Washington State Approves Gay-Marriage Bill
- Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:50pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.
The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. The state Senate approved the measure last week. And Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the measure into law next week.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has sponsored gay rights bills in the House for several years, said that while he and his partner are grateful for the rights that exist under the state’s current domestic partnership law, “domestic partnership is a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage.”
Pedersen cited Tuesday’s ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals during his remarks on the House floor.
“The court addressed the question of why marriage matters directly,” he said, and read a section from the ruling that stated “marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.”
“I would like for our four children to grow up understanding that their daddy and their poppa have made that kind of a lifelong commitment to each other,” he said. “Marriage is the word that we use in our society to convey that idea.”
Several Republicans argued against the bill, saying that it goes against the tradition of marriage.
Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie, said that the measure “severs the cultural, historical and legal underpinnings of the institution of marriage.”
“This bill is really an exercise of raw political power,” he said. “It contravenes human nature and it will hurt families and children.”
Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted in favor of the bill. Three Democrats voted against it. Democrats hold a 56-42 majority in the House.
Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-College Place, said that the bill was a matter of equality.
“Why in the world would we not allow those equal rights to those individuals who are truly committed to each other in life?” she asked. She noted that her daughter told her she was gay a few years ago.
“Nothing’s different,” she said. “She’s still a fabulous human being. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid.”
Gregoire watched from the wings with the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ed Murray of Seattle, a gay lawmaker who has spearheaded the domestic partnership and marriage push in the Legislature.
“I’m happy,” Murray said after the vote. “It’s a great day for families across the state. It’s a great day for my family.”
However, gay couples can’t begin walking down the aisle just yet.
The proposal would take effect 90 days after the governor signs the measure but opponents have promised to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure that would allow voters to overturn the legislative approval.
If opponents gather enough signatures to take their fight to the ballot box, the law would be put on hold pending the outcome of a November election.
Otherwise gay couples could wed starting in June.
Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and more than a dozen other states have provisions, ranging from civil unions to gay marriage, supporting same-sex couples.
Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C.
Lawmakers in New Jersey are expected to vote on gay marriage next week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.
Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled against California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
The panel gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume. The judges also said the decision only applies to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states.
Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 said they have not decided if they will seek a new 9th Circuit hearing or file an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Washington state’s momentum for same-sex marriage has been building and the debate has changed significantly since 1998, when lawmakers passed Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage. The constitutionality of that law ultimately was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure, signaling a change in the Legislature.
The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with “everything but marriage” expansion that was upheld by voters.
In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions “marriage.”
If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38 percent said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.
The gay marriage bill also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks.
—
The gay marriage bill is Senate Bill 6239.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 416 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (288)
hi
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:31pmWatch the lawsuits come as they sue the baker and photographer who refuse to bake them a cake or take pics at the wedding. Watch them sue the church bc the minister refuses to marry them. This has nothing to do with marriage but that they got a foot in the door tO shut Down the church and force their gay beliefs )religion )on us.
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:36pmWhat ever happened to that Christian bake store owner that refused to make a wedding cake for some lesbians?
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:05pmChurches should never be forced to do anything that goes against their beliefs – EVER. I don‘t think private shop owners should be forced to serve clientele they don’t wish to either. I’m not sure where you draw the line there, however. Can a white supremasist be allowed to turn away anyone not white if they wish to shop in his store? Can a Jew choose not to serve a Muslim, or vice versa? That said, I don‘t know why anyone would want to use a church or shop in a store who doesn’t wish to serve them, so much so as to sue them. Entitlement mentality.
Report Post »There is an agenda to force so-called “rights” on everyone, and we must be careful. Forcing schools to teach homosexuality or gay historical figures is ridiculous, for instance.
That said, why does the state have the right to prohibit any two consenting adults from the benefits of marriage? I understand the religious objections, but the law is secular. I’m no “separation of church and state” parrot who doesn’t understand the real purpose of the 1st amendment. The state has no right to tell a church what to do or accept. Similarly, the church cannot dictate church law on the state. We are not a theocracy. What I want to know is on what basis can the law deny two adults marriage rights? The “harms traditional marriage and families” argument doesn’t fly. Straights do more harm to the institution of marriage every single day than could be done by allowing a SS couple to enjoy equal protection under the law.
Git-R-Done
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:22pmExactly. So much for same sex marriage not affecting other people.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:38pmHomosexuality finds its way into every issue of Paganism. There seems to be a common factor in the battle of the courts with Gay Marriage and the Obama Administration. In every scenario, once Gay Marriage is approved, what’s the next order of business?
Report Post »JesusH.Christ
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:28pm@POVERTY SUCKS
Report Post »What’s next? How about a flat out war on bigots.
jzs
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:32pmI challenge the libertarian belief that a business, such as a restaurant, should be able be able to refuse service to people based on on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or religion. I won’t argue that based on the Constitution or individual “freedom” – if that’s the right word – of a business owner to discriminate as far as who he serves or hires. In my mind there is a longer term value to the world in general if we as a country do not accept discrimination.
Public schools were forcibly integrated in the 60s. The US decided it would no longer separate black schools from white schools, and, in fact, by law forced schools to mix black and whites. Did that serve the interest of the US? Not at first maybe, but things are better now as a result.
Although no doubt predudice still exists, some places more than others, racial antagonism is far less than it was 50 years ago as a result of Civil Rights laws. Kids who have gone to school with other kids of different races, sexual identity, religion etc. and made friends with them grow up either with no antagonism toward those groups or, at least, less than their parents had. White people don’t seem to mind sitting next to black folks in restaurants anymore, and visa versa.
Is that a better United States, despite the “loss of freedom” of business owners who would rather discriminate? Of course.
Report Post »JesusH.Christ
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:43pmAny business owner that practices discrimination, doesn’t understand business.
Report Post »dissent
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:59pm“Any business owner that practices discrimination, doesn’t understand business.”
Anyone who thinks it’s acceptable for the government to dictate how a business is run, doesn’t understand capitalism…
The libertarian view is simple though. You own a business, it’s yours. What you do with something that belongs to you is your business and that of no one else. If you decide to serve only transgender parrots on Fridays, that’s your decision. Ultimately, the consumers will (should) judge you and put you out of business, or not.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:16am@oJesusH.Christ
Report Post »and
@ozs
Well, two peas in a pod.. you both pretend to be Jesus and neither of you are. I’m happy to see both of you turds on the same site. I hope your Mother knows what you are doing so late at night.
JJ Coolay
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:16amQuit throwing out the bigotry card. I thought in American, you are free to believe how you choose.
Report Post »For those of us that believe gay marriage is wrong, we still have rights, or so I thought.
Matrix22
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:21amThat’s the problem with you idiot lefties JZS, you simply can’t understand the difference between “public” and “private”…as in schools are “public” and your business is “private.” It‘s like when you can’t figure out that charity is private, and taxes are public, and they are NOT the same thing.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:35am@JZS… accepting blacks and accepting gay marriage are 2 completely different things.
It’s not a sin to be black.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:53amJZS, government mandate has NOT made things better for blacks. They are, as a group, doing terribly. The US is slipping down the ladder academically every year. Integration, while a noble calling perhaps, is an utter government mandated failure.
WA state is uber-liberal. Liberals are the most exclusionary people around. If you don’t follow them, they will harass you til the ends of the earth. They know they have conservatives and traitional Americans on the run (for now).
In the end, we’re just making the big Guy upstairs angry. Instutionalizing immorality won’t help. If two guys or gals want to marry each other, go do it on your own time. Don’t make me recognize what my scriptures clearly say is sin. And that is the arrogance of the Left; they insist, despite the eternal nature of our scriptures, that we abandon our notion of God to obey their (as we see it) immoral laws. That is a most arrogant request. Surely they know that we obey God over man.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges10
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:12amAs the kids would say about the faģģóts — “that’s so gay” (translation: not a compliment).
Report Post »So, Beck, no more taking sides against God … and, yes, that also means no defending Ellen Degenerate.
B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:57amJZS makes good points, but I must disagree about the bussing issue. As AmericanFightingMan said, it was and is a disaster for the black community and the country as a whole. I take issue with the govt forcing individuals and businesses into a behavior, but it was taking too long for people to come to the right conclusions themselves. My libertarian self and my conservative self can’t quite reconcile that one.
@WeDon’tNeedNoStinkingBadges, I wonder how proud God is of you for name-calling and treating your fellow man with such disdain. I suppose, were we ever to meet, you would call me that name and then what? Beat me up? Refuse to serve me? Destroy my property? At what point do you walk the walk and do unto others as you would have done to you? You don’t have to condone me or Ellen or your straight neighbor when he cheats on his wife, but you do have to tolerate us and treat us as human beings with the same natural-born rights as you. Ellen should be what? Stoned to death for being different than you? How proud God must be when He looks upon you.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 3:23am@Bryan from Florida
Apparently you haven’t heard of Prop. 8.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:58amB_rad
JZS makes good points, but I must disagree about the bussing issue.
_______________
Bussing sucks. People who espouse bussing as a solution also suck.
It does no good to be on a bus 2 hours or 3 hours a day after you spent 8 hours in a classroom. they just completed a study where they predicted life expectancy based on sitting versus standing jobs. the 1st lady wants kids ‘to move’. Yes kids are really moving when they are forced to sit longer on buses. Liberals do not only have a mental disorder is so bad they often work at cross purposes.,
The kids who are integrated are picked to be the integrees on a political basis (who you know). the mayor’s kid will not be bussed but the kid far down on the soicio-economic ladder of either race will be. As we all know that is proof positive of a do-gooders faith in the outcome in bussing.
Once again JZS advocates for something he has no stake in, namely bussing. He has no kids. That is noble of him. Give him a medal! The Nobel peace prize perhaps?
Bussing did not work. It created more hate & discontent. But liberals keep on playing social problem solving whack-a-mole.
Report Post »jnobfan
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:10pmHet Bryan
Report Post »That didn’t matter in California. I don’t know what to think anymore. I really don’t care if Washington or Cali has gay marraige. Adopting kids another matter for me IMO that is over the line but I’m all for States Rights. If the folks vote for it and the courts don‘t knock it down I’m fine with it and a lot of other things.
jzs
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:26pmWalkabout, sure I’ve got kids. Been a Girl Scout leader too.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:29pmjzs
Report Post »U had a co leader?
granolajohn
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:20pmAnother step away from bigotry and hate, its things like this that make me proud to be American. Sadly knowing that there is still so many bigots out there does not :[
Report Post »The highlander
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:25pmThe mockery grows and the signs and sound of Christ’s return are confirmed day in and day out and yet America shops, screws, lies, cheats, defecates, gorges, and wait for handouts while while most watch other do it on reality TV. We let Psychiatrists tell us there is no sin only that which what feels right. Then the politician bless it. So as we race towards 1221 2012 we must ask ourselves who really runs America and who do they really serve- because they don‘t serve God and they don’t serve you.Read Appollyon Rising 2012 and least you will have choice on who you will serve. Then thank God for the gift of salvation because it is a gift that won’t last forever.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:26pmLook at the bright side. Gay Marriage will kill the gay lifestyle. It will take a while but gayness will die out in 2 or 3 centuries.
Report Post »garbagecanlogic
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:18pmLast time I visited Washing State was in 2010, that was the last time I will visit Washington State.
Pray For Obama. Psalm 109:9.
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
Report Post »The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
boundforglory
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:33pmI live in Washington State and I didnt even know they had it on the books until I heard it on the news today! We also got obummer forcing churches to make contraceptions, the morning after pill and abortions availible to religious workers, whatever happened to separation of church and state? The atheists have been screaming about separation of church and state lately, but the govt is trying to tell the churches what to do! Where are the atheists now and why arent they saying anything about this one? Amendments to the constitution of the united states, amendent one; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This only part of amendment one. obamacare and obama is a joke. Type in on any search engine: “markofthebeastmicro-chip” and you will find a link with obamacare that has this chip in it and its mandantory!
Report Post »JesusH.Christ
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:40pmGARBAGECANLOGIC,
(apt name) I don‘t know why you’re dissin’ Washington state? Washington state speaks very highly of you. :-/
BOUNDFORGLORY?
Report Post »“Whatever happened to separation of church and state”?
The church doesn’t believe in separation. :-)
JesusH.Christ
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:46pmUntil it comes to paying taxes that is.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:54am@JesusH.Christ
Report Post »What’s up A55 hole? I was in a theropy session with your mother last night and she said JZS was your father. U 2 need 2 get things right! Asshhhhhhhoooooollllleeeee!!!!!
B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:04am@Monk, you are a piece of work. You call me a jerk for being a little sarcastic in response to your nonsensical question, then post this crap? Wow…just wow.
Report Post »Here’s a clue, I’m as offended as you when people berate others and belittle their strongly held beliefs. But your responses to them have made you no better. In fact, it is worse, for you supposedly believe in a higher power. Shame on you, sir. And I rescind my apology.
Dr. Joel Fleischman
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:29pmI saw nothing wrong with Monk’s post, he was just putting Encinom in his place.
Report Post »I Luv America
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:16pmBack when California’s Proposition 8 was on the ballot, I actually voted in favor of gay marriage. Of course, that was back when I was ignorant of what damage gay marriage can do. The voters in California, however, decided that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. Unfortunately, yesterday it was, once again, determined that votes from ordinary citizens don’t count – contrary to what I was told all throughout my childhood.
It‘s really sad that the voters of Washington State don’t even get a chance to make a decision that will be eventually overturned by some court.
Working in the tax preparation field, I do ask that if the courts are finding that states must allow gay marriage, that the federal government also allow gay marriage. Yes, I know it’s wrong for America, but preparing tax returns where two same sex people file as one on a state return yet must have two separate returns for the federal is very, very complicated. So, please either allow gay marriage for both federal and state or disallow gay marriage for federal and state. A final firm decision must be made.
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:23pmA Constitutional Convention should be called on the matter, and Abortion too.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:26pmYes, there ARE some things that it’s better to have a SINGLE federal law to define, than 50 competing definitions. I think things that are big and matter to everyone, like rights (such as marriage) are one of them.
Gay marriage will be legal in this country some day, with or without your assent.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:34pmAbortion IS against the Constitution.Gay Marriage is not….yet.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:37pmWhere does the Constitution prohibit abortion?
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:58pmKILLING Americans without due process is not in the Constitution. If That was the case all Casey Anthony did was give herself a very late term abortion.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:32pm@SMOKEY
Report Post »Except that not everyone agrees that fetuses constitute a person protected by the rights of the American Constitution–you are ASSUMING your own view, which is that those fetuses are not only alive, but also have the same “life” and qualitative value as any other adult human “life.” But on the contrary, this is the whole matter of the debate–whether or not fetus IS alive, and if so, whether or not that life has equal or greater importance, rights, and value, than that of the mother. Obviously, I don’t think that abortion is murder, else I would think it ought be prohibited–that view is SOLELY the peculiar product of YOUR worldview and it doesn‘t gain you traction or prove anything for your side of the debate since it’s not an objective agreed upon fact that you can cite for support, but rather on of the VERY THINGS that is contention in the abortion debate.
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:38pmYou are assuming a Fetus is a mole or nipple piercing.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:44pm@Steve, A constitutional convention is a very bad idea. It would open up the entire thing, and we don’t have enough people who understand what true freedom and liberty means. Open up the constitution via convention and you’ll see health care and welfare and dozens of other big govt, progressive ideas shoved in.
Report Post »Matrix22
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:34pm@The Third Archon
You say that, “that view is SOLELY the peculiar product of YOUR worldview and it doesn‘t gain you traction or prove anything for your side of the debate since it’s not an objective agreed upon fact that you can cite for support, but rather on of the VERY THINGS that is contention in the abortion debate.”
Well, then by that same logic, any idea that is not universally accepted as true should therefore be allowed to be debated. Well, how much debate is allowed when activist judges OVERTURN legally voted upon laws like Prop 8? It would seem that the left only allow debate as long as they win, but as soon as you lose, you just ignore debate completely and go straight to corrupt judges. You don’t want to debate abortion or gay marriage because you LOSE when you do to the majority of people who oppose it.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:52am@MATRIX
You go to the other extreme, that we must agree on EVERYTHING, before we can agree on ANYTHING–obviously, also an absurdity (for it preempts the whole process of deliberation and consensus). I’m saying that there needs to be a middle ground for a debate to occur; we can ONLY debate about things we agree about the definitions of, otherwise, we are arguing two different things, ships passing in the night.
Now, I don’t think that fetuses are absolutely without rights, or that is absolutely undesirable to afford them protections. Certainly, after a certain time has passed, the mother has had ample time to make a decision, and the child is, for all intents and purposes, an independent functioning human (who would be viable, but whom nature gestates for a number more months to ensure a hardier organism for entry into the world), then it would certainly seem at the very least inept, and quite possibly in violation of the person’s, no longer a fetus, rights. For children DO have rights, even if not all as full citizens, independent their parents. Children are NOT the property of their parents. But we must also admit that a child, and particularly a fetus, is not the same as a full grown adult, in any of the capacities humans posses, the child is the inferior, and the fetus even more so, lacking even sentience. The life and liberty of the mother must outweigh that of a fetus, but it does not outweigh that of her child–it is when THAT is, which we must come to ag
Report Post »Collbuzz
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:12pmBig whoop. Now will you all shut up?
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:22pmNo – they will NEVER shut up. It’s just one grievance after another with these people.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:07pmWell let us have a government recognized civil union and a religion sanctioned marriage Oh we already have that; but the homosexuals (those that ‘like’ the same sex) Want to be MARRIED,
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:36pmCorrection:
We [the law of the U.S.] has SOME civil union laws, in SOME places, with SOME of the rights of marriage.
Now, I want to ask YOU a question–why SHOULD a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, who want to be married to each other, be treated any differently than if the members of both groups (respectively) wanted to marry each other (i.e. those same people COULD marry people of a DIFFERENT sex)?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:49pmbecause words mean things…marriage is between a man and a woman. and if we let gays marry, then it will mean an even larger loss of freedom for those who disagree..
now let me ask you a question…why limit it to 2?
and if you’re going to give special rights to every sexual orientation, then why not pedophilia? after all its just another sexual oreintation….
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:11pmThe ONLY way I see to change this is to take away the power the federal Government gave to States Regarding Marriage.If Washington State would have came up with the Opposite Result I would Stand just as strong.They did it as a Republic.Do I Like the Results? No. Are they Legal and Binding as a Republic? Yes.Will it Lead to Perverts Marrying Children? Every State has Laws on That and so Do Federal laws.So The laws will have to be changed the same way before Barney Frank Can Marry a Horse.If This law was passed the same way as Prop 8 was,except saying Gays can NOT marry…How many would be against it? I May Wish The Results were different,the only way I could Change it is to Move To Washington(Fat Chance…To Many Gays there) or get the Feds to set a Standard that will alos get by the Supreme Court.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:19pm@ Smoky Bojangles:
Report Post »The federal government didn’t give the states the authority they have regarding marriage. The states never delegated authority to the federal government to control marriage in the Constitution. DOMA is completely unconstitutional.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:26pmHow exactly is freedom lost by allowing one group of people to do what they aren’t able to in the status quo? This in no way somehow magically makes heterosexuals unable to marry.
As to “why not more than two”–why not indeed. I see nothing inherently wrong with the idea of polygamy, polyandry (when a woman has multiple husbands), or polyamory in general so long as it has the informed consent of all participants (granted a more difficult thing to achieve in actuality). From a LEGAL perspective, however, group marriages are different than bigamous (i.e. two person) marriage and more complicated to work in. From a tax law perspective, there are very different reasons for allowing gay marriage, versus polygamy, versus pedophilia. Each case is different and must be considered on its own merits. All that I am arguing is that gay bigamous marriage is clearly no different in any legally significant way from heterosexual bigamous marriage–other issues will have to be dealt with separately.
Personally, I think there are good legal reasons to not recognize group marriage, and good biological-social reasons for treating pedophilia differently from other sexual orientations. This is because one partner cannot form informed consent, being incapable of grasping all the ramifications of, and not being properly equipped yet for, sexual activity. Thus, regardless of gay marriage, there is still in my mind a compelling reason to treat pedophilia differently.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:02pmHad To Read up On DOMA.To be honest I never paid much attention to The Gay Marriage Issue until Prop 8.Then I had to Read up On the Referendums.Then re read parts of The Constitution.By The time I was Done I Forgot what I Was Supposed to conclude.Then I had to check which States were by popular vote(WRONG) and which States were legislative(RIGHT). So With The 5th and 10 amendment You are Correct. DOMA Was Unconstitutional .And Reading all that stuff on screen gave me a head ache! haha.Maybe I need to send the kid to Law school thenI Will not have to read so much ahha.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:16pmTHE THIRD ARCHON
MARRIAGE is decreed by God.
civil union is decreed by the state.
Hey how about a federally sanctioned, secular, civil union; otherwise the State is meddling in RELIGION
The employer I worked for nearly two decades went round and round with me on these words; as I wanted my girlfriend on my health care plan. Same sex domestic partners were granted more RIGHTS (legal mumbo-jumbo) than my girlfriend and I using IDENTICAL data. We finally married. Domestic partners ARE more equal — at least here in Ohio.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:47pmI’d far, far, FAR more prefer if governments, top to bottom, just got out of the marriage racket altogether. No more official recognition of who can and who can’t, who is and who isn’t. If two people claim to be married to each other, then it is so. As for marriage ceremonies, if house of worship A does and house of worship B doesn’t, who cares? Let the people who worship at house A have gay weddings and let people who worship at house B not. I’m an Atheist. No skin off my nose either way.
Just treat marriages like legal contracts. There would be no laws against adultery, just adjudications for violating the “forsaking all others” clause. Divorce would just be a premature termination of the terms of the contract.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:56pm@Stoic, for one, marriage is BOTH a religious rite and a secular legal contract. Atheists marry all the time. While the state cannot and should not be permitted to force any church to accept or perform SSM, the church cannot dictate what the state allows. Call ‘em civil unions if you want, just let me and everyone else have equal protection under the law.
Report Post »Now, I’m assuming here, but it’s a fair assumption based on what you said. You were shacking up with your girlfriend, right? I’m not familiar with the domestic partnership law in Ohio that gives rights to SS couples. Do they have to file paperwork and be committed? DID YOU do that? You DARE lecture about marriage coming from God while you made a mockery of it by shacking up with your girl and expecting to have the same rights as two people who laid down their lives for one another in front of God and formed a loving covenant?!?!
This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say straight people do more harm to marriage than allowing a committed SS couple to have that title, WHEN THEY WANT TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT. You finally made a commitment when it suited you, but first you wanted the perks without taking the responsibility. HYPOCRITE.
The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:08pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points”
Report Post »I’d far, far, FAR more prefer if governments, top to bottom, just got out of the marriage racket altogether”…
So what does that leave? Only religions to say who marries who? You’re not making any sense according to your last posts.
Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:41pmB_RAD
Report Post »I am a walking bag of contradictions. My point was Gov’t meddling. Which came first- Christianity or the USA? So sometime in the past 200 yrs the fed has gotten involved in marriage. Go ask the IRS if you doubt me.
My point sharing my experience with my former employer; reverse discrimination against Heterosexual couples. Same sex couple? show bills proving cohabitation. hetero couple- MUST BE MARRIED. This was not done by the homosexuals in the company; this was done by the unions & the company.
Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:47pmB_RAD
Report Post »You speak of God and covenants; which definition of God are you using?
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:53pmAs I said, if two people, regardless of religion, want to *be* married, they just write up a contract that they both sign saying that they are married and laying out the parameters of the marriage. Marriage shouldn’t be, of necessity, contingent on a ceremony in a house of worship.
Now, if you are of a religious bent, and your religion requires more than mere mutual consent, then that’s up to you to observe. Your religion does not constrain me and my marriage. That being said, there are plenty of churches across this great land of ours that are more than happy to perform traditional wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. So, even allowing, for the moment, that a religious ceremony and consent of religious authority were necessary for a legal wedding, some gay people could still meet that burden.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:06am@Stoic, the only definition of God I know. The Creator. I’m sorry the DP laws in your state are descriminatory. I believe the law should apply equally to all. That said, you had the option of marriage, your gay counterpart didn’t. I don’t believe DP laws are the correct way to go, but at least they found a way to allow gays some of the rights they are denied. I have a serious problem with people shacking up and calling it a commitment, gay or straight.
Report Post »Worse, when people create a child in an environment without a loving, committed (married) mother and father. Intentionally designing a life for a child that is less than ideal is wrong. There are always unpreventable disasters, but to intentionally deny a child the juxtaposition of the male-female relationship is not in their best interest. Rescuing a child is who is bereft of parents is another matter. Good single people, or gay couples who have the means to provide a loving home for a child without one is a blessing.
Shacking up, frivolously marrying with no real idea of what it means to give your life to another, divorcing because you feel like it, creating children then abandoning them, are all things the straight community does daily to harm the institution of marriage.
I know I got a little snarky, but I hold marriage in VERY high esteem and it p!sses me off when I’m denied it while others are permitted to treat it with disdain.
Matrix22
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:19amSo Lesbian Packing, why limit it to just two? How about three, or six, or twenty? How dare you insinuate that we should somehow define what’s “appropriate” between consenting adults? For that matter, why do we limit marriage to only adults? I mean, if a 15 year old can be tried as an adult in court, why can’t that same “adult” be allowed to marry a 20 year old same sex partner if they both want to? The problem is you claim that you just want “equality” but what you really want is to redefine a word that has been accepted for hundreds of years in this country to fit your limited view of what marriage is. So, when you’re willing to accept polygamists, the NAMBLA, and people who want to marry their pets, you really can’t say you want the government out of “marriage”
Report Post »BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:37amWhat I can’t understand for the life of me is why SS couples WANT to get married in the first place. I am married because it is what God called for me to do. A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Better to marry than to burn in lust. Marriage is a religious act. Just as other old-testement principles (e.g. murder and stealing) found there way into American law books, so did the institution of marriage. If I were gay, I think I would abhore the concept of marriage and find a civil union more preferable. As long as the state recognized that my SS union should be equal to religious unions- there shouldn’t be any objections. To say that you are married means that God joined you with your spouse. God does not marry gay people- its really as simple as that. But- if the state wants to join you with your SS partner, then it should be allowed under the definition of a civil union.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:15am“Just as other old-testement principles (e.g. murder and stealing) found there way into American law books, so did the institution of marriage.”
Report Post »I have a FEELING, that, Old Testament or no, SOMEHOW, we would have ended up outlawing wanton murder and theft anyhow–viz-a-viz, non-Christian societies which ALSO have, surprise surprise, laws against wanton murder and theft.
B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:33am@Bought Your Silo Yet?, Is the only reason you got married because God told you to? If so, may I suggest you not tell your spouse that? For all the reasons straight people wish to dedicate their lives to another, many gay people want the same. You define marriage as strictly a religious rite. It is that, and it is a secular legal contract that carries inherent benefits and protections under the law. Why are atheists permitted to marry? While there are some gays who are adament that their union must be legally called marriage (I think they have other agendas), most would be perfectly happy calling it civil unions, so long as it carries all the SAME and EQUAL protections as marriage. You do understand that the few states who allow SS civil unions don’t provide the same protections as marriage, right?
Report Post »One other thing: you mention Old Testament principles making it into American law and cite theft and murder. You must understand that the entire purpose of law and government is to protect the rights of the individual. Theft and murder infringes upon the rights of a victim, therefore are illegal to do. Marriage, as a secular legal contract, is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The law should only be used to protect the rights of the individual. How is preventing two people the same protections as another couple protecting an individual’s rights?
formidable_foe
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 5:02pm@Bought Your Silo Yet
You are right on the money. Dittos.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:05pmAnd the hits just keep on coming! This is a great week for me and all marriage equality proponents!
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:11pmWhat exactly do you mean by marriage equality? I had an extensive amicable conversation with a pair of homosexual women a couple of years ago. Please; explain.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:12pmYou already had the same marriage rights as every other person in this country. What you now have is an EXTRA right that other people don’t have.
Everyday you people b!tch about more and more and more so-called rights. I wish you people would just go back into the closet and STFU!
Report Post »Collbuzz
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:13pmBig whoop. Now can we all stop hearing about it? Don’t care.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:32pmYay For you! Get Married and be as Miserable as the rest of us.Jokes aside. I am Against you getting Married.I also Firmly believe the Constitution is the Law of the land and in the Republic For Which it stands.You Won Fair and Square.I also agree Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it was not passed the same way.If It was passed the same way I would argue just as hard against ya HAHA.SO That is what 7 or 8 States now that says Gay Marriage is legal?Need 38 to change the US Constitution.So That Gives you 4 or 5 more before you can rest easy and not have to worry about the US Constitution banning it.BUT!!! Big butt that I have,The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution for every law abiding American so I would expect to be able to carry a Fire arm in to every state in the Union.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:36pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Report Post »What about the LGBT community using the Rainbow as its Logo? What is your opinion about that? I see Rainbows as a non-sexual thing and hope that the LGBT community drops it as their Logo. I’m not being sarcastic or angry. I’m just concerned that in the back of ALL people’s minds that Rainbows are sexually neutral and taking Rainbows over as “the” LGBT mascot is causing your “cause” more trouble than you are aware of. It’s a subliminal reaction in the back of people’s minds that causes them to hate the LGBT community.
Free the Rainbows and you just might free your cause. What say you LPHP’s?
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:41pm@ Stoic One & From Virginia:
I do not have the same rights as everyone else right now because heterosexual people can fall in love, form pair bonds, and get married. Homosexual people can fall in love, form pair bonds, but are forbidden to marry. That is marriage inequality. Marriage for heterosexual people, but not for homosexual people. Inherent discrimination.
Marriage Equality happens when homosexual people can fall in love, form pair bonds, and get married, just like heterosexual couples. That will be equal treatment under the law.
@ just From Virginia:
You need to moderate your tone. You’re starting to sound like the racists of old, foaming at the mouth screaming about “send them all back to Africa”.
@ Coll Buzz:
Report Post »I can’t wait until these stories become non-events because EVERYBODY in American can marry the person with whom they have a pair bond.
The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:50pm@Lesbian
Report Post »“I can’t wait until these stories become non-events because EVERYBODY in American can marry the person with whom they have a pair bond.”
Me too, LPHP, me too.
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:53pmI Associate the Rainbow with Noah after the flood because God sent the floods because………Oh Dear…. That would be Kinda like Using Anita Bryant Holding an orange as a logo….I am being Sarcastic.I am Usually that Or Cynical.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:58pm@ Smoky Bojangles:
I don’t need to amend the Constitution to be able to get married and be married everywhere in America. The forces of marriage bigotry need to amend the Constitution to be able to prevent me from getting married or being married anywhere in America. The Constitution does not give the federal government any authorities vis-a-vis marriage. SCOTUS has on at least 14 occasions said that marriage was a fundamental right, not a fundamental heterosexual right, a fundamental right. That means my right to it is already protected by the Constitution via the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause.
@ The Monk:
Report Post »The rainbow was chosen, and the exact LGBT symbol of the rainbow has evolved a few different times, to denote equality and diversity. We may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, pansexual, transsexual, or some kind of sexual I’ve never even heard of before, but we are all still human beings deserving of the same fundamental respect and equal treatment under the law. In the same way, it might be red or orange or green or blue, but it’s all light.
MrMagoo
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:24pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points,
Report Post »We won’t agree on marriage,but your a great poster on the Blaze and you stand up for our Country.I’d rather be in a situation with a Lesbian Packing Hollow Points FIGHTING A THUG anyday than with a clueless Citizen Packing Bird Sheit.There’s plenty of those around.
rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:26pm“We may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, pansexual, transsexual, or some kind of sexual I’ve never even heard of before, but we are all still human beings deserving of the same fundamental respect and equal treatment under the law. In the same way, ”
you haven’t heard of pedophilia?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:30pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
However, if I put a Rainbow symbol on my car or business I “am” saying that I am Gay to the entire World. Everyone will believe that I “am” Gay even if I am “not” Gay. That needs to end before the LGBT community will be accepted as “normal”. You have no idea, nor can you measure in a lab, the idiosyncrasies of the subtleness that this dilemma has on the Human Ego. Like it or not…. Rainbows are not gay. Until the LGBT community releases Rainbows back to a non-sexual state the LGBT community will “always” face the wrath of people who are not LGBT and just happen to Love and enjoy Rainbows. Imagine if Heterosexuals took over the Rainbow as “their” mascot? Every time a LGBT saw a Rainbow they would curse the day Heterosexuals were born. Gays want it both ways…. but, you can’t have it both ways with Rainbows. Let them go free forever or suffer forever. Opine?
Sorry it took so long to reply…. I‘m taking care of my cat who hurt it’s front right leg and can’t walk.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:33pmPedophilia, rape, and incest are not loving adult relationships, and by definition the first two involve injury and lack of consent. Never mistake two adult homosexuals in a committed relationship for those real crimes with real victims.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:37pm@Monk
Report Post »It is those who are wrong who should change, not those who are right–heterosexuals are in no way any more special or more moral than homosexuals. It would be fitting and wise to shed yourself of this belief in heterosexual exceptionalism if you have it.
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:37pmBless Your Heart Hollow points!!! I have been Rambling on this subject For months from Yahoo,Here Face Book Etc…And YOU are the first one that got my point with out me having to explain it!!!Though I Would not us the term bigot. There is NOTHING in Federal Law or the Constitution about Gay Marriage.Marriage is a State power.Why is Government Involved? I Dunno. It Does Not matter how People “FEEL” about it. If Things worked like Prop 8 I would vote against Vegans and Environmentalist.They Irritate the crap outta me! They Try To Recruit me,Mormons try to recruit me,Jehovah’s Witnesses try to recruit me…I have yet had a Homosexual try to recruit me.I am Kinda ugly but my wife loves me.It Would take 38 states and congress to outlaw gay marriage! Now if I Could Just get the Communist States see the same thing about the 2nd Amendment.It Is Mentioned in the Constitution and Violated.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:42pm@The Third Archon
Report Post »Apparently, you do not know how to read. Try reading my last post again and discuss it with a trusted friend of yours. Your Ego is getting in the way of your common senses.
The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:49pm@The Third Archon
@Monk
“It is those who are wrong who should change, not those who are right–”
Funny… that’s the same thing OWS is saying as they break into buildings, damage property, rape other OWS people, do drugs, overdose, kill and molest people. Try reading my post again and talking it over with someone with an IQ over 85.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:00pm@ Smoky:
Report Post »What can I say? To paraphrase a great American icon, Yogy Bear, “I’m smarter than the average lesbian.” More importantly, I’m a Conservative Libertarian, Laissez Faire Capitalist, and Constitutional Constructionist.
The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:18pm@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
“The rainbow was chosen, and the exact LGBT symbol of the rainbow has evolved a few different times, to denote equality and diversity…”
“The rainbow was chosen,” Chosen by whom? What group chose the Rainbow? And…
Report Post »“The exact LGBT symbol of the Rainbow has evolved a few different times, to denote equality and diversity….“ why does the Rainbow ”now“ NOT denote equality and diversity and only denotes ”gays and LGBT’s?” Is there any way that you can possibly understand what I’m saying?
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:23pm@THE_MONK
Excellent Post !!!!!!!!
Free the Rainbows
I love it
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:24pmGood job, LPHP. You have articulated most of what I try to on this issue, and quite well at that.
@Rush, to equate homosexuality to pedephilia is to equate consensual sex with rape. Got that?
@Monk, if you want the rainbow back, take it back. If the whole of the heterosexual community started displaying rainbows, it would lose it’s meaning to the homosexual community, wouldn’t it? Not for nothing, but a rainbow itself is not a symbol of homosexuality, it’s the rainbow FLAG that is.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:36pmhttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT_movement)
When I said that the rainbow flag as used by the LGBT community had evolved, I didn’t mean in meaning. I meant in form. I think the original flags hit all seven primary colors plus pink. I guess consensus was that that was a little… “busy”. Also, the pink fabric was hard to obtain, so it was dropped and only the seven primary colors were used. Then they decided that indigo and violet both are just too similar, so another color bar was dropped. Now, the LGBT pride rainbow flag is only six primary color bars: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple in that order.
I’d also forgotten that each color was given a special meaning in their own rights.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:44pm@Therightsofbilly
Report Post »Thank you.. Free the Rainbows! Rainbows aren’t gay… only people are.
Stoic one
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:45pmLESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS
Therein lies your problem…Marriage is decreed by God.
A state sanction civil union, with the current state privileges of marriage – would this satisfy you?
I stated elsewhere I had a lengthy conservation with a pair of female homosexuals that obviously had great affection for each other. One made a point that if the other were to enter the ER after an accident, she would be BARRED from seeing her loved one. Another point had too do with survival rights (wills).
property rights were another issue. Custody of children ; another.
I see the bias towards the heterosexual couple in some of these issues and the reason is to protect the family.
The family has a long relationship with God. In this country God is intricately linked to Christianity. It does not MATTER what you want, the foundation of our law IS CHRISTIANITY. If the various groups wish to continue taking God out of our laws, culture, and Constitution; what do you think will be left?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:50pm@B_rad
Report Post »@Monk, “if you want the rainbow back, take it back.”
Are you suggesting that I use force to take it back?
B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:03pm@Monk, yes, by force. I expect you to pull your gun every time you see a rainbow and demand it from them. You got it. C’mon, man, I said exactly what I meant. If you wish to display a rainbow, do it. And again, it’s the rainbow FLAG that is the symbol of homosexuality.
@Stoic, please read my response to your comment up above.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:07pm“Pedophilia, rape, and incest are not loving adult relationships, and by definition the first two involve injury and lack of consent. Never mistake two adult homosexuals in a committed relationship for those real crimes with real victims.”
really? oh the peophiles would disagree of course…and after all pedophilia is just another sexual orientation….why should just one sexual orientation get special rights? why not all?
oh and the age of consent has varied over time…remember jerry lee lewis’ wife?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:09pm“@Rush, to equate homosexuality to pedephilia is to equate consensual sex with rape. Got that? ”
no I don’t got that…can you dig it?
pedophilia is just another sexual orientation….got that?
and what is the age of consent really? jerry lee lewis’ wife anyone? hmmmm??? some judge will find those age of consent laws ‘discriminatory’
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:20pm@B_rad
Report Post »I’d like to say something nice in response to your post but you are a jerk…
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:30pmThe rainbow flag thing.
Why do they feel the need to display a “symbol” at all?
Where have I heard that before?
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:35pm@Monk, I’m sorry you took my comment as me being a jerk. I really am sorry. I’m not trying to be, but your response to me was nonsensical. I outlined what I meant in my first comment to you and you come back with “take it by force.” I don’t get it. No one is stopping you from displaying rainbows, and the rainbow itself is not a gay symbol. The rainbow flag is. Maybe you could better explain in what way you wish to use rainbows that you feel you can’t because of the rainbow flag symbol. I’m trying to understand. I mean it. And I meant my apology.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:59pm@ Rights of Billy:
Report Post »Might I presume that you are a Christian man? Do you not have symbols of your Christian faith? A cross? A crucifix? It wasn’t until I tried being a fundamentalist Baptist for about a year way back in school that I discovered that there was actually a Christian flag and an associated Pledge of Allegiance there to. So… honestly… who feels the greater need for symbols?
The-Monk
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:02am@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT_movement)
I have much respect for you as a Scientist but, as a person, you lack the basic skills to communicate with others that have a lower education level than you. Not your fault. You are what you are. Me… I’m a simple Monk who knows the difference between wrong and right. Right; is your right to be whoever you want to be… wrong; is whoever or whatever you want me to be. Get it? I am not a LBGT ***, I’m a Monk, Rainbows are not the domain of LGBT only.. they are the domain of everyone. You LGBT are like the OWS asswipes… you want everything to revolve around you instead of everything revolving around US! Separation is the issue.. Integration is the solution. LGBT “IS” separation. You will lose in the long run.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:17am“Rainbows are not the domain of LGBT *only*”
And just where did I state, imply, or indicate otherwise? I don’t believe I did. If someone not of the LGBT community wants to create a rainbow based symbol, even a flag, they are entirely free to do so. The use of the rainbow by the LGBT community in no way prejudices other use of the same or similar symbols by other parties. The rainbow flag is not a frickin’ trademark, fer cryin’ out loud.
Of course, there’s also the issue, with symbol reuse, of confusion in the communicative intent. If you want to use a 6-banded red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple flag as a symbol of your business, your organization, or just by way of decoration, you run the risk of it being recognized by others as indicative of the LGBT community where you didn’t intend such a connection. Use at your own risk.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:35am@Monk, I don’t get you. You say I’m a jerk, then you equate anyone gay with OWS. Huh? I guess I get some of the confusion. Most people who don’t have anyone gay in their lives only have the activists to judge from. Trust me, most gay activists DO NOT represent me. Every time I see one of those idiots “glitter bomb” someone, or sue over some perceived slight, I cringe. Most of us are just like you in that we want to go to work, do our jobs, have recreation and do the best we can with what we’ve been given, without the fear of harm from others and with equal protection under the law. Most of us aren’t GAY! as an identity. We are farmers, cops, chefs, firemen, soldiers, Christians, Jews, who happen to be gay. I worry about my country and my freedom the same, if not more so, as you. I don’t want to force you to accept my lifestyle, only tolerate it. I want to walk down the street and say “hi” to you without hearing “f a g” under your breath or having a rock thrown at the back of my head. I want to make a life with whomever I choose and have my possessions protected and be able to make medical determinations for my spouse, should the worst occur. I don’t want to force you or anyone else to do anything other than treat me fairly as a fellow American with the same rights you have. I acknowledge the people using this issue to force their dogma on you and others. I’m not one of them. Don’t refuse me rights because some group who claims to represent me has ulterior motiv
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:47am@Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
“Rainbows are not the domain of LGBT *only*”
And just where did I state, imply, or indicate otherwise? I don’t believe I did. If someone not of the LGBT community wants to create a rainbow based symbol, even a flag, they are entirely free to do so. The use of the rainbow by the LGBT community in no way prejudices other use of the same or similar symbols by other parties. The rainbow flag is not a frickin’ trademark, fer cryin’ out loud.
Of course, there’s also the issue, with symbol reuse, of confusion in the communicative intent. If you want to use a 6-banded red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple flag as a symbol of your business, your organization, or just by way of decoration, you run the risk of it being recognized by others as indicative of the LGBT community where you didn’t intend such a connection. Use at your own risk.
You are so F’n full of it! I’m a picture framer from way back in the old school. When I go to have a picture framed now it is at a “GAY” only frame shop. Why? Because that is the only picture frame shop around.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:01amWeird, it cut off my post way before 1500 words. Strange.
To finish the thought:
Report Post »I acknowledge the people using this issue to force their dogma on you and others. I’m not one of them. Don’t refuse me rights because some group who claims to represent me has ulterior motives.
B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:02amWeird, it cut off my post way before 1500 spaces. Strange.
To finish the thought:
Report Post »I acknowledge the people using this issue to force their dogma on you and others. I’m not one of them. Don’t refuse me rights because some group who claims to represent me has ulterior motives.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:23amLESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS Wrote:
“@ Rights of Billy:
Might I presume that you are a Christian man? Do you not have symbols of your Christian faith? A cross? A crucifix? It wasn’t until I tried being a fundamentalist Baptist for about a year way back in school that I discovered that there was actually a Christian flag and an associated Pledge of Allegiance there to. So… honestly… who feels the greater need for symbols?”
@LPHP
It was S A R C A S M.
GeeeeZ
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:51amBeing homosexual is different from being heterosexual if you choose to believe it is. There is nothing about the nature of the act itself to suggest an intrinsic evil or harm inherent to the act itself, and even if one DID exist, there is still no evidence (obviously given the lack of existence of the harm in the first place, that nonexistent harm cannot reach to effect others, but the obvious implications bear statement) that it reaches beyond the consenting adults, who are presumably informed consenting adults in full possession of their capacities and with as much knowledge as could reasonably be expected–we must presume they are capable moral agents, suitable to judge the risk and benefit of their own actions for themselves, for no one else can do this for them, and if we come to believe that we can, then we are on the REAL road to tyranny my friends.
Whether or not God is real, and whether or not God finds homosexuality detestable, it belongs only to God to know and judge–and since God has not seen to inform each of us individually in a self-evident and indubitable way that it is God’s will we morally reject homosexuality, we cannot be culpable for withholding our own imperfect judgement from that which God will judge anyway, if it be worthy of God’s concern and God be extant, and assenting to the more obvious and likely proposition–that homosexuals are simply ordinary people, with the same hopes, fears, ambitions, passions, and capacities.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:04am@ The Monk:
Report Post »So, are you saying that you’re homophobic now because the queers took your job?
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:07am@ The Rights of Billy:
Really? Hmmm.
On The Blaze, it’s so hard to tell the over the top, assinine, sarcastic, flame bait arguments from those of the BIble-readin’, god-fearin’, missionary-position-only-for-procreation-between-married-heterosexuals Social Conservatives.
Odd how that happens.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:14am@ The Monk:
Report Post »If that was not your communicative intent, then— non sequitor much?
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 10:54am@LPHP
Ok, so you did not get the sarcasm the first time.
But even after I tell you it was sarcasm, you still don’t get it.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:40pmLPHP,
“t’s so hard to tell the over the top, assinine, sarcastic, flame bait arguments ”
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is making a ridiculous argument. If that is the case, why will you not own the logic chain of your own argument or answer a simple question about your own argument?
Do you believe the polygamists and bigamist have the exact same right as homosexuals to go to court and have polygamy and bigamy imposed on the culture?
Giving your opinion on polygamy is not answering the question. Equivocating over to a libertarian position and stating that the government shouldn‘t be in the marriage business isn’t answering the question either. If your points are so educated, reasonable, and enlightened, why are you dodging my question? It’s really simple all you have to write is yes or no.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 3:35pm@ KStret:
In other words, anyone making extremist statements about forbidding individuals from enjoying fundamental rights is making a ridiculous argument… and so I do ridicule them.
You asked for a value judgement on polygamy (of which bigamy is merely a subset), and I gave my opinion. If you did not like (or could not comprehend) my opinion, then I suggest to you that you cease to ask for or read it.
“It’s really simple all you have to write is yes or no.”
Okay… “yes or no.”
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:52pmLPHP,
“You asked for a value judgement on polygamy”
I did not ask you for a value judgement. I asked you are simple direct question multiple times, which you dodged again. What does that say about your position? Why are you avoiding my question if your position is superior?
You will not answer this question because it shows how asinine and illogical your position is. Either redefining marriage is a right just for homosexuals, which means you are discriminating against other groups who also want their own new definition of marriage or you want to force everyone to live on a society where marriage means 1 man and 10 wives or 10 men and 10 women.
You are obviously much smarter that I am. I am wearing a pair of overalls without a shirt and chewing on a piece of possum jerky. Can someone as smart , enlightened, and morally superior as you are answer a simple question from a knuckle dragging christian redneck bigot. If I am so stupid you should be able to destroy my arguments or at least answer a simple question.
Do you believe the polygamists and bigamist have the exact same right as homosexuals to go to court and have polygamy and bigamy imposed on the culture?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 5:07pm“about forbidding individuals from enjoying fundamental rights is making a ridiculous argument… and so I do ridicule them.”
If redefining marriage is a fundamental right for homosexuals, it must also be a fundamental right for other groups. You wouldn’t want to discriminate against other groups, that would make you a bigot and polygaphobic.
You do believe that polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that homosexuals have to go to court and have a judge impose polygamy and bigamy on American culture. Is that correct?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 5:09pmLPHP,
Report Post »You also stated that you believe that humans were hardwired for monogamy. How long would the human race last if everyone were gay?
KStret
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 5:22pmSeeing that you don’t like to answer questions let me use your own logic chain again: If everyone turned gay the human race would be extinct within 100 years, it would be fair to say that humans must be hardwired for the opposite sexes to be attracted to each other. Otherwise, the human race would become extinct.
You made a case against polygamy on the grounds that we are hardwired for monogamy, therefore it’s permissible to allow same sex marriage and not other groups. If humans are hardwired to be attracted to the oppose sex, using your own logic chain what should you conclude?
If you attempt to argue that homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore my argument doesn’t apply, you would have to throw out your monogamy argument as well. There are plenty species of animals that are not monogamous.
You like to use the special pleading fallacy, don’t you?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:33pm@LPHP
You really are an expert in special pleading, aren’t you?
I mentioned in this another post, but the comparison between granting rights to say, racial couples, as a parallel to same-sex couples is spurious at best as the former still meets the established definition of marriage and the latter does not. Additionally, if we are to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples, an act that falls outside the existing parameters of marriage, why not extend similar benefits to all human arrangements where two people are dependent on one another? If not, we are now simply privileging partners in sexual relationships and doing a disservice to all other examples of interdependent caregivers.
The bottom line is that same-sex marriage effectively alters the purpose of the law. It longer serves in conjunction with other societal elements to guide socialization and behavior, but will now simply function to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual arrangements while excluding others.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:50pm@LPHP
The intrinsic link between your sexual identity and ideology simply won’t let you see clearly when it comes to your claims that legalizing homosexuality is not analogous to legalizing other unions outside of the previously established definition of marriage. As I’ve mentioned previously, the slippery slope is more than logically sound in this case.
The APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder in 1975, by relation, if society accepts the redefinition of homosexuality as “normal” on the basis of being “born that way”, then it has absolutely no reason to condemn, say, pedophiles who are also “born that way”.
This is what academics and mental health pros are trying to do with B4U-ACT, normalizing pedophilia into a special “minor attracted” status. When what was once decentralized and ostensibly aberrant behavior morphs into an interest group who wants not recognition, but celebration, with the purpose in continually expanding its “rights” to the detriment of traditional societal norms, this is when the feces starts impacting the oscillating air displacement device.
Advocates of normalizing homosexuality and homogamy often argue that their reasoning wouldn’t be used in an attempt to normalize polygamy or pedophilia, but events have proven them to be wrong. Considering your absurd faith in the Supreme Court, I‘m sure you’ll be celebrating when they determine that a middle-aged pedophile has a constitutional right to marry a collectio
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:29pm@KSTRET and Bad Ashe, I have no wish to screw with religious definitions. Further, I stand with the church’s right to practice their beliefs with no interference from govt. What I want to know is what in the law permits the govt to prohibit two people from entering into a secular legal agreement? Call it civil unions instead of marriage. I’m totally fine with that, but why does the govt get to withold rights and privileges from a SS couple?
Report Post »Arguments about the nature of homosexuality and the religious objections to it aside, it exists and it’s not going away. The law cannot prevent two people from building their lives together, why can it prevent them from benefiting in the same way as the straight couple next door?
I’m no “separation of church and state!” parrot, and I have the utmost respect for people following their beliefs, but the law is secular and cannot force religious law on its citizens. The problem, as I see it, is the progressive agenda to use this issue to further their infiltration. The right has a right to fight that influence. But while the progressive left is overstepping, so is the right. Allowing me equal protection under the law is a separate issue from progressive overreach.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 12:40am@B_RAD
What rights that you want are being denied?
Is it the right to pay more taxes as a couple than if both were single? I’d like to transfer that right of mine over to you or anyone else that wants it.
But I digress.
If it’s just equal legal rights you want, I have no problem with that.
Just don’t call it “Marriage” because it’s not. Call it a civil union, or call it a ham sandwich. I don’t care
And other than that, please don’t teach my kids that it is a normal, acceptable life style for them to choose.
If, as you say, they are born that way, then they will figure it out all on their own without any prodding, right?
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 12, 2012 at 1:10pmB,
Why are you changing the subject to religion? There wasn’t one thing I said about religion. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman regardless of if the people getting married are atheists or religious. The definition of marriage has always been one man and one women and you want to change that.
“What I want to know is what in the law permits the govt to prohibit two people from entering into a secular legal agreement?…..t why does the govt get to withold rights and privileges from a SS couple?”
Marriage is a secular legal agreement…… ok fine. What you are saying is because straight couples can get married and homosexual cannot, that is discriminatory because straight people can make the legal agreement and homosexuals can’t. This must be unconstitutional because the 14th amendment dictates equal protection. In other words, redefining marriage is a right for ALL GROUPS!
Your own argument dictates under the 14th amendment equal protection clause everyone has the right to redefine marriage. It cannot not just apply to gay couples. If one group has the the right to redefine marriage, all groups have that exact same right. Your own logic chain dictates the polygamist and bigamist have the exact same right that homosexuals do. That is to say, your own argument dictates that polygamist and bigamist can go to court and have a judge force people to live in a society where polygamy and bigamy is the law of the land.
Report Post »KStret
Posted on February 12, 2012 at 1:33pmB,
If I ask you the question:
Do you believe the polygamists and bigamist have the exact same right as homosexuals to go to court and have polygamy and bigamy imposed on the culture?
Would you answer that question? No!
Despite claiming intellectual superiority and demonizing anyone who disagrees, no one who is a same sex marriage proponent will answer that question. Why is that?
1. If you answer no, you are a hypocrite and all the words that you use ending phobia and ism to insult anyone who disagrees with you would then apply to you.
2. If you answer yes, you are admitting that you want to force people to live in a society where marriage means anything anyone wants it mean.
It also makes you look in the mirror. You want to force your view on everyone else. Your opinion should be forced on society and if they disagree with you, that is too bad. You know best. That is fascism but you can’t be a fascist, you care. You have empathy but at the same time I can’t disagree with you. Let’s change the subject to religion.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:02pmWell…At Least unlike prop 8 this was done Constitutionally using a Republic Government. Now…..Undo it. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the support of two thirds of each house of Congress, and ratification by 38 states.In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state’s own constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:10pmProp 8 was absolutely constitutional and should have been untouchable. It took one gay man in a black dress to overturn it and three more black dresses to declare it unconstitutional. Those three black dresses are overturned by the supremes more than any court in the country.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:19pmRepublic.Washington did it like a Republic.California did not. Why Vote for representatives when we can just use the ol’ everybody vote for what they want method?WOrked So Well For Teh Muslim Brotherhood. IF We Change the US Constitution it would be Different.And Yes,I Supported Changing it.We never got out of Congress.The Federal Gov gave the States the ability to set the conditions for a valid marriage.So It may be WRONG but it is legal.Even for the Limpy Wimpy Judge In California.
Report Post »Sgt_Rock
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:32am@SMOKEY – In States where the referendum / initiative / proposition process exists, it has always been the right of the electorate to change the decisions of the legislative branch. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The 10th Amendment allows states to make their own constitutions and the process is defined in the respective state constitutions. States have the right to be more restrictive than the fed (i.e. some states have more restrictive search and seizure laws to protect folks against zealous police searches etc.) but they cannot be less restrictive, i.e. they can’t give the police more rights than those granted by the U.S.Constitution. If the people choose to amend the law by referendum, it is constitutional as long as it not does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Since the SCOTUS has not spoken on the matter the referendum stands, unless some shysters get an injunction…against the will of the people. Just because we elect folks to represent us doesn’t mean they will always do what we want. Sometimes they get arrogant and think they know whats best for us, despite our actual wishes. Often it comes down to Reps making deals with each other, often contrary to the best interest of their constituents. In those cases, the people have the referendum process to get redress. It sends a message. A warning. Sometimes, waiting for the next representative election is not an option…things need to get fixed sooner.
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:59pmGenesis 1:28 and Isaiah 10:1-3
Report Post »drst4scss
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:58pmI believe once you take out: Honor (in-Ourselvesas well as Country), Pride and Self Respect, This is what you get… a nation of Liberals! We really need to teach our Children our Family all of the above and much of the Liberal agenda will fail!
Report Post »Many of us have family members who believe the ideology of the left… Speak up and show them the right way! Get involved in becoming members of Gov.t, Become Planning Commisioners, City Council, County level, state level and Federal level Officials. I have done it and all of us can too!
TheObamanation
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:57pmIsn’t a marriage ceremony to make your vows before God ?
Report Post »That means gay marriage is purely a financial proposition … for insurance for instance …
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
drst4scss
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:04pmAs much as the LGBC (Is that right LGBC?) community want to get married before God, God will not recognise the marriage… Gay Marriage is a sin! I don’t care how many of them think they can change that fact by saying there is no God! There is nothing that will ever make Gay Marriage ok!!!
Report Post »MrMagoo
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:54pmThey are no more ‘married’ than are 2 turds in a toilet bowl,it means nothing.They can celebrate all they want.Marriage is 1 man,1 woman.All the man made laws on this planet won’t change Gods law.Same sex marriage is merely cheap window dressing.The house built and well maintained will stand the test of time,but the curtains come and go,not to be taken with any lasting/eternal benefit.
Report Post »Nice try Washington state,but your only fooling yourselves.
MrMagoo
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:11pmAnd I’m not comparing gays to excrement.Just the worthlessness of ‘same sex marriage’.It’s only acknowledged under mans laws.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:43pmConstitution-thumpers object to this, seriously?
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:49pmU.S. law is based on the “laws of nature and nature’s God”. This means that laws that violate natural law, or the revealed law of God, are not valid laws. Therefore laws that allow for the murder of preborn children or the unnatural wedding of a same-sex couple, are not valid under the Constitution.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:09pmAnd where does the Constitution mention God’s law?
What you are suggesting is that any relgious interpretation trumps the law of the land. Do you even think about the insane consequences of this point of view? Of course not, because you do not think.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:37pmI.m a Constitution Thumper. They won fair and square.
Report Post »filiusdracul
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:56pmIn order to understand the constitution, you must understand it’s writers. If the framers conceived in their wildest dreams that this would happen, they would have put safeguards against it.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:33pmFluid .Read Up on Revolutionary war Hero Baron Von Steuben….Then Think about Guys in wigs wearing the Prettiest coats.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:41pmPublius, you may recognize this (perhaps not) from the Declaration of Independance:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
That said, while our laws are absolutely based on a belief in God and in God’s laws, the law itself is secular. We do not force church doctrine on peoples of other religions or of no religion. Just look at the Ten Commandments. Other than not stealing or murdering, none of the rest is illegal. Stealing and murdering are infringing upon another’s rights, the rest are between you and God.
Report Post »Marriage is both a religious rite and a legal contract. No one should force any church to recognize SSM, but neither should the church’s beliefs dictate who can and cannot benefit from a legal contract. Call it a civil union or anything else you want, so long as the contract provides for equal benefits and protection under the law.
Bad Kitty
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:41pm2 words….
BOB SAGET!!!!
Report Post »Jackers
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:46pmDid the people of the state of Washington vote to approve this measure? You know… Those hardworking, taxpaying citizens of Washington who just so happen to pay the lofty salaries and pensions for these law-makers?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:01amI‘m glad that people voting against an issue didn’t come into play with slavery and women’s equality.
Report Post »Iam4America
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:39pmA sad day in Washington! Our family values are under attack from all sides.
Wake up America! There are so many signs about what is wrong. They will say “How could they not see what was being done?”
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:57pmYour family is not at all affected by this.
You are still a family.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:57pmI don’t know what you expect us to do about it. They legislate it against the will of the people. They overturn it if the people express their will that it should only be between one man and one woman. We play by the rules and they won’t. They never accept the will of the people and bring one lawsuit after another until they find a judge that agrees with them.
I mean, really. WHAT are we supposed to do about it?
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:11pmFunny how many folks,Such as Myself,cling to our Constitution yet wants to bypass The Republic For which it Stands.If It was against The will of the People of The State of Washington Whom The Federal Government gave the right to set the conditions for a valid marriage,then the people need to Contact their Representatives and let them know they will be Un Elected.If Not? The Will of The people of Washington want Gay Marriage.SO we can accept Washington’s decision or try again to Change the Constitution and get 38 states to back our decision.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:22pmWho is “they”?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:32pmModerationisbest – Children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is normal and don’t have to get parental permission.
And businesses will be forced to provide same sex marriage against their will.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:55pm@GIT-R-DONE
Again, that doesn’t affect your family, you are still a family.
“Children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is normal and don’t have to get parental permission.”
Homosexuality is normal. What do you mean “don’t have to get parental permission?” Are you saying that kids have to get parental permission to choose what their sexual orientation is? Are you saying that straight people CHOOSE to be straight? Not sure what your point is here.
“And businesses will be forced to provide same sex marriage against their will.“ What ”businesses“ are you talking about and in what sense will they be forced to ”provide“ it against their ”will?”
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:20pm“Again, that doesn’t affect your family, you are still a family.”
uh yeah it does….my freedom will be taken away by the fascist gays, as we’ve seen with the catholic charities in MA…
and with marriage meaningless…it means more fatherless children…as Kurtz has shown with his research on gay marriage in the netherlands…
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:21pm“Homosexuality is normal. ”
yeah 40 years ago it was a psychological disorder…..kind of like pedophilia is now….
in 40 years people like you will be saying pedophilia is normal.
after all its just another sexual orientation isn’t it?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:22pm“What ”businesses“ are you talking about and in what sense will they be forced to ”provide“ it against their ”will?””
you mean like that Doctor in CA who was sued by lesbians and the CA supreme court told him he didn’t have freedom of speech or religion when it comes to the gays? hmmm??
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:28pmWedding Chapels ?
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:19pm@Rush, please articulate the rights and freedoms you will be denied if a gay couple is permitted the same protections under the law that you are. Right here, list them. I’m serious, I need to know so I can figure out if I agree or not. I need to know because if I see that my having equal protection under the law somehow infringes on your rights, I may be inclined to change my position. I swear, I’m not being sarcastic here.
NO church or church run organization should EVER be forced to do something against their beliefs. You are right that the big left is using the gay marriage issue to force churches to bow to the state, and that is WRONG. But just like they are pushing beyond their rights, you are pushing beyond yours. The state has no right to dictate who people sleep with and they have no authority to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract.
And seriously, you must drop the analogy to pedophila, it just makes you look ignorant. Two consenting adults behaving as they wish in the privacy of their own bedroom DOES NO HARM to another person. An adult victimizing a child DOES HARM. If you can’t get that, there is no hope for you.
Now, you have a point about the psychological community. There is a movement to normalize adults having sexual access to children and it is abhorant. Perpetrated by Planned Parenthood and Health and Human Services, among others, it’s gaining steam. Has NOTHING to do with gay adults.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:38pmMy state, you blew it.
Report Post »God outlined the terms of marriage, you wish to flaunt your perverse idea in His face? Suffer the consequences!
As the old saying goes: You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!
drst4scss
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:45pmAmen!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:57pmPeople are not bound by the laws of your God, sorry.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:13pmThank you moderation. These morons seem to think everyone is as intellectually slow as they are.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:54pm“People are not bound by the laws of your God, sorry.”
you think so huh? just wait until you see Who has the last laugh….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:01pm@RUSH_IS_RIGHT
Ah there’s that old Christian “love” I hear about so much. Believe like I do or my all loving God will send you to an eternal torture.
The point is, whether or not I eventually go to your biblical version of hell is irrelevant. As of now, I am not subject to your God’s law.
The same thing could be said to you by a Muslim. “Oh, so you don‘t think you’re bound by Allah’s laws? You’ll see eventually.”
Lol, silly nonsense.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:14pm“Ah there’s that old Christian “love” I hear about so much. Believe like I do or my all loving God will send you to an eternal torture. ”
yeah Jesus talked more about hell than heaven…guess He wasn’t very loving was he now??
you just don’t like consequences…poor baby…grow up. you’ve made your choice…ohhh and now you want to whine about it….cry me a river.
you mock God, you spit in His face, and what do you expect?
“Lol, silly nonsense.”
we‘ll all find out won’t we?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:23pmlet see should I believe Jesus or some wacko anonymous poster on the internet…gee thats a tough one….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:47pm@RUSH_IS_RIGHT
I would argue that Jesus wasn’t loving. Since Jesus is God, he created a system in which he knew man would bring sin into his world, thus creating “original sin” where his creations were now born worthy of an eternal torture that he created.
“we‘ll all find out won’t we?”
No, we all won’t find out if there is no God. If after you die…..you’re just dead, then it will be impossible to find out because we are dead.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:41pmMod-best–you are correct. You are not bound by what ‘my’ God says. You see, He gave everyone free will. Make your choices wisely.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:05pm“I would argue that Jesus wasn’t loving. Since Jesus is God, he created a system in which he knew man would bring sin into his world, thus creating “original sin” where his creations were now born worthy of an eternal torture that he created.”
yeah as I said, you want free will…and a free lunch…no consequences…..keep dreaming.
Jesus paid the price….oh and get a clue gomer, for someone like you to be in His presence would be a far worse torture than hell itself….His presence to the sinner would be far worse than hell….
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:13pm“No, we all won’t find out if there is no God. If after you die…..you’re just dead, then it will be impossible to find out because we are dead.”
again should I believe Jesus or an anonymous wacko on the internet…..LOL
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:27pmSo Rush, by your logic, it should be mandatory that everyone believe that Jesus is their savior, right? You want a theocracy, my friend, and that is NOT what this country is. I have my own beliefs in God and they are none of your business. You cannot force your religion on anyone and Jesus would not want you to. You are permitted to witness to anyone you like, but you cannot force your beliefs on anyone, hence you CANNOT mandate Christian law as the state’s law. You don’t understand anything about this country if you think you can. You should listen to Rush a little better.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:24am@NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
You missed my point. The point is the Christians in this country keep trying to pass laws to force other people to conform their lives around your beliefs. Well guess what, I am not bound by your God’s laws, so stop trying to pass laws based around your religion.
@Rush
I don’t WANT, anything. I have what I have. There are Christians who argue free will doesn’t exist. Which Christian am I to think has the right “belief?” You all vary so much in how you describe God that is gets hypocritical and down right silly to try to discuss your God. I love that you all “generally believe in the same thing”………yet are so different when it comes to his design. You could be COMPLETELY wrong about the Christian God .
Please understand this, the word “family” doesn’t only describe one thing. If a man and a woman have a kid, and then the man dies, are the wife and kid not family? If I have a group of friends that I love dearly, can I not consider them my family? If I’m an orphan, and come into contact with a group of people that take me in, are we not a family? Please understand this, by me considering my friends as more then friends but family, DOESN’T affect your family, it just doesn’t. You are STILL a family. No matter how oblivious you are to this, it is true.
Please stop talking nonsense to me about your God. You just make stuff up at your own whim, that your other “brothers in Christ” would think you’r crazy for “belie
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:37amOnce again, people seem ignorant to the fact that the Bible wasn’t a book that written at the start of time.
There were likely people getting “married”(in quotes because I doubt that was the term then) around when the OT was written, and like everything else, Judaism hijacked it for its own purposes and said, “yes, God CREATED it that way.”
The only logical way to solve this problem, is…. Get the Government out of marriage. If you want to believe it’s a religious ceremony that is only between a man and a woman(despite the high number of divorces even among Christians), fine. If you want to be married, fine, but the Government won’t recognize it.
Every married couple must bring their marriage license down to the courthouse, get it torn up and be issued a Civil union. Civil unions could then be given to homosexual couples as well and we’re all equally protected. If your church wants to perform a “marriage” ceremony, that’s fine, but it won’t be recognized as official by any Government office, hospital or ANYTHING else. Your “marriage” is official between you, your spouse and your church. If a Church chooses(can’t be forced) to perform a “marriage” service for a gay couple,that is their choice and they can deal with the backlash from other congregations.
There, Government has now been removed from your religious belief. How many Christians, Mormons, etc do you think would be fine getting their marriage licensed shredded?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 1:57am@MOD
No Mod, if you want the gov out of it, fine, but then it’s completely out of it.
Just how is issuing “Civil Unions” getting the government out of it?
“He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know.” – Abraham Lincoln
Report Post »formidable_foe
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 5:00pmI’m just curious as to how they decide which queer buys the diamond. Talk about a sucker…..
Report Post »TheChurch
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:37pmA nation divided will not stand. Between gay marriage and abortion this nation will fall. History once again repeats itself.
Report Post »ZombieJesus
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:33pmWow, seriously? You don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one….Don’t like abortion or guns either, don’t get one. I don’t see where you get off telling others what to do with their lives, let alone saying it will destroy the nation.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:21pm“I don’t see where you get off telling others what to do with their lives, let alone saying it will destroy the nation”
I don’t see where you gay fascists get off telling us what to believe and how to behave…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:29amEvangelical voters seem intent on driving every non Christian out of the Republican party by backing guys like Santorum and Newt.
Maybe it’s why the establishment wants Romney, because while he may have some weird beliefs, he doesn’t make it his platform and have extreme views like Santorum.
I will make this clear once for all of you hardcore, evangelical, “extreme” Christians when it comes to my personal opinion. This is just my personal view, but I wouldn’t be surprised if others felt this way, but in the end, I can’t prove it.
In my young voting life, I have never once voted Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I am in the tank for the “anybody but Obama” candidate.
If you give me Ron Paul, I will vote for him.
If you give me Newt Gingrich, I will close my eyes and regrettably vote for him.
If you give me Mitt Romney, I will regrettably vote for him.
If you give me Rick Santorum, I WILL NOT vote for him. I will just choose not to vote and live with whichever loon gets elected.
I view Santorum as radical about his faith as I do Obama about his view of this country and the economy.
That being said, I still think that all of these guys are too far outside the main stream to beat Obama.
My hope is for the day when we have a President that is cheered for because he does his best to make well thought out, rational, logical decisions; instead of having a President who is cheered for because he consults scripture and prayer on important issues.
Report Post »Roros
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:33pmGood news here in this story, yes sir, good news. I going to get more then one wife now, thank you Washington, thank you. Ow you say NO, how dare you say no to me and my wifes. Cultural prejudice you will be called, have your check book ready Washington State.
Report Post »Again, I thank you, see ya soon
CatB
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:01pmIs that you Kody Brown? … He has 4 “wives” only the first one is legal .. but I understand that he is talking to an attorney about challenging that law.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:30pmA good day for satan and his minions. Marriage one man one woman.That’s fair for everybody. ….civil union one man one man and one woman one woman one. No need to make rules for the animals. They are already smart enough to know what the tools are for and where they go.
Report Post »SoiledDove
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:40pmAre you under the impression that homosexuality does not occur in animals? If so, you are sorely mistaken.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:51pmBy your reasoning SOILEDDOVE, murder, rape, theft, and cannibalism should not be outlawed because “animals do it”
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:00pmLol, ignorance and illogical arguments abound!
Leave it to an article on homosexuality to get religion riled up.
Instead you should be focusing on all the men and women who keep getting divorces and ruining marriage as defined by your God.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:02pm@Soiledove – It doesn’t. When animals exibit this behavior its a show of domination.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:42pm@MOD
Let’s see some proof of any arguments being illogical.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:13ambullcrapbuster
Report Post »Dude, you really should spell Satan’s name with a capital S. After all, he is the Prince of Hell. However you feel about his job performance, you should show a little respect for the position.
TheObamanation
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:29pmIs Washington Sodom or Gomorrah ?
Report Post »crackerone
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:05pmI forget, which one was the good one?
Report Post »iroquois
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:26pmThe Naked Communist; Goals from 1958
Report Post »Goal # 26
Present ****-Sexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ” normal, natural, healthy.”
dtbox
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:37pmIt’s true. It’s been a staple of the Marxist/Communist agenda fora long time,so sad to see it coming to fruition.
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:04pmNever read it or knew the author just ordered the book after a quick read about the author…
..all sounds like a liberal manual, never knew it was communism they were following…
sad sad sad
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:47pm@The Jewish Avenger
You will enjoy the book.
After that, get “The 5000 Year Leap”
Same author.
Be ready for the libs to jump on this.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:20amOf course, no actual Communists have ever said that they had any such goals. The author just made a list of trends he didn’t like and opinions he disagreed with and wrote a book blaming them all on Communists.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 10:56amSure chet
And you have no agenda either. right?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:12pmTherightsofbilly
Report Post »No, I don’t have an agenda. All I have are opinions on the issues of the day, all of which are shared by many people some of them intelligent, and a willingness to argue in favor of those opinions with people I know I am unlikely to convince.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 1:11pmWell Chet
Seems then that we are two peas in a pod……….
Except that in my case, “most” of the people that share my opinions are intelligent.
Not just “some” of them, as you have stated in your post.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 3:30pmTherightsofbilly
Report Post »No, most of them aren’t. I’m not saying that they are any dumber than most of the people who share my opinions, just that I have a have a slightly more realistic view on this than most people. I think that if you go around assuming that people who agree with you must be smarter than people who disagree with you, you will occasionally be made a fool of by really smart people who disagree with you, and you will frequently be disappointed and embarrassed by really dumb people on your side.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 4:15pmSorry Chet,
Just can’t take anything seriously that comes from a person that actively cheers and celebrates abortion.
That is not normal thinking. IMHO.
I will just assume that you are one of the people that your side is frequently disappointed and embarrassed by.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:38pmYeah, I embarrass people. Not many people are willing to say publicly that abortion is good because there are too damn many people in the world, and stupidity and irresponsibility should be reasons for people to not have kids, not reasons that they should be forced to do so, but I’m not the only person who thinks it, and it is far from abnormal.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:43pmI can’t add anything to that Chet.
You did all the dirty work for me.
Have you yet, or are you planning to reproduce?
Seeing as there are too many people on the planet.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 10, 2012 at 8:24pmI don’t answer any personal questions when I’m writing under a fake name, but I will say that I have not had an excessive number of children, i.e., more than two. If I believed in eugenics, I would be tempted to have more because it would of course only improve our species. But because I believe that intelligence and stupidity are mostly acquired traits, and because there are too damn many people, I will refrain.
Report Post »tiredofprogressives
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:22pmMore Loons coming to Washington. What a great country this is. I would like to see diversity,,,
Report Post »let the muslims who come to america live in Washington State alongside the Homosexuals and see how they get along. Come on Libs,,,let’s see your grand social experiment work.
GoodStuff
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:20pmPut it to the voters.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:32pmit doesn’t matter if the vote was 5 million to one, you can’t deny someone rights simply because your invisble space man tells you too. We are a republic, not a democracy.
Report Post »Unc68
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:40pmMy home state of Iowa, we voted a constitutional amendment againt same sex marriage and some men in black dresses said the people’s voice did not matter.
Report Post »California Prop 8, a constituional amendment was declared unconstitutional.
Marriage is a religious institution not a civil one. State marriage licenses fly in the face of religious freedom.
This is purely a political move to destabilize the nation. Just remember after they use a group like the gays to gain power, the gays will be eliminated by them. The collaberators are always the first to be dealt with after the revolution.
BubbaCoop
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:54pm“We are a republic, not a democracy.”
Then why do these states insist on violating natural law?
“you can’t deny someone rights ”
What you actually mean is that you want to give them special rights. They already have equal rights. And rights come from where again? “Endowed by our Creator”, not man.
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:08pmMaine shot it down in 2009, whiners putting it up again in 2011 (This will be the 5th public vote in 10 years THEY LOST EVERYTIME) guess which representative has a sugar daddy with the last name Soros?
Ya… expecting 400,000 for with 325,000 against even though there are only 425,000 registered voters.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:17pmNatural law? What in the world are you talking about? Homosexuality is merely a byproduct of genetics, and if they wish to call themselves “married”, why must you interfere? This is why your magic space fairy is losing followers by the way, because people are tired of your bigotry.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:31pmLibertarianforlife – There’s no scientific evidence that someone is born homosexual.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:40pm@LibLife,For the the Space Man Remark I will Pray for you,For the Republic Remark You are Exactly right.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:21pm“This is why your magic space fairy is losing followers by the way, because people are tired of your bigotry.”
laughable..christianity is growing…get a clue gomer….people are tired of your gay fascism.
Report Post »br1ans
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:08amWhen the voters overturn it the liberals will just get judges to legalize it again. Look at CA. The libs don’t care about democracy just their agenda. Look at Libforlife’s comments.
Report Post »Vladia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:18pmKudos to you, Washington!
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:30pmHmmm…while your at it Washington, be sure to tie this to some environmental or animal rights legislation, to really motivate the libs. You could make it a crime to keep a snake from slithering down a hole…..or possibly enact a fine for those that seek, to prevent beavers from standing around rubbing against each other…..it’s all good….:D
Report Post »br1ans
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:02amWouldn’t work, it rains so much in WA the snake would be slithering down a MUDDY hole….
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 12:31am@BR1ANS…….thank you for the extremely disturbing image…..:D
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:24amYes, one more victory for the good guys.
Report Post »Amadeus76
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:18pmI find the idea of gay sex repugnant and think that the government needs to recognize all legal unions as ‘civil unions’ in the eyes of the law and leave marriage to the religious institutions… But seeing as the loons with agendas to push on both the right and the left will never allow this to happen, from a constitutional point of view I say ‘good’!
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:38pmHmm, I agree, actually.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 2:23amI find anchovies repugnant, but it’s no skin off my nose if people who eat pizzas with anchovies are allowed to call them pizzas instead of making up some new name so it won’t be called the same thing as the delicious mushroom and sausage pizzas I prefer.
Report Post »