marriage” meaningless and violating the rights of others.”
=============
Could someone explain this to me? (Or try, at least?) I have never been able to understand how the term “marriage” would lose its meaning, or how any of anybody’s rights would be violated.
I’m not trying to be a smart@ss this time – I honestly don’t get it.
woodj64 on February 09 at 8:36 a.m.
We’re all God’s children. He loves this world so He created standards, like an effective parent, to hold His creations accountable. Heterosexuality is one such standard, one we intrinsically sense as natural and appropriate between a married man and woman. When you were a child, what happened when you attempted to change the rules set in place by your parents?
horse_feathers on February 09 at 8:57 a.m.
“Well isn’t that special”
bradyc on February 09 at 8:59 a.m.
Diana, why the hate? since you know nothing about me, please don’t make assumptions and be bigoted toward me for the faith I have. My comment to soccermomsusie is genuine. That rant had nothing to do with the discussion here. It appears to me that soccermomsusie truly does need help and I will pray for her.
While my faith and belief in the bible has led me not to support the actions of Gov. Gregoire and others on this topic that doesn’t mean I hate or am bigoted toward gays unlike those those that don’t respect my right to led my life by the faith I have.
I am in no position to judge anyone for the sin I commit everyday is no less sinful than anyone else’s. I work hard to kill that human nature that I have, as does everyone else on this comment page apparently, to judge others. That plank in my eye makes it impossible to see the speck in others’.
The_Seer on February 09 at 9:16 a.m.
woodj64: You might want to read the book of Job. According to “God” himself, no one knows what he wants and wasting your time trying to figure it out is more damnable than acting deviantly from what someone states God wants.
This isn’t about God, religion, or anything the right wing whackos say it is. It’s about equal civil rights for everyone. The petitions sure to arrive attempting to place this issue on the ballot will be rejected by courts because we don’t get to vote whether or not a group in our midst gets the same rights we do.
Local on February 09 at 9:19 a.m.
So Woodj64 it is God’s standard for us to live up to and as bradyc points out we all are trying to live up to those standards by encouraging others to do the same. Do we fail. Yes. Do we encourage others to succeed. Yes. Do we want to help others fall short. No. His standard, not ours.
shanusmaximus on February 09 at 9:20 a.m.
Marriage has always been perceived as a religious term. It is between you, your partner and the church/god. Think about it like this…….should the State sanction say….baptisms? Should Clergy be agents of the State? Does that…………sound right? It doesn’t to me. It should be civil unions for all. This does not play favorites. Alas, you can’t build a circus around that. It should not be up to the State to whom I enter into contract with. It should be up to the State to ENFORCE that contract per it’s terms. This whole carnival is really a war of words and of little positive substance. To me, doing it the way we are doing it, is not really bringing the people together…..it is simply moving animosity from one side to the other. Just look at California…..what a mess and a terrible waste of money for something that should be REAL easy.
The_Seer on February 09 at 9:21 a.m.
brady: Soccermomsusie is a satirist. Most liberals get that right away while conservatives rarely do.
I’ll pray for you (and the entire conservative “movement”) to acquire the intellect to recognize satire. While I am at it I’ll make requests for nuance, tolerance, and critical thinking as well.
bradyc on February 09 at 9:29 a.m.
Seer, again the hate. Nothing that I have written indicates I didn’t “get” soccermomsusie’s post. please reread without that slant you have. Just because I have faith doesn’t mean I lack intellect but that is an interesting jump you make there. I’m blessed to have earned a masters degree and had a fruitful career in a very intellectual industry.
I do continue to be perplexed by the intolerance of the tolerant left however.
valleyman on February 09 at 9:34 a.m.
@The_Seer: Shouldn’t you be teaching???
Praying for your foes to “acquire intellect” is no better than zealots trying to “pray the gay away…” This is the problem with the left in America… You have no tolerance for any viewpoint but your own, and the moment someone articulates something you dislike, your side has chosen to end the intelligent discussion by accusing people of bigotry, homophobia, racism, and misogyny - thus everything the person you have accused of these terrible crimes against humanity says is suddenly no longer relevant. It’s a very clever device meant to end all challenging conversations, and it has worked quite well for propagating your side’s talking points.
@Jeffrey: Surely you don’t mean to state that gays are superior to straights in your comment regarding violence perpetrated by one group against another? Could it be that you’ve shown the true colors of the left by making the argument you really do believe in class/social inequality?
Now, get back to the work of government, government…
shanusmaximus on February 09 at 9:37 a.m.
@Seer
Yes sir. Nothing like beating down the sword wielder of generalizations and bigotry with the warhammer of vague notions and bias. Good job. You are simply filling your role in this little play of B.S. Problem is people like you and soccermomsusie lock the rest of us into the theater to watch this moronic potboiler……
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 9:41 a.m.
“You have no tolerance for any viewpoint but your own…”
Gawd, I love irony!
valleyman on February 09 at 9:48 a.m.
@Jeffrey: I notice you didn’t answer my question and instead validated my entire argument by focusing on something I said, taking it out out of context, and using that to make anything else I said irrelevant.
Well played sir…
Tolerance of an ideology for argument’s sake is one thing. Intolerance of that same viewpoint for the same argument results in quite another…
MrNatural on February 09 at 9:49 a.m.
Susie…you might be a 300 pound sumo wrestler for all I know but I still love ya…
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 10:11 a.m.
Hmmm, let me get this straight here…..so the people who are fighting for the equal rights of everyone are the intolerant and evil ones, and people saying gays will destroy the institution of marriage and fighting gay marriage purely based on religious reasons or because they say this will lead to people marrying animals or polygamy…..those people are the ones being tolerant.
Interesting viewpoint.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 09 at 10:19 a.m.
Jeff…thanks as always for your comments…. I too know of not one single documented case of hate/violence criminal activity perpetrated on a straight man or woman by a gay or lesbian or transgender person…. not one in my awareness…
I do know of thousands upon thousands of cases that are documented and only occasionally prosecuted of
Straight Guys… picking on alternate life style people….
One small case just the other day as i was walking from my apartment over to my mothers… there were four young men just out of a car crossing the street to go to their apartment… and behind me there was the rumble of two skate boards…. the rear two of the aforementioned young men stopped and made a concerted effort to “block and harrass” the skateboarders… I merely gave a sharp whistle and stopped and stared right at the four punks…. and they let up and let the young boarders pass….. clearly there was going to be an
“interaction” with the “inside sports good guys” aggressive action portending for the two boarders…..
It just passed and the situation was resolved…. my next step was to merely take out my camera phone and take their picture…. and on up the escalation of force if needed… 911 being the third step… john
Diana on February 09 at 10:27 a.m.
bradyc wrote “Diana, why the hate?”
Hate? Excuse me? The only hate I see is coming from those who would deny their fellow Americans the same civil rights that they have.
Soccermomsusie is a satirist and a fine one at that. Why are you satire-impaired?
bradyc on February 09 at 10:39 a.m.
my point proven by both Diana and liberal
Local on February 09 at 10:43 a.m.
Got to love the tangents people take. What do hate crimes have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.
Gays have the same rights hetros do. You can marry just like we can. Gays are asking to change the laws not provide equal rights to existing laws.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 10:43 a.m.
Valleyman,
I figure turn about is fair play. I notice you haven’t answered any of the substantive questions asked on any of the several threads on this topic.
If you feel like challenging that assertion, feel free to answer some of those questions now. You can start with one still pending on this thread as asked by Bruce.
“Surely you don’t mean to state that gays are superior to straights in your comment regarding violence perpetrated by one group against another?”
I made no such suggestion. I merely asked a factual question in response to a comment linking same-sex marriage to a “Culture of Death.” The question was; how many instances of gays-attacking/kiling-straights have we seen lately as opposed to straights-attacking/killing-gays? Which of two identifiable factions has thus demonstrated a closer relationship to a “Culture of Death”
A substantive answer will include some numbers.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 10:44 a.m.
bradyc…..actually, i think it’s you that just proved both our points. Thanks.
valleyman on February 09 at 10:52 a.m.
@liberal: Is the intolerance of a person who believes marriage is between a man and a woman any less grievous to you than the intolerance of a person who believes marriage should be between that person and whomever that person might love? That was the point I was trying to make.
My personal opposition to gay marriage resides in my understanding of human nature. Humans (man and woman) come together for procreation. There can be no procreation between two of the same gender. Marriage has been created and identified as a societal/religious contract binding man and woman together for the purpose of promoting the natural law understanding of procreation. Does society not have a vested interest in its continuation through the procreation of its members?
Love as understood as a virtue of marriage cannot and should not be divorced from the sexual understanding of procreation. Sex as understood as purely to derive pleasure from an act, thus removing all procreative understanding and beauty from the act, cheapens sex as an expression of love. This is where homosexuality fails in my belief.
Now before you all pounce on that last statement, I’ll be the first to admit that heterosexual couples have done nothing but cheapen this understanding of sex, love, and procreation as well, but the fact remains, when a heterosexual couple has sex, the potential exists for a family. When a homosexual couple has sex, where is that potential? This is a religious and philosophical understanding, and one I believe I am entitled to express.
I do not believe the state should be in the business of regulating partnerships nor what happens in said partnerships. Having said that, as long as the state believes it has a vested interest in marriage, it must either acknowledge the natural law procreative aspect thereof, or remove itself entirely from the equation.
valleyman on February 09 at 10:55 a.m.
@Jeffrey: That question is a red herring as was the original comment on the “culture of death” being propagated by gay marriage, and I dismiss both.
The real issue is how this holds any value for the state in terms of a natural law understanding of the state’s role in promoting marriage. Please see my above comment for a more cogent attempt to respond to some previous questions raised.
You asking me to respond in such fashion is not only fair, but appreciated.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:05 a.m.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion and religious persecution. What someone believes in is fine as long as you do not impose those views on others.
I don’t want to dictate what others believe in and how they live their lives as long as they are not harming anyone and their relations are between two consensual adults.
Let me ask this of our bible quoting friends on here, how would you feel if you were in the minority and the majority wished to impose Sharia Law on you?
This is a slippery slope, if we bow to religious pressure, next thing that must go is shellfish, then we need to start locking up women during their ovulation cycle.
valleyman on February 09 at 11:11 a.m.
@jdspokanewa: Is the slope any more slippery if we allow government to impose upon religion? I believe the 1st Amendment protects the government from religion and religion from government…
Local on February 09 at 11:12 a.m.
Last I checked the US allows the practice of all religions.
bradyc on February 09 at 11:19 a.m.
Interesting statement by Sen Ed Murray from Feb 2 after the senate passed the legislation:
Those who oppose it should not be accused of bigotry, Murray said. Those who support it should not be accused of religious intolerance.
until one’s own words prove otherwise of course…
so I say I’ll pray for someone and then I’m accused of being a bigot, lacking intelligence, mocked for praying and having faith among other things
so I ask why the attacks and more attacks follow when the very face of this legislation from the left says the above
and I know this happens in reverse on this and other topics as well
my main point here is that the discourse in this country has turned so ugly and vile on both sides for whatever the topic de jur is, very sad state we’ve come to in this country
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:23 a.m.
Valleyman, it is not government imposing on religion, it is vice versa and I think most people see it that way.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:25 a.m.
Bradyc, you can pray all you want, you have that right but if you openly oppose equal rights based upon your religious beliefs then to me it is wrong.
Local on February 09 at 11:28 a.m.
So if he opposes it for other reasons it is ok?
valleyman on February 09 at 11:34 a.m.
@jdspokanewa: Oh really? Most people are not being represented by reading a blog on the Spokesman… And how can you not say it is government imposing on religion when you will have people being mandated to provide services for something they morally oppose?
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:34 a.m.
Local, your question is only to instigate. Obviously if he has sound legal reasons for opposition, that can be debated but to use religion as a basis for law is Unconstitutional. The only legal argument that could apply is “well it’s always been that way” and to me that does not work when it comes to civil rights.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:35 a.m.
Valleyman, where in the legislation does it dictate that religious organizations need to perform and recognize gay marriage? You’re scared of the boogyman aren’t you?
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:38 a.m.
Valleyman, unless of course you mean discrimination for services such as floral and banquet halls and catering and such. Well, if you want to be that way and discriminate, then I guess the government should step in, otherwise you’re asking to also rollback civil rights laws that forced businesses to allow black people to sit in restaurants, the front of buses, to use (gasp) the same drinking fountains as white people!
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 11:41 a.m.
There is a provision in the law that allows churches not to preform same sex marriages.
Local on February 09 at 11:42 a.m.
If we can’t use historical precedence then we must use morality which is based upon philosophy, religion, and culture. Stripping religion from morality can’t be acheived.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:44 a.m.
Local, you’re wrong. We do not need religion to dictate good and bad. Religion is often worse than common sense.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 11:44 a.m.
valleyman,
“That question is a red herring…”
The overwhelming assertion against same-sex marriage has been that allowing it will cause harm - either generally in the form of harm to society or specifically as ‘harm my rights.’
How then can asking to specifically quantify that harm be a red herring?
“The real issue is how this holds any value for the state in terms of a natural law understanding of the state’s role in promoting marriage.”
And what, exactly, is that value to the state? Since you refer to ‘natural law’ I assume you are suggesting that the state has an interest in marriage either to promote procreation (otherwise why a specific interest in recognizing marriage as between both genders only) or, more likely, to ensure a stable home for its children.
If the former - that is; if the state’s interest is in procreation - should infertile individuals (either through biological defect or by virtue of deciding not to have children - vasectomy in the case of a male or having her tubes tied in the case of a female) be disqualified from marriage? Should marriages be dissolved once couples are past child-bearing age?
If the latter, how do you respond to the studies I cited on another thread that showed same-sex couples to be, at worst, no less nurturing than opposite-sex couples, and - at least according to several authorities on the subject - actually superior at creating a stable home environment. (The studies determined that while ‘unintended’ pregnancies in opposite-sex couples approached 50%, very rarely do same-sex couples produce an unintended pregnancy. Therefore, should they choose to have children, it’s far more out of a desire for and a commitment to that child.)
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 11:45 a.m.
“Stripping religion from morality can’t be acheived.”
So atheists by definition have no morals.
Local on February 09 at 11:50 a.m.
JD those are your opinions and I will protect your right to have them but I think you are wrong and that belief does not work when it comes to civil rights. And, I will say again gays are not asking for the law to be equal for everyone, they are asking for a new law.
drywitt99 on February 09 at 11:52 a.m.
All of those who oppose this bill should be PLEASED to see who they are associating themselves with:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/08/2018371/westboro-church-to-picket-powell.html
You guys going to charter a bus and join the “Christian Patriots” from Westboro Baptist?????
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 11:54 a.m.
Local, where in any bill does it say “Gays shall have new laws making them special and giving them far superior power and protection versus heterosexuals?”
Nice try but you are wrong.
Local on February 09 at 11:56 a.m.
Gays have the same right as hetros do. They can marry just like we can.
Local on February 09 at 11:58 a.m.
drywitt what do hate crimes have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 12:05 p.m.
Local,
“Gays have the same right as hetros do. They can marry just like we can.”
No. Until the law is signed into effect they can only have a ‘separate but equal’ civil union. (What do you think this whole furor is about, anyway? Do you think the state legislature just passed a law that says, ‘Okay. Nothing is going to change and no new status or rights are going to be conferred. You will now be able to get married just like you could before’?)
“drywitt what do hate crimes have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.”
Why are you asking drywitt? Ask those God-fearing (given their view of Him, one is tempted to say ‘God-terrified’) Christians from Westboro. They’re the ones who evidently see some kind of connection.
drywitt,
In an earlier post I cited an opinion poll that showed something like 7% of Washingtonians as ‘undecided’ on the question of allowing same-sex marriage. I say let Westboro protest and give ‘em all the coverage they can handle.
I can think of no better way to sway the thinking part of that 7%.
valleyman on February 09 at 12:09 p.m.
@Jeffrey:
1) Violence between gays and straights does not have any bearing on marriage between them, and was a response to the earlier ascertain of “culture of death” comment made by another poster. I stand by my claim this has no bearing on the argument for or against gay marriage. Please, let’s move on.
2) Procreation as a primary concern of the state in it’s continued existence does not extend, in a natural law sense, to nurturing. Either gays can or can’t procreate. Nurturing is a side argument only valid if the procreation question can be answered in the affirmative.
3) How do you propose we identify infertile individuals? Mandatory testing? Seems like we’re going a little eugenics with that one… There is a biological impediment to two men or two women reproducing that is definitive, rather than an occasional and rare occurrence. Those men or women who marry the opposite sex and later find themselves to be infertile, still entered into that marriage, in a natural law understanding, for the purpose of bearing children. Those who choose not to reproduce or choose to become sterilized, under a natural law understanding, should have no special recognition either. Civil unions (performed by the state for contractual rather than procreative purposes) should suffice here as well, and I do not oppose this.
4) Couples who married for possible procreative means under a natural law understanding who have passed child-bearing age should not be required to separate since their union was based upon the procreative rather than the carnal. Additionally, their continued marriage serves as an example for their offspring furthering the enshrinement of marriage for its natural law purpose of procreating and raising offspring.
5) As to your last comment - It is biologically impossible for two homosexual individuals to have an “unintended pregnancy.” The issue of child-rearing is secondary to the natural law argument and is therefore not relevant to my discussion items. I can fully appreciate and respect homosexual couples can and do maintain loving environments for children. This is not the purpose, however, of the state becoming involved, unless the state has become the progenitor of that which is the proper and correct methodology for raising children.
Local on February 09 at 12:11 p.m.
Yes gays have the same rights as hetros, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. They want a new law that says same-sex can marry each other. See how that is different or “new”?
valleyman on February 09 at 12:11 p.m.
@drywitt: Simply because one hate group jumps on the bandwagon of a cause, does that entire cause become affiliated with that hate group? Better be careful with that statement, lest we have to bring up the South, the KKK, and the Democrat Party…
valleyman on February 09 at 12:12 p.m.
That’s clever local, and an interesting point. You are actually suggesting that homosexuals are carving out for themselves as special class or privilege with this law.
I’m intrigued…
JBlim on February 09 at 12:14 p.m.
Seer as “brady: Soccermomsusie is a satirist. Most liberals get that right away while conservatives rarely do.”
No, she doesn’t sound much different than the rest of the fringe righties.
drywitt99 on February 09 at 12:23 p.m.
@Jeffrey
I remember in the fall of 2010 when Westboro picketed at Gonzaga and a South Hill synagogue….THOUSANDS of us counter-protested to show these bastards that SPOKANE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THEIR BRAND OF HATE!!
I live in Seattle now, and plan to drive down to Tacoma to show our support for the grieving family….and our opposition to these hate mongers.
Religion and morality……..separate….and not necessarily equal.
The_Seer on February 09 at 12:24 p.m.
valleyman driveled: “Love as understood as a virtue of marriage cannot and should not be divorced from the sexual understanding of procreation. Sex as understood as purely to derive pleasure from an act, thus removing all procreative understanding and beauty from the act, cheapens sex as an expression of love.”
Get off the Mayflower and leave the rest of us alone. If we want to have sex for purely pleasurable outcomes it is our business and you don’t get to remove any “beauty from the act” in your quest to impose your Puritan worldview on others. Your “understanding of human nature” could not be more naive or sophomoric probably because you’ve never actually explored your own nature opting instead to have one proscribed for you.
The KKK is alive and well and southern states are now bastions of the GOP. What say you, valleyman?
The_Seer on February 09 at 12:30 p.m.
jblim: Really? Here, maybe I can help using Suz’ own words:
“And I know, one can point to history and show how we Conservatives have been wrong about every stance we have taken. Sure, eventually we will embrace what we opposed, but only twenty or thirty years after you Libtards did.”
A true “fringe righty” would never admit they were wrong.
valleyman on February 09 at 12:38 p.m.
@Seer: My “puritanical” viewpoint of the natural law understanding of procreation and the intrinsic link between love and sex is shared by the major religions of the world. I’m sorry you believe your modernistic views get to trump mine…
Teaching again?
drywitt99 on February 09 at 12:40 p.m.
@valleyman
YES……the Klan was racist and had much support in the Democratic South.
YES…..the Democratic South blocked Civil Rights legislation for 100 years.
And YES…..I…as a Democrat….am ashamed of that.
As I have stipulated in MANY posts over the past 2 years.
I will even allow that Republican support in the 60s was key to the passage of Civil Rights legislation.
BUT…..
REPUBLICANS Barry Goldwater….and Strom Thurmond……and
George H W Bush OPPOSED that legislation!!!
REPUBLICAN presidential candidate Ron Paul STILL DOES!!!
AND REPUBLICAN Governor Chris Christie believes that
civil rights in the 60s could have been achieved by referendum…..even though the blacks COULD NOT VOTE
IN IT!!
And those southern racist Democratic politicians of the 60s became…..Republican politicians in the 70s. 80s and beyond.
When you, and Dazed and local charter your bus to Tacoma to join your Westboro soulmates….be sure and stop and say HI!!!
We’ll be across the way!
.
SMARTGUY on February 09 at 12:45 p.m.
All of you neocons need to just relax. Just because they can marry does not mean they will go to heaven. God in his infinate wisdom will see through their ” devil love” and confine them in purgotory forever burning in agony. Daring to love the wrong person is just as offensive in Gods eyes as murder or rape or praying to the wrong God, and they will be punished for their sins. P.S. thats how you do satire SMS
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 09 at 12:46 p.m.
valleyman @ 10:52 and12:09pm — Thanks for what looks like an attempt to explain your point of view to me in response to my question at 8:30am. I don’t have time to engage in a point-by-point dialogue / argument / whatever to call it, but this jumped out from your 12:09 post:
“Those who choose not to reproduce or choose to become sterilized, under a natural law understanding, should have no special recognition either. Civil unions (performed by the state for contractual rather than procreative purposes) should suffice here as well, and I do not oppose this.”
===================
Gosh, really? No marriage for people who choose not to procreate?
This seems like it would also extend to couples who get married after the woman’s childbearing years are over. So would my [female] friend who got married a few years ago at age 62 not be entitled to get married? Or am I making an unjustified stretch by going beyond what you said, toward what is implied by what you said?
What about people who choose not to procreate but choose to adopt instead?
Anyway — as I said, I don’t have time right now; but it looks like there are simply two divergent views of what marriage is for, and also of what the state should be enabling by enabling marriages. No surprise that I adhere to the view that it is for two people who want to join their lives together, and whether those people are willing or able to procreate is their own business.
I hope to come back to this conversation but it will probably be late(r) this evening.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 12:46 p.m.
“They want a new law that says same-sex can marry each other. See how that is different or “new”?”
Ah. Okay. Now I see the distinction you’re attempting to draw.
I would reply by saying that the Civil Rights movement was also attempting to carve out a ‘new’ right within the context of the old Jim Crow laws. Minorities wanted to be able to sit anywhere they wanted at the lunch counter or in the bus. They wanted to be allowed to marry the person they loved, regardless of their respective races.
At the time, that too was advocating for something both ‘different’ and ‘new’.
The reason they accomplished their goal was because the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t speak to ‘men and women’ or ‘couples’. It speaks to ‘individuals.’ It could be argued that the State shouldn’t concern itself with marriage or assigning legal status and benefits thereon. (I could be persuaded of that, though there would be a myriad of details that would have to be worked out.) But once the State does get involved - as it has - it can’t single out one class of individuals as ineligible for rights it grants to another class. That is absent some compelling interest.
What’s the compelling interest here, other than that same-sex marriage offends some folks’ religion, sensibilities or opinions about how other people should live their lives?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 09 at 12:50 p.m.
P.S. drywitt, Strom Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT until 1964 (although he was also a “Dixiecrat” before that – details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond). Used to be that the D. and R. parties were both equally racist in the South, but when LBJ decided that the D’s were going to embrace civil rights, there was a mass migration to the other side of the aisle. That’s when racism became a characteristic of the R. party, and that’s why the south is so very Republican nowadays.
Local on February 09 at 12:55 p.m.
“What’s the compelling interest here, other than that same-sex marriage offends some folks’ religion…”
Isn’t that enough? It is against their beliefs, much like it isn’t against yours.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 12:58 p.m.
valleyman,
I too salute you for trying to keep this on an objective, rational level. Let’s see if I can match that admirable goal.
As to 1): Let’s just say I agree completely that on an objective, rational level the question of hate crimes is largely irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriage. (It’s context, at best.) My ‘irrational’ reply to that first post was strictly intended as a response to a wholly irrational comment.
As to 2): So the State’s interest is purely a numbers game? Marriage exists to get as many kids as we can. Is that what you’re saying?
As to 3): “How do you propose we identify infertile individuals?” I don’t propose such a thing. I’m not the one who is arguing that marriage is for procreation. It seems to me that if that’s the State’s interest, then it’s up to the State to figure out who is eligible based on fertility. And I agree, that raises some pretty disturbing possibilities.
For the rest, I defer to Bruce’s reply immediately above because he raises the same points I would raise.
As to 5): I suppose your reply is consistent with what has gone before, so I’ll grant it. But I don’t think your basic premise holds up for the reasons Bruce and I have stated, so…
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 1:01 p.m.
When it comes to the laws of this nation, thankfully, no. At least not according to the First Amendment.
Of course, if you want to say here and now that we only have to follow the Constitution when it suits our whims or our agenda, then by all means do so. That way we’ll have some guidance on how to judge future instances when you try to wrap yourself in it to bolster your arguments.
valleyman on February 09 at 1:02 p.m.
@Jeffrey: Separate but equal, unequal representation based on race, and preventing women from voting were all perversions of the original intent of “All men were created equal.” New laws were not necessarily needed to right these wrongs, just an adherence original intent. Thus the carving out of “new” rights is not accurate. These rights were always innate, unlike seeking to create new class recognition for rights not equally innate to all classes…
Where does it end?
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 1:02 p.m.
Local, even if I wasn’t for gay marriage, I would be anyway because our Constitution protects everyone’s rights, not just your religious based ideas and not just your opinion.
Local on February 09 at 1:08 p.m.
JD
If the voters reject this in November (based on religion or not) doesn’t that mean something legally?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 1:08 p.m.
By the way, how do you know what offends my religious sensibilities and what doesn’t?
I can argue for an equal right for someone to do something I wouldn’t necessarily do myself - especially when that something causes no harm to anyone - and still stay true to my own religious convictions. I can do this because my religion says I am answerable to God for my own conduct, not someone else’s.
“And the second greatest law is like the first; love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
-and-
“Judge not, lest you be likewise judged.”
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 1:12 p.m.
Valleyman,
If all men are created equal don’t they have an equal right to marry whomever they love?
“These rights were always innate…”
Since when is desiring to commit yourself to someone you love and having that commitment recognized by your community not innate to humans?
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 1:13 p.m.
In a nutshell, no. Everyone has their rights, regardless of what you want or what your neighbors want. Over the years we have overcome a lot of injustice without a majority vote such as civil rights and discrimination based on age, sex, race and even religion so why do you feel so strongly that the majority can discriminate so easily? I have to ask, what is wrong with you?
Local on February 09 at 1:14 p.m.
You can love but not agree with somebodies actions. When asked by the state of my opinion (vote) I will use the standard given to me so I don’t have to judge.
valleyman on February 09 at 1:14 p.m.
@Jeffrey:
1) Let’s drop this entirely as I will grant that your response was emotionally relevant to an entirely inappropriate comment and even though not germane, understandable.
2) In what other way should the state have an interest? Is the state a moral entity? Is the state an ethical entity? Should the state think? Should the state not exist for but one purpose, and one purpose alone - to promote the commonality of purpose and goals of the citizens who formed it, and provide for its continued existence?
3) The question of fertility is only relevant if we give up the biological imperative that is demonstrated through the act of copulation for reproduction. Again, if a couple married for the intent of having offspring, and found themselves incapable of doing so, natural law is not violated.
The points made by Bruce regarding the “marriages” of those outside child-bearing age are cogent, and do pose issues to the current understanding of marriage as a social construct for purposes other than monogamous procreation and child rearing. This subject is worthy of further discussion perhaps, but does little to remove the issue of homosexual marriage being contrary to the purposes and intents I have previously mentioned.
4) I will assume that we can agree as to the merits of where I went in #4 in my original post.
5) I’m not sure how my basic premise if wrong that it is biologically impossible for homosexuals to reproduce, thus creating a lack of standing for arguments related to child rearing in a natural law sense since they do not have children under this understanding…
Local on February 09 at 1:16 p.m.
So legally, according to you, the vote that comes in November has no legal significance. Really?
valleyman on February 09 at 1:20 p.m.
@Jeffrey: “Love” is not a central tenant to natural law, and thus is less important in the hierarchy of prominence to things like shelter, protection, sustenance, self-preservation, etc. These things have forced man to cooperate in collective senses and have brought us into our modern understanding of society.
If you would like to grant that marriage is a fundamental “right” I would assert that without the state’s interest in marriage for healthy procreative purposes, there would be no laws against bestiality, necrophilia, incest, or the joining of man and inanimate objects… For this understanding, any object of “love” becomes worthy of “marriage.”
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 1:20 p.m.
Local, let’s say I want to put a vote on whether we should euthanize people of ignorance and the overwhelming majority agree to it because I think I could put together a pretty good campaign for it. Then we would never have these types of discussions again, does that sound fair?
Local on February 09 at 1:25 p.m.
JD,
So you agree the vote in November has legal significance. Even though people vote based upon their religious belief which I get the feeling you don’t approve of.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 1:27 p.m.
Local, the problem with your logic is that you feel the majority should dictate the civil rights of the minority. Essentially, you’re a bigot who wants to rule the world based on the white, Christian fundamentals and I’m certainly glad that people like you are in the minority, what concerns me is that your types get others to buy into your ignorance and sway voters who might otherwise be more enlightened.
Local on February 09 at 1:30 p.m.
JD,
I believe we live in a state where majority rules. Sorry you don’t like it. As far as me being a white Christian you made me laugh. Hope the wife would recognize me.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 1:33 p.m.
Local, civil rights should never be about what the majority thinks, it should be about what is right and what is wrong. We could put a vote on whether whites should own black, we could put a vote on whether Jews should be kept from living in your neighborhood. We can do those things but does it make them right? NO, it makes them UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Local on February 09 at 1:34 p.m.
Right and wrong according to whom? Voters?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 1:39 p.m.
““Love” is not a central tenant to natural law”
And natural law is not the sole basis for the laws of this nation. Or can you point to a clause in the Constitution that says all laws must agree with the tenants of natural law and then points to where that law is codified?
“If you would like to grant that marriage is a fundamental “right”…”
The Supreme Court has said it is.
“I would assert that without the state’s interest in marriage for healthy procreative purposes…”
You still haven’t proved this thesis. If the State’s interest is only healthy procreation, then it has no interest in granting marriage to infertile couples or couples past their child bearing years. (And here I’m making reference to the same thing Bruce alluded to; a man and a woman in their seventies ‘tying the knot.’ According to the State’s ‘natural law interests’ those individuals are ineligible to marry because they have no ‘value’ to the State.)
You’re ‘pulling a gmorton’ on me by trying to limit the argument through imposing this ‘natural law standard’ upon the legislative process that comprehends many more interests than what you narrowly define, and furthermore is not limited by that standard.
Johnny Bucket on February 09 at 1:40 p.m.
Wow same sex marriage - my goat is getting excited! Someday I’ll be able to marry him, a building, or a cup of sugar. Way to go LIBERALS!!!
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 1:42 p.m.
“I believe we live in a state where majority rules.”
We live in a nation where the Constitution rules. The majority could vote to behead all left-handed people, but a law allowing that wouldn’t withstand Constitutional challenge even if the vote was unanimous. (Well, with the probable exception of all ‘lefties.’)
Local on February 09 at 1:46 p.m.
So why is everybody so up in arms if a Constitutional challenge will get what you want anyway?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 2:07 p.m.
Valleyman,
I’m sorry, I missed your 1:14 post. Let me try to reply to it.
As to 2): “In what other way should the state have an interest?” The paternity of children and their legal status with respect to their parents. Washington is a community property state. Therefore the state has an interest in the legal status of two individuals claiming to be married. (Or, alternatively, one of the partners disputing that they’re married.) Special status with respect to taxation. (Not that I agree there should be such a status. But that’s beside the point because there is.) And that’s right of the top of my head. I bet if I sat down and thought about it, I could come up with more.
As to 3): So intent is sufficient? Then you should grant marriage rights to a same-sex couple who intends to adopt. Or to a female/female couple who intends to conceive via artificial means. (That is unless you want to discriminate based on gender and deny males the right to marry that you grant to females.)
As to 4): No, we can’t make that assumption.
(emphasis mine)So it IS about raising offspring too? Now we’re back to the ability of same-sex couple to serve as positive role models.
As to 5): “…it is biologically impossible for homosexuals to reproduce.” As shown in “3)”, it’s not impossible - at least not for two females. So I ask again - do we discriminate against male couples but allow female couples to marry? (Good luck getting that one past even the most conservative of Supreme Courts.)
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 2:32 p.m.
Why should it have to come to that? Why do you use all your power and energy to keep others from having the same legal protections you enjoy?
Local on February 09 at 2:53 p.m.
They currently have the same legal rights as I do. They are asking for a new law to include same sex marriages. If it comes to a vote where I am asked for my opinion I will give it much like you will. I am not using all my power and energy to defeat this if I were you would really know it.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 3:04 p.m.
Local, same legal rights in which respect? On a state level, almost but not quite. On a federal level, not even close.
What you’re asking for is to keep what you got while denying others the same rights and that is wrong but I’m sure Jesus will forgive you.
Local on February 09 at 3:29 p.m.
The current law allows a man and woman to be married. They have that same right as I do. So I am not denying them any current rights. Now if you ask me if we should change those rights I would say no.
shanusmaximus on February 09 at 3:30 p.m.
What a freakin’ three ring circus! Reading all of this just sets in stone to me that NONE of you really want to solve this. You like the fight better than the solution.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 09 at 3:34 p.m.
You’re denying them the right to marry whom they choose. That’s a right that heterosexual couples enjoy but same-sex couples do not.
Local on February 09 at 3:41 p.m.
If the majority of people vote that way you would be correct.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 3:56 p.m.
Tell us more about you so we can pass laws that do not affect the majority but will affect you and then we will see how you feel.
You don’t seem to get it and never will. You’re in the minority when it comes to understanding civil rights, I hope if it gets on the ballot it is a landslide victory for gay rights.
Local on February 09 at 4:00 p.m.
With only 7 states having gay marriage I would think you’re in the minority.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 4:21 p.m.
And that has what to do with UNDERSTANDING civil rights? Just because some religious folks like you want to keep gays out of marriage, doesn’t mean that when not under influence, most people realize that civil rights are granted by the Constitution, not by a bunch of bigots.
Please do us all a favor and tell us why you’re so against this because your arguments are weak.
Local on February 09 at 4:26 p.m.
JD you are just as bigoted in your views so I don’t think anything I say will change your views.
Mr_Injustice on February 09 at 4:28 p.m.
Prop 8 passed in uber-liberal California (regardless of the current legal fight). Washington’s more conservative than California, at least historically speaking.
It appears to to me that our legislature and governor just wasted tax payer time.
If the supporters want to win this battle they might wanna leash all of the dudes dressing like women or little women dressing like 10 year old boys. Its the fringe, if there is a fringe side of the gay community, that will cause anti-initiatives to pass.
Just my two cents. I don’t appose things that don’t affect me. Having to explain to my 6 year old why some dude is in a dress and acting like a fool affects me.
mdriftmeyer on February 09 at 4:39 p.m.
Congrats to my fellow human beings. Your equal rights of marriage are long overdue.
Shadedmuse on February 09 at 4:39 p.m.
Now the govenor can mary sen murray and cantwell, oh wait thats mormons that like plural marage like Romney’s parents and grand parents, never mind.
I will make a deal with the mormons, I will look the other way on plural marrage if you look the other way on gay marrage’
Gay marrage will create jobs in the wedding industry.
mdriftmeyer on February 09 at 4:42 p.m.
@Local: “JD you are just as bigoted in your views so I don’t think anything I say will change your views.”
A position of bigotry when discussing your position of intolerance actually has to be backed by substance. If @jdspokanewa was denouncing your views to practice your belief system in the privacy of your own mind then you have a case of bigotry.
In the public square civil rights are for all human citizens and to deny people the same benefits acknowledged by Government because you abhor their sexual preference is bigotry.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 4:49 p.m.
Local, nothing you can say will change peoples views on this issue because most people who are in favor of gay marriage believe in equal rights for everyone.
You are speaking for a small minority of people who wish to restrict equal rights for everyone.
Even though only 7 states have legal gay marriage, most recent polls show a majority across the country are in favor of legalizing gay marriage, and most polls show the trend is going up, not down of people wanting to legalize gay marriage. So YOU are in fact in the minority trying to restrict the rights of what a majority of the country wants.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 09 at 4:52 p.m.
I have just a couple free minutes here.
In my quick skimming of the comments since I first responded to valleyman, I might have missed it but I haven’t seen any description of how gay marriage would violate anybody’s rights.
I’m still curious to know what rights people are referring to when they say that, and the nature of the violation.
greenlibertarian on February 09 at 4:53 p.m.
Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-Walla Walla, said she wouldn’t want to deny anyone the chance to have the kind of bond she had with her late husband and hoped someday to be able to throw a wedding for her lesbian daughter.
She better be getting some enhanced security. The bigots are pissed off and going nuts.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 09 at 4:57 p.m.
Mr_Injustice, do some research into how the Mormon church defeated Prop 8 in California. I suggest viewing the documentary the Mormon Proposition
Besides, how did Ref 71 do a few years ago here in conservative Washington? Oh yeah, it passed, easily, and public opinion has only increased since then on this issue…see above links in my prior post.
Local on February 09 at 5:02 p.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.
JD falls right in line with that.
jdspokanewa on February 09 at 5:30 p.m.
I don’t care what you think or believe but it is YOU who is pushing your intolerance on others. You’re GD BIGOT! Not me…you’ve given no real reason other than your intolerance of others. Good day bigot.
greenlibertarian on February 09 at 5:52 p.m.
The_Seer on February 09 at 9:21 a.m.
brady: Soccermomsusie is a satirist. Most liberals get that right away while conservatives rarely do.
I’ll pray for you (and the entire conservative “movement”) to acquire the intellect to recognize satire. While I am at it I’ll make requests for nuance, tolerance, and critical thinking as well.
Good thought, Seer, but God ain’t that powerful.
Oh, you were making a joke. Good one!
Alas, conservatives with nuance, tolerance, and critical thinking do exist, but they almost never show up on these comment threads.
misjustice on February 09 at 5:52 p.m.
We’ve come a long way since Stonewall but if this thread is any indication, we’ve still got a long way to go until our gay brothers and sisters have equal rights.
This legislation progresses the attempt to ensure marriage equality for all. But as we have witnessed in other civil rights struggles we still need to be vigilant and proactive to ensure that those in opposition to equality are stopped; at all attempts to stop the advances that we, as a society, have gained.
Bigots will attempt to defeat the legislation by gathering signatures to put the question of marriage equality on the November ballot. I would imagine that in the more conservative areas of the state that they may gather a number of signatures but I highly doubt that they will succeed on the west side of the state.
Game on! Those of us in favor of marriage equality will not be “turned ‘round”. And we will continue the struggle, no matter what the opposition may do.
Shadedmuse on February 09 at 6:01 p.m.
the snti-gay marrage people say Marrage is only for starting a familey, well their are alot of childless couples out their and gays can adopt or use invitral fertalsation.
Local on February 09 at 6:16 p.m.
No worries, per JD
“We live in a nation where the Constitution rules. The majority could vote to behead all left-handed people, but a law allowing that wouldn’t withstand Constitutional challenge even if the vote was unanimous.”
It is a slam dunk. Gay marriage will win out. You can all go home now.
greenlibertarian on February 09 at 8:25 p.m.
most people realize that civil rights are granted by the Constitution, not by a bunch of bigots.
Wrong.
Our inalienable rights are given by the Creator, or Nature’s God, as some Founders like to put it. Some of these rights are delineated in the Constitution.
God made Adam AND Steve.
greenlibertarian on February 09 at 8:47 p.m.
Ted Olson, rock solid conservative, GWB lawyer, US Solicitor General. Their Federal case has WON and won on appeal.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
woamike on February 09 at 10:20 p.m.
@GLib, You say:
“Our inalienable rights are given by the Creator, or Nature’s God, as some Founders like to put it.”
Perhaps there’s some hope for you after all. . .
D Statler on February 09 at 10:47 p.m.
This is just WRONG :^(
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 09 at 11:03 p.m.
Well I’m home and I have looked through all the comments, and haven’t found where anyone has tried to describe how the term “marriage” would be made meaningless or how anyone’s rights would be violated by the legalization of gay marriage.
There was a civil conversation for awhile about what marriage was for, but limiting marriage’s purpose to procreation + child rearing doesn’t seem like a viable course (try getting legislation passed to enforce that).
Oh well. There will probably be another article or two on this subject before November. I’ll probably ask again to see if anyone has come up with any examples they’re willing to share. I guess it was overly optimistic of me to expect anyone would say “this is how the word ‘marriage’ would lose its meaning, and this is how other people’s rights would be violated.” Oh well, maybe next time.
greenlibertarian on February 10 at 1:24 a.m.
Well Woam, I was just going to say mark this day, I agree with something you said about that first F-14 female Naval pilot. They should have washed her out. Flying an F-14 proficiently is a VERY DIFFICULT thing. You don’t cut anybody slack on that. Another women pilot would certainly have come along and do just fine.
Absent evidence this woman pilot was set-up, and I’ve not seen any, again, she should have washed out of F-14 training. She maybe could have served in some allied capacity, maybe a classroom aviation teacher; the Navy, as a whole, is not blameless for NOT redirecting her. Tragic ending.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 10 at 7:41 a.m.
Here is a link to Maureen Walsh’s comments on the floor of our legislature… interesting, enlightening and enriching.. John
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGmgqW6ES8
For one minute, try and imagine You have a gay child who wants to get married…. put the shoes on and walk a mile…. John
dougfresh on February 10 at 1:22 p.m.
More soccer mom susie! the rest of you bore me. There’s no sense trying to convince the conservatives that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and it is just forward progress.
Soccer mom susie is right though, at some point down the road, when public support has reached a boiling point, conservatives will (publicly) support gay marriage. Just like they did with other civil rights.
Privately, behind closed doors, they will still hate gays, blacks, and whatever else they see as a threat to their perfect vision of a society their children should be raised in.
They like to stick their heads in the sand, then stroke their bible and tell themselves that they will be saved when fire and brimstone rain from the sky.
Girl4God on February 13 at 9:18 a.m.
Legalizing Gay Marriage- really, the definition of marriage, the institution of marriage, the purpose of marriage- is not compatable with their “choice” of lifestyle. God is not going to bless that type of union. What a decrepit, sinful, Godless people we have become- (much like those God destroyed with a flood). Forget what’s “politically” correct, if God does not (and He will) punish us, He’d have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah (which He is not going to do). What’s next Gov, legalizing child porn, molestation, (oh come on; before they “came out” homosexuality was just as appalling); ergo being in the closet in the first place. How soon til we decide as a nation that pediophelia is acceptable and bills are being passed to give them rights? I am afraid to see what our children are going to be asked to be “tolerant” of next.
Kelley
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 13 at 2:47 p.m.
Girl 4… what oh what will YOU do when your daughter or son “comes out” what a horrific scene… and suicide of those youth whose parents reject them is a very very high probability.. I know that from 5 Years on the King County Crisis line twice a week and the Youth Crisis line for 3 years once a week in the evenings..
70% of Hetero Marriages are not to “create children” any more.. I am 67 and can’t do that any more but sure do want to be married again….( hetero)… and I have a Gay daughter whose life is much much more stable having been married during the two month window in California…
“Let He/She who is without Sin’s cast the first stone” think bout your “perfect life…” and see where you have failed to meet the Old Testament Standards…..( wearing clothing with two different cloths and on and on..)
Go read the Red… Jesus’ words in any of the Gospel’s and yo will not find one word about this seemingly “Very Big” issue for you bible thumpers…
Your “Jesus” and my “Jesus” are not the same phenomenon… john
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 14 at 9:07 a.m.
Girl4: Your remarks provide a vivid example of why the separation of Church & State is so important. The law allows people of differing religions, or no religion, to be married in the eyes of the law, whether or not they intend to have children or even stay married.
Meanwhile — like my sister, who is a devout Christian and holds that none of the mainstream denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. etc.) are truly Christian, and thus none of their marriages are truly marriages in the eyes of God, and thus all children from such marriages are illegitimate, and by the way all adherents of such denominations are going to Hell when they die, if they aren’t already there — nothing is going to change on the ground. You will still be free to hold your opinions, and to express them in all the ways that are currently legal. Like my sister, you will simply have to go on accepting that the state & nation you live in have laws that your religion does not agree with.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 15 at 6:52 a.m.
Bruce… thanks for your simple real life example of how skewed the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is…… as compared to the Episcopal Catholic Church, or the German Lutheran Catholic Church, or the Swedish Lutheran Catholic Church.. the Presbyterian Church, Methodist Church etc etc… The right wing evangelicals and the Roman Catholics are aligned on all the hot button issues in the Hierarchy… yet 98 percent of Roman Catholic women use birth control… ( and are headed straight to purgatory/?) “Conservative Christians” not very all encompassing and highly selective and restrictive….
Grace is the concept postulated by St Paul in most of his writings and all the Gospels with Christ’s words…. simply believe and accept and you are forgiven and “saved”….. yeah… no penance, no purgatory, no candles or “good works” needed….. and yes ALL are welcome at the Communion Table ALL… including those with ASP (alternate sexual preferences) best john