E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSenators in Washington state voted 28-21 Wednesday to legalize same-sex marriage, with four Republicans crossing party lines to approve the bill.
Senators voted 28-21 to approve a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state. Four Republicans crossed party lines and voted with majority Democrats for the measure. Three Democrats voted against it.
The measure now moves to the House, where there is enough support for the bill to pass. Gov. Chris Gregoire says she will sign the bill if it makes it to her desk, Seattle TV station King 5 reported.
Legislators debated the measure for two hours Wednesday night at the capitol in Olympia before voting.
The Senate adopted a series of amendments intended to clarify religious exemptions in the legislation, the Seattle Times reported.
Opponents promise a referendum in November if the bill is signed into law.
Any challenge to the bill can't be filed until after it is passed by the full Legislature and signed into law by Gregoire. Opponents then must turn in 120,577 signatures by June 6.
If opponents aren't able to collect enough signatures, gay and lesbian couples would be able to be wed starting in June. Otherwise, they would have to wait until the results of a November election.
Before last week, it wasn't certain the Senate would have the support to pass the measure, as a handful of Democrats remained undecided.
But after the first public hearing on the issue Jan. 23, a previously undecided Democratic senator, Mary Margaret Haugen of Camano Island, said she would be the 25th and deciding vote in support of the bill, all but ensuring its passage.
Elaine Thompson / AP
Members of the gallery applaud as the Washington state Senate passes a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, Feb. 1, in Olympia, Wash. The measure now heads to the House, which is expected to approve it.
PhotoBlog: Washington State clears gay marriage bill hurdle
Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
Lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland are expected to debate gay marriage this year, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.
The debate over same-sex marriage in Washington state has changed significantly since lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, which banned gay marriage. The constitutionality of DOMA was ultimately upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006, but earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure.
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 the so-called "everything but marriage law" that was upheld by voters after opponents filed a referendum to challenge it.
Under the measure that passed Wednesday, the more than 9,300 couples currently registered in domestic partnerships would have two years to either dissolve their relationship or get married. Domestic partnerships that aren't ended prior to June 30, 2014, would automatically become marriages.
Domestic partnerships would remain for senior couples where at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included to help seniors who don't remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits.
Leave a Comment:
And next... all 50 states! :D maybe America is getting smarter
Jonathan, it's about time. And for all those who keep saying government has too many regulations, well, how about deregulating marriage!
Legalize gay marriage nationwide!
Hopefully it will survive a vote of the people on the November ballot, should the opposition qualify it for such. Those votes can be dicey, especially when oodles of extremist religion money starts flowing, such as from Mitt's friends.
And cue the religious fanatics...
Another nail in our coffin...
Thank God all you "enlightened" folks are out there to set us backward folks straight. I have to be tolerant and accepting of YOUR values but you do NOT have to respect mine because they disagree with yours? Wow... Five bucks says those same folks will "collapse" this comment before it's all done. So accepting they are...
Congratulations, Washington.
(and congratulation, Mountaineer - right on cue)
It's strange how the party of "no government regulation" is all for regulating people's private lives......
The times, they are a changin'!
Very very proud of our state, yay Washington!
Why not. It's exactly what you want. You heavily baited the hook in an attempt to garner the negative attention you are so clearly asking for.
How are we not accepting YOUR values? Is anyone forcing you to marry someone of your sex? Please explain, in detail, how someone ELSE'S marriage affects you? How are you harmed? If you don't agree with it, that's fine. If it's not your lifestyle, that's fine too.
In fact, this bill goes out of it's way to protect different religious viewpoints by exempting them under several amendments.
You got what you asked for ... and of course you brought it upon yourself by that comment.
For the record, I was not one of them. I wish Newsvine would initiate a "down" arrow to show disagreement, leaving collapsing for true violations. It's easy to agree, not easy to disagree.
I've seen this question asked nicely, sarcastically, and with genuine curiosity hundreds of times over the years, and I have yet to see a single answer that doesn't resort to trotting out religion.
Newsflash: When the only opposition to something is based on nothing more than religious indignation, it has no place in our secular, equality-based government.
Wish some people would get that through their heads...
Mountaineer got collapsed for speaking the truth , you cant do that on msn , especially when the subject is about queers .. you cant smoke in public places but 2 guys can suck face in public
They WONT BE APPLAUDING IN HELL. Homosexuality is an ABHORRATION to God and if they dont repent and find Jesus Christ, they are Eternally FINISHED...I will be praying for them and all of you "spiritually" blind people who support them...
Mountaineer got collapsed because he ASKED to be collapsed.
They WONT BE APPLAUDING IN HELL. Homosexuality is an ABHORRATION to God and if they dont repent and find Jesus Christ, they are Eternally FINISHED...I will be praying for them and all of you "spiritually" blind people who support them...
No such place as hell. God is not real. Jesus was a charlatan. You can waste as much time praying as you want.
no beth he didnt ask to be collapsed , can you read , i didnt read please collapse this post
Branxoz and FxDx, I'm with you guys all the way , what is this world coming to ? All those people defending homosexuality will answer to God, all you non believers of God , he is real whether you like it or not. God knows the truth and how you tried so hard to ridicule him, i feel sorry for you people !
satanick, like i said, God is real whether you like it or not and you also will answer to him. you claim to be satanic, but if you saw satan in his true form you would @!$%# on yourself and then die of fright. satan comes in many different forms from human to animal and other ways!
Per the choice on lifestyle and conscious sexual preference, why should they be stopped from marriage? We've all heard the saying that marriage isn't for everybody, but why not? Earlier this week in Wash. and woman wed a building! Modern day marriage is not the utopia is was once considered, family structures & pride have never been more diminished, and the initial concept was to protect the financial interest union, and the foundation & betterment of the children (usually biological). In it's unregulated state, it is just that-- a ceremony that many of us place more importance than the actual union, and paper for you to keep. It's Kabuki theater at it's best, and now it's just an ever evolving alliance between friends with benefits... Be who you think you are and enjoy? What has me baffled however, is that we've never lived in time where we've been so polarized on gender (misandry & misogynist views), and lacked the appreciation & insight to empower and understand the opposite sex. With us men & women at such opposite ends, you can only hypothesize. Maybe the media should be blamed for what it tries to shove down our throats on a daily basis with countless trivial scandals and "skipworthy" material, but then again we do have our mouse to blame...
I want to dump my wife and marry my brother for the purpose of raising children. Even under so-called Same Sex marriage, for which homosexuals are a 1% behavior group, my family desires are illegal.
@ SATANICK how can you believe in Satan without believing in God ?
Which scripture can you site that says supporters of gay marriage will face the wrath of God?
He got collapsed for speaking the truth...??? What "truth" is that? That there are offensive bigots in America that want the country's laws to be determined by a religious tract of VERY dubious provenance, even though Americans are NOT required, constitutionally, to believe a single word of that book? Sorry, fxdx, but we already knew that. If you're in favor of Theocracy, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. THIS is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religion nation that still (despite all the efforts of the Tea Potty) enshrines constitutionally the separation of church and state. Don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't want your particular church to perform gay marriages? Find one that won't. But don't you DARE tell other people what to do because your particular book of myths frowns on it. After all, the Christian Bible ALSO requires adulterers to be put to death - so how come you're not stalking Newt Gingrich with a hunting rifle...? You "Christians" believe you have the right to cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you'll obey, and which you'll ignore, and ALSO feel you have the right to decide which parts you'll require even people who don't believe in your book to obey.
It will survive the vote if it makes the ballot. Most us conservatives here could really careless about it. Lets worry about the real problems not like our state budget crisis.
I never said I believe in Satan. My username is simply a play on words.
It's about time. However, a Supreme Court decision will be necessary to make it legal in all 50 states. Hopefully, the Court will do the right thing as they did in Loving v. Virginia (1967) when they legalized interracial marriage in all 50 states.
everything but marriage wow now they want to have that too. That's what they said " Give us all rights except marriage " Oops now we need Marriage ! Oh that's right I forgot they want what they don't deserve because the other Law doesn't Give them a nice marriage certificate from Washington state.
@ jockichmomma -- you must be like Beth a little delusional , the words god , the bible, or jesus and the word christian wasn't in any of my post so go take your meds
A bunch of weirdos in Washington State ..!
With a laughable expectation to reproduce as a dividend benefit for the community as is the only practical interest government has in marriage. Strange the focus on government eh?
That government has been assailed to insist upon an exception in equality to observe what is not the same as the same
Reveals the Progressive assault on our institutions by stroking popular ignorance selling equality all the time tearing it down as John Stewart apes the fog selling you on what to ignore to be with the cool kids. And stay asleep.
funny, Satanick would post something opposing TRUTH. which is JESUS CHRIST. SATAN being the father of lies, deception. of course satan would say jesus/god isn't real. you satanick are a message of the deceiver hisself
There is no such thing as truth. Everything is subjective.
Of course he did .... he was just asking for it. Now, if you can't understand the nuances of word usage .. I'm not surprised.
@reddevps you asked for one here is a few - Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to
death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact
that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless
and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for
those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and
homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason
God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned
the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,
men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty of their error."
Well Hillbilly ...
If you're going to condemn people for not following all the things forbidden in Leviticus ... I hope YOU are not breaking any of these, or you'll be roasting yourself ...
(But of course, as a "Good Christian" you would NEVER indulge in any of these things)
Shaving or certain haircuts -- Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
Play football (at least with an old ball) --Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
Ever dial the psychic hotline -- Leviticus 19:31 reads "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them.
Get a tattoo -- No tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Wear blended fabric clothes or practice crop rotation (if you are a farmer) --Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
Eat shellfish -- Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you."
hillbilly
You so-called Christians who continually cherry pick the Bible to justify your backward ideas and hateful attitudes will marginalize your own religion as the rest of the country becomes more accepting in its attitudes concerning marriage equality. Why is it always some passage of the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament the "Christian Bible"? I don't recall Jesus Christ being described as a gay-basher. Why is it that Christians go to the Jewish Bible to justify their hateful attitudes, while Jewish people who don't really even follow the New Testament are more accepting of the LGBT community than fundamentalist Christians?
Well Hillbilly, thank you for those scriptures, but none of them answer my original question. Please quote a scripture that condemns you for supporting gay marriage.
Should read.
If opponents aren't able to collect enough signatures, gay and lesbian couples would be able to collect tax and public assistance benefits starting in June...
I'll tell you exactly what the homosexuals want in America as their ultimate prize, and that's to be considered a minority so they can be eligible for ALL of the Government goodies! Normal people, watch out!
ObeyTheLaw and millions of normal people endorse this post!
Yep, truth is always subjective. There is truth and then there are facts. Fact is that the bible thumpers cannot produce a single shred of independent proof that what is in the Bible is true.
@article
This is great news. Anytime we can release the stranglehold of religion over law it is great news. Religion has no place to regulate the law or what anyone can do with their lives within that law.
ObeyTheLaw:
Clearly thats what they want. Not equal rights or anything like that. I bet those black slaves who advocated equality wanted to earn a wage for their work, those greedy bastards.
Mountaineer67 - Gay marriage does not disrespect your values. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex you wish, provided that person is an adult. It has no bearing on my life. However by not allowing others to marry an adult of their choosing, you are not being respectful of their values. I don't understand how someone else's marriage is of any concern of yours anyway.
Sigh. To ALL THOSE who keep insisting that God is against homosexuality, it's a sin, they're going to burn in hell, yada, yada, yada: Fine. You can believe that all you want. You can even preach it. It's your right. Jesus, however, NEVER, EVER declared that his followers were to politically force people into "Christian" values. (I personally feel Jesus didn't care one way or the other, but that is my interpretation). You however, feel that Jesus hates homosexuality. Fine. Show me where he said to go forth and stop them from getting married, or brought together by a civil union? He may come back and have MORE of an issue with people, such as yourselves, trying to take away their god-given right as consenting adults to stand before God having made decisions out of free-will. If you don't like gay marriage: don't marry someone of the same sex. If someone else does and you feel god hates them for it: well, preach away all you want, but don't you dare try and politically take away the free-will of consenting adults. THAT is a sin.
I would like to take this moment to personally add that I am all for gay rights and only use the bible in such a way as I understand that you have to fight fire with fire. Telling them that there is no God just doesn't work. I grew up in a fundamentalist household. Trust me, you're talking to a brick wall.
mil - my condolences.
And of course you are correct on the brick wall note.
Hey Hill Billy - God also said "it is better to put your sperm in a woman than spew it upon the earth"
Masturbation is forbidden! How many of you boys practice that?
Thank You Governor Gregoire
She was a guest of Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union Address and when Obama wins his second term I hope he takes her into a key position
Way to go girl!!!
"God also said "it is better to put your sperm in a woman than spew it upon the earth""
He wasn't wrong! Booya!
....and Washington state slips another notch down the scale....
For you MORONS who just DON'T get it! Every gay man or woman has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight man or woman. The institute of marriage was designed as a special relationship within which a couple (1 MAN & 1 WOMAN) was encouraged to procreate and raise children thereby cementing and continuing the societal fabric of a country or "a land". When a "society" tries to normalize deviant behavior by including that behavior in an institution that it was not meant to exist in... You devalue the REAL relationship that marriage was designed to honor, and make the institution worthless on it's face. Which in turn leads to the degradation of society as a whole.
Congratulations Washington State for taking another step BACKWARDS!!!!!
Where's the referendum....I would like to sign it now!
Please forgive them....for they know not , what they do.....
While I am not in America I can say as a teacher(with a wife and children) that it is not difficult to determine young boys and girls that are not heterosexual. This is not of their choosing and they are just as wonderful as any other children. Please don't hate people because they were born with a different path to follow. Your Jesus would love them all.
How many more doors do we want to open for fraud?
Jonathan Martin
I disagree....
America is in unparalleled moral decline and becoming even more stupid with each passing day.
" ... A bunch of weirdos in Washington State ..! ... "
Thank you very much. We in the great state of Washington work very hard at being weird. And it is nice to see someone recognise us for what we truly are. Oh, and did you know that we have webbed feet? It's because of all the rain we get.
So thank you. Thank you very much.
Which is exactly what slave-owners said about the Emancipation Proclamation.
"America is ... becoming even more stupid with each passing day."
Carl 404329 is living proof.
Silvaria ... you took the words right out of my mouth. I have yet to see a non-religious answer to the question of "how does gay marriage affect your marriage in any way?" But, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Even the defenders of Prop 8 in CA were unable to produce witnesses during the trial who could name a single downside to gay marriage.
Beth - the whole point is that our rebellion is why we face death someday.
Think about it when someone loses the ability to do something physical the person is still a whole person, but cannot act in that capacity any longer. Sometimes events occur that a person gets some or all of a lost ability back. The question is where does the spirit go?
Christians believe that we are God's creation and believe when you die you go into a spiritual eternity. God set it up as male and female, and it should be his way. God is intelligent and doesn't want yes - people. He wants you to choose him - without holding your every breath (death) over your head.
You don't have to be told about it, you can see it by simple scientific observation, but someone took the time to explain it to you and now choose to go your own way - so be it! You simply have your life to figure this out and change your way and follow him. Part of that is figuring out that disobedience has long term consequenses. If you have not learned this someone failed you miserably as a child or you just simply want to be a law to yourself. Trouble is there is about 6 or 7 billion other sets of laws. But never mind that as long as you get what you want - who cares about everybody else - Right?
Government is a collection of either dictators believe, elected officials believe, or a collection of what people agree is law. It has nothing to do with what is really right or wrong.
The same argument was used to justify the bans on interracial marriage ... "every man or woman has the same right to marry within their race." That defense didn't work then, it certainly won't work now.
But, if you want to know where the equality issue comes in, every heterosexual has the right to marry the consenting adult to whom he or she is sexually and emotionally attracted. That right is denied to gays.
The queers are on the roll. Must be some rich queers buying an approval of butt f#$%ng and d#%k sucking. I see a decline in military volunteering and the beginning of the destruction of the institution of marriage. How do you call it? Mr and Mr Butt F$%^er I pronounce you man and man.
I agree with Carl-404329 & Just the Truth-830761
How is that any different from heterosexual couples? They also are able to collect tax and public assistance benefits upon their marriages. Why do you assume that heterosexuals marry out of love and don't give a damn about the financial benefits, while gays marry only for the financial benefits?
Perhaps we should put your theory to the test and level the playing field by removing all state-sponsored benefits from marriage and see what happens.
Hey, Seta
Since you and Carl404329 are in complete agreement, perhaps you should consider marrying him?
Sounds like a match made in heaven...
"Everything but marriage" is incorrect. For instance, civil unions are not recognized as marriages in other states with same-sex marriage, so Washington couples lose the protection of the law when they travel to those states. In NJ, UPS tried to wiggle out of providing benefits for same-sex couples because their union contract specified "marriage" as the basis for benefits.
But, if you think that "everything but marriage" civil unions enough, perhaps that's what ALL couples should have. I'm amazed that conservatives who claim that marriage is a religious institution aren't jumping all over the idea that all couples should have civil unions. If they want to be "married", those couples can go to a church afterwards for a ceremony. I guess this is one time that conservatives like state regulation of religion. Very hypocritical of them.
Same place light does when you turn the switch off.
Two people of the same sex, living as a couple down the block for the past 30 years, paying their mortgage, taxes and bills, keeping the lawn trim, helping the neighbors, can now get married. And according to those opposed to marriage equality this is how the world ends.
On a more positive note - at least they cannot procreate.
I see the end result of this impending state by state battle being the same as the tumult over Roe and Wade; great gnashing of teeth, snarled threats, police line crashing, queer bashing and media cashing in. The hand in the bucket will be vigorously roiling the water around and everyone will be drawn to the spectacle of the great splashes...and then the hand will be withdrawn and the water will return to its usual state.
A decade or two later young people (and some older) wondering what the huge fuss was about and how could people be so ignorant "back then". Gays will have been married and divorced in every state and some other group of social outcasts will be painting up signs for their protest parade on the weekend while their adversaries are handing out leaflets declaring the natural order of things is at stake.
Never was, never is.
I'm gonna take the evolution of a species and science approach, there are no gay wolves in the wolfpack. Since there is no religion in my words that should be more accepting. We as humans (overevolved apes) are considered nothing more than mammals follow natural selection and the rules for survival of a species. Our problem is we always find ways around rules to satisfy our unnatural desires. In this case we no longer have to select who will breed and who won't, adoption, invitro, and maybe soon marketable cloning. We can look at this as a purely science way, and since there is no religion then there is no soul so there can't be this deep down desire for things. We are physically not made to desire any sex as a pleasure but purely a function of reproduction which again means no gay wolves in the wolfpack. We mentally make up desires and dwell on them so long that we call them natural and that goes for heteroes as well. Our arrogance as humans tells the rest of the animal kingdom to be a certain way while we choose how to manipulate nature, it will bite us in the butt.
First off, every single comment on here from the homophobes is so utterly ridiculous, poorly written, chocked full of logical fallacies, and downright hilarious in their lunacy that one must really wonder where these people come from.
NOT A SINGLE ONE offers a rebuttle to any of the already well established arguments made - instead they go off the track into some wild psuedo-psycho-babble that really makes no sense, but tries really really hard to sound intelligent... for example:
Homosexuality does appear in nature and among animals. Bonobo monkeys, for example. A monkey in the "evolution of species approach" is a far better comparison than a canine.
Regardless of that though, even if homosexuality was a uniquely human trait - does it make it any less valid or real? Homosexuals and bisexuals have existed throughout history. Sexuality isn't a black and white scale - like ALL things in life, a spectrum is far more accurate.
Lol how the hell is that 'purely science' in any way whatsoever? That's just a bunch of psychobabble. Since there is no cookie, there is no chocolate, so we can't have this deep down desire for milk. wtf
Lol what?
I see you must be projecting your own feelings.
Gays get to have all the sex they want without being pressured to get married like straight folks.
Some people just can't leave well enough alone.
once you deal in spectrums then you always loose focus, since you can always find what you as an individual considers sensible.
And why is one person's call psychology and another psychobabble.
monkeys are a far cry to being close in evolution, I think you mean apes. but genetics are another thing all together since octupi have the equivilent eyesight and eye composition as we do but are no where related.
And I am sure that you believe that homosexuals are born that way, so I pose we should legalize other things, maybe murderers are born to be that way or pedophiles, we can find examples of that also in our animal kingdom. And I guess your spectrum doesn't allow for mistakes in thought that you can gray something so much it looks like truth.
Preventing gays from marrying will not result in them deciding to marry someone of the opposite sex and having children. Do you think the line of reasoning is "I can't marry the guy I love, so I'll marry that woman down the block and knock her up?"
oh yeah, Shuklach. rudeness gets you nowhere in life.
Barry, I also mentioned heteroes have unwarranted desires to, my thought is since we don't want religion in it we have to start looking at ourselves as the mammals we are and explain our behaviors as we would explain lions on National Geo. Our overdeveloped brains have given us the terrible ability to justify, or as Shuklack would like a wide spectrum or gray area of thought in all unnatural behaviors. We as mammals should ask does the bonobo monkey do their homosexual acts as a sign of love or just because there was an inferior male there and they want to show dominance.
if we continue on a moral-less path then we will eventually be marrying animals, or even changing law allowing marriage of children. we're on a very slippery slope!
Ever wonder how many pro-abortionists are trying to tell gays what to do with their own bodies?
One is logical, the other is false logic dressed up to sound logical. For example: Why do witches burn? Cause they're made of wood! Ah yes, and wood floats... what else floats? A duck! Yes, a duck... so if a witch weighed the same as a duck... she is.... MADE OF WOOD!
That's the kind of logic you are using.
CLOSER THAN WOLVES.... sigh, seriously dude, not only was that a strawman, that was a strawman built out of something removed from context. Pretty dishonest of you to do that.
I was waiting for this argument, it always pops up. The 'beastiality/pedophile' argument is a classic, and FAILS immediately... because for the simple fact that they HARM OTHERS and don't involve CONSENTING ADULTS. Gay marriage is one consenting adult marrying another consenting adult. Children can't consent, animals can't consent.
Anyone who makes that argument really has not given their position much thought.

Slippery Slope
This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.
I love when people actually admit that they are using the 'slippery slope' argument. Apparently they don't realize it's a defined logical fallacy, unless they can otherwise establish that such 'slipping' would likely occur. I don't see any evidence that allowing two CONSENTING ADULTS marry would lead to allowing adults marry children, who can't consent, or animals, who are also incapable of consent under the law
Actually an increase in homosexual behavior in a population is a natural reaction to overpopulation of a species.
You can do some research on your own....
Also - are you saying animals 'love'? An 'emotion' that can't even be defined by humans....
Shuklack, no they are valid arguements since we are discussing animals, I present it from that point. It has nothing to do with just humans. Dogs are 95% related, not sure of monkeys, but apes like the chimp is 99% when looking at statistics 7% difference is where you get wide differences.
Not sure about the witch thing since it look nothing like wood or a duck, and why not desire milk, didn't know we needed cookies for that.
You like to attack any opposition rather than give it a chance, which is understandable, another human quality.
We as mammals should ask does the bonobo monkey do their homosexual acts as a sign of love or just because there was an inferior male there and they want to show dominance.
Do you agree we are mammals? I know this is a black and white question.
I don't care what marries what. I will vote my conscience. And gay marriage may get defeated at the polls next November, or it may not. I, for one, will vote against it. And here's the thing. Even though I vote against it, I admit that it probably wont' do any good. However, you still won't be able to babysit my kids, or work at my church. I'm not saying I wouldn't patronize your business...I probably would..and if I saw you in trouble I'd most likely help you out. You see, there's a difference between most of the people posting here, and me...I don't hate your flamin' guts with an unrivaled passion. I know you think I'm outmoded, and an old dinosauer, and maybe you're right. I just find it really peculiar that gays and their supporters holler about tolerating their lifestyle choices, then engage in intolerant bashing of those who disagree, no matter how nicely and respectfully they voice their disagreement. In the old days, we called that "hypocrisy".
And recently some news writers wrote about bigots, and praised the courage of those senators who "came to their senses". I read it all with a sinking feeling. The Seattle I had loved has now changed to embrace wickedness. And I suspect it's only going to get worse.
Congratulations, gays. May the best...uh..person, win.
No I don't think they love, I think they behave out of neccessity, I hate that word, I think I spelled it correctly. And thank you that helps my position that humans have these mental desires that we makeup, like love.
Lord Kellith, good point. that's just another thing as humans we have manipulated. the death to birth rate
You never felt love for someone? It's just a word we use to define a combination of emotions, sometimes including lust (as in your significant other) sometimes not.
I gave it a chance and it was full of holes, nothing more to it than that.
You can do the research into that yourself, bonobos have been studied quite in depth by numerous people. Some excellent books on the topic, because they are one of the few animals known to engage in sexual activity purely for pleasure (like humans).
When I referenced bonobos (which is actually a chimp) it was in regard to your 'wolf pack' comparison. I pointed out that bonobos and even monkeys are a better comparison THAN WOLVES. Your retort was that 'apes are better than monkeys'.... sigh.... either you missed the point entirely or you're just grasping at straws.
At least you admit it.
mikedesi0804,
Your starting premise about the biological imperative of wolves is called to task at the point that you use it to assume there are no gay wolves. How could you possibly know that?
Your criteria seems to me to be arbitrary and self-manufactured...kind if like your stance on fabricated stuff like love.
Dear Hillbilly (post 1.32):
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your post, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
This is just wrong...
Gratz to Washington, and I hope the bill becomes law. It would be great if this country would move more to the left on personal decisions like this. I'm not gay, but if someone wants to marry another person of the same gender, it doesn't affect me so I'm fine with it. (now if we can just get past worrying about things like nudity also...I never understood why it was ok to show dead bodies, but not boobs...something just seems wrong about those "values" to me)
Not that there's any chance of you reading this, but, Mountaineer, here's precisely how your rights are tolerated and respected: You don't give up any civil or legal rights when same-sex marriages become recognized.
Had inheritance rights based on marriage beforehand? You still have 'em. Had joint tax-filing privileges beforehand? You still have 'em. Had hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, and about a thousand others? Your opposite-sex marriage stills gets you all those civil rights and benefits when same-sex marriages start being recognized.
Nothing at all changes for you - and no one on the pro-same-sex marriage side is asking to take away any rights from you. That's how you are being respected and tolerated. You, on the other hand, seek to limit civil rights and privileges of same-sex couples, when the only thing you personally have at stake is *exclusivity.* Exclusivity is not a civil right.
Mil7887
Correct! - but consider that there were dozens of kings over Judah and Isreal that he removed because they governmentally did not follow his laws and enforce them on his people.
And thanks for destroying the liberal argument that "Jesus was a liberal" statement, and their arguing for goverment taking over health care, unemployment insurance, social security, daycare, education, . . . .
^^^^ I like this ^^^^
This is a good argument for Levi's position as well. He admits outright that he only seeks to restrict the rights of others purely because he doesn't like it.
Although I respect his right to his opinion, I don't have to respect the opinion itself. Primarily because an individual's civil rights are simply not up to the whims of whether or not a person thinks it's "icky" or if a person's religion forbids it. Pork is forbidden in some religions, would that make it right if the majority happened to be of that anti-pork religion and happened to vote on your right to eat pork? Would your eating pork put at risk or infringe the rights of that majority? Of course not - your civil rights are not up to the whims of the majority, nor would it harm the majority.
But see, that's essentially the argument that anti-gay-rights folks are making, that gay marriage somehow hurts them personally.... I have yet to see them substantiate that declaration with any sort of proof (because there is no proof). It's an empty argument, based in nothing but a person's bigotry... and the vain attempts at justifying that bigotry without having to admit what it is.
The fact that civil rights are even being voted on, as if an individual's liberty is up to a majority, is a fallacy in itself and entirely unconstitutional. But right now, that seems to be the only way to get things done.
Shuklack, I will also use your spectrum of thought now to validate the arguement of murderers and pedophiles. You in a very black and white statement said they aren't valid since they harm people.
Pedophiles: plenty of cases where adult age males of 18 and underage consenting females have sex, he's caught and considered a sex offender(pedophile) and they later marry. No one was harmed in that case
And this is not my view but the view of justice that murks what murder really is, old Kovorken, who with the patient's authority would take their life before the terminal illeness did was considered murder but the death penalty isn't.
You stated that things are more on a spectrum not black and white, so how can you say murderers and pedophiles as an arguement are a black and white statement since they harm people.
Actually in that case he's not considered a pedophile. A pedophile, by definition, seeks out pre-pubescent children. He committed what is known as 'statuatory rape'.
Whether or not nobody was harmed isn't for you to decide. The man was an adult by law, the girl was not - now in most cases the parents can consent to a sexual relationship (so charges aren't pressed) so long as the minor is within the 'age of consent' depending on the state. The minor can also get married with parental consent, so long as the child is at or above the 'age of consent'.
This age varies, and has varied, over the centuries.
I actually support a person's right to choose death when they are terminally ill. I'm really not sure how murder is entirely related to this either - and yes, there are definitely lots of grey areas when it comes to taking a life - which is why law has lots of grey areas encoded in it. For example, the wide variety of 'degrees' of homicide and manslaughter - as well as exemptions in the case of self-defense, war, and others.
Culbreath, I have never stated my stance on love that was a reply to a question. My premise is that we want religion out of the conversation concerning homosexuality. And again, I stand by there are no gay wolves in the wolfpack. My understanding of homosexuality is an emotion of love towards someone, not a pleasure or power over someone. We as humans complicate stuff to a point of grayness, where as mammals we don't have far to look for plane and simple, black and white evidence of why we do things. Animals, especially male animals behave to show dominance more than anything, because they want to reproduce. Gayness or homosexuallality, as of what I know it to be, doesn't exist in the animal kingdom
Shuklack, that is my point, they are charged with statutory rape, making him a sex offender with someone we as the people deemed underaged, I get your definition of pedophile, but these people are still labeled the same.
we humans make gray, and when did we start spelling it differently, I know both ways are accepted. again, we look to our cousins in the animal kingdom and they normally kill to show dominance, they keep things black and white.
I applaud you on this, since an argument sans religion is very rarely made - for good reason though, an argument sans religion doesn't work and has never worked in this case.
That's wrong, very wrong. Have anything to back that up?
It's called reality. We can't overcomplicate stuff that's already complicated because in reality it's complicated. We oversimplify stuff to the point of black and white, because we are apparently too stupid to deal with 'grayness'.
Reality is NOT black and white. Humans, as the innately bigoted species that we are, insist on imposing our will on reality by trying to make everything black and white. This insistence on 'simplification' is what leads to bigotry, racism, and a whole slew of social ills.
my bad for not defining homosexuality at the beginning. I assumed people for the vote knew that homosexuality isn't just a romp in the bed with a person of the same sex. I thought it to be defined as a much deeper connection then simple lust and physical attraction, at least what I have been told by homosexual friends. More of the emotions and bond.
If you, Branoz, truly believe that your god will do all those awful things to homosexuals, I MEAN TRULY BELIEVE THIS, then why are you ranting about it? Are you that unsure about your god's nastiness that you have to MAKE sure we (us sinners and condemed) are aware of that possibility? Why don't you, and your ilk, just relax and enjoy your lives and let your nasty evil god take care of us when we die. Unless, of course, you arn't sure about your god and are having a crisis of faith.
But then grayness waters things down to where do you take a stance and set perameters. You can gray things so much they have no meaning anymore
Its nice to see the Washington state Senate move along the process to return a basic right to the people of the State of Washington. Now we need the federal courts to return that same right to all of its citizens. The defense of marriage act, whether state or federal, is nothing more and nothing less than the removal of a basic right from US Citizens. There is NO valid defensable reason for such a law.
Both are sex offenders yes, but that doesn't make both pedophiles.
There is also a significant difference as well - pedophiles are attracted to children, and only children. Attraction to a female who is biologically sexually mature is a far cry from attraction to a pre-pubescent child. That's why that distinction exists - pubescent and pre-pubescent.
Now there are biological rules, and there are social rules. Society has deemed a sexually mature female below the age of 18 or 17 or whatever (depending on the state) as not having the mental maturity to consent. This is a result of an advanced society and protections for what this particular society deems as a minor.
Again, it's about CONSENT. An important word in this argument. A child cannot consent, an animal cannot consent, a ham sandwhich cannot consent, a sexually mature minor by law can SOMETIMES consent depending on the state's age requirements or the parent's position. Adults can consent.
That's just a variation of the slippery slope fallacy as defined above. It really is not a legitimate argument unless you can enumerate how moderated positions are not possible.
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction - just how Heterosexuality is defined by the attraction. Now a loving bond can form from that attraction - but a loving bond isn't a requirement for homosexuality or heterosexuality.
But before modern law, we worked off of what was natural, black and white. male and female read to reproduce, let it be. Now with law, we introduce gray. Again I ask that you keep in mind we are talking from a strictly animal(mammal) approach. Gray in this case has harmed many, that simply because of a one year difference a male is a criminal because the parent didn't approve of their consent. If we kept it Black and White and natural, when you are ready to reproduce then you are ready to help out the species.
I would hope loving bond is needed for marriage, yet another thing that is watered down by human desires. I want, then I don't want. I'll just get divorced.
No, this isn't true. Human society has always had homosexuals for as far back as human history is recorded. Some tribes today still hold onto ancient taboos stretching back to prehistory, and although homosexuality was generally taboo, it's not always seen as a 'bad thing'. In some tribes the homosexuals were indeed expected to still take a wife for having children, and take boyfriends for having fun. The fact that they took a wife to have children to help the tribe does not really make them any less homosexual.
Another example would be the 'third sex' in India. This has been recognized in India going back thousands of years. There is male, female, and then the 'third sex' - generally homosexuals.
In this society, it's no longer necessary to pop out babies to help the tribe - we aren't short on babies, there is very little pressure to reproduce - so remove the taboo of not having babies, and there pretty much no reason to consider homosexuality as a 'problem'. --- And as I said, even when reproduction was paramount to tribes, homosexuality was still accepted, they just simply expected the gay man to take a wife and have a few kids as well.
Black and white is NOT natural. How many times do I need to explain this?

For marriage yes. For attraction no. Pretty simple. And when it comes to marriage, our desires do everything but water it down.
I really need to wait on posting before my thoughts are finished. These people are fighting for love and their love to be recognized. If it were just a lust thing then consent is never needed. Why does a person need consent if they just lust, that is why people steal, rape, pornagraphy and perform beastiality, I'm sure you can argue that it's my property I do what I want to it. I know law states consent, but animals that have survived millenia never had laws dictating consent. We are so far off now, again my bad for not stating what I know these people are fighting over, love not lust or dominance. For me and the knowledge I have, in the animal kingdom most male behavior is always for dominance, that does not define homosexuality or heterosexuality to me, premise for no gay wolves. I have to go to work, great convo, these are better spoken then typed, and I don't usually post. but thanks again, peace out. Never did answer my black and white question if we are mammals??
ok quick reply, that statement was for the sex offender thing, which is why in next post I stated how far off the convo got. I know homosexuality has always been here, every culture speaks of it, one thing I chuckle at people acting like their issue is something completely new that has never happened before.
First, why did you alter my handle... to show derision?
And secondly you stated:
There, you said it again. :)
I ask again, how can you possibly know what is going on in the mind of the animal kingdom? I find your premises to be as "made up" as any of those you assert are "made up". I don't understand why you feel you can legitimately project your assertions without any sort of factual evidence; especially in light of observed and published factual evidence of homosexual behavior across many species.
ps I am not your enemy in this discussion...a combatant, yes...an enemy, no.
Too late! People are already allowed to marry outside their race. How appalling and unnatural!
why isn't black and white natural, I come of age it's time to reproduce. I come of age it's time to ween off mom. I need food so I go look for food. I'm attacked I must defend or run. Every part of science has a Constant that can not change, that is black and white. Now do I believe we can still be discerning with black and white, yes I do, but that is because I don't have hate in me. My opinions and your opinions do not dictate my feelings toward you or any other human. That is where the issue is, that is why grayness tends to look better than black and white. That's another convo
Have any of you anti-gay losers ever known a gay person or had a relatives who is gay or even talked to a gay person without hate talk being involved, FROM YOU? NO, I thought not.
The Nazi's killed gays maybe you should all go join some White Supremisists so you can feel at home and included with "people" of your own kind.
My son is gay and if I ever meet any you it will be very unpleasant and possibly painful, for you.
Jesus taught Grace,Acceptance and Forgiveness, obviously you mouth breathing fundamentalists missed that bit in your NIV Bible. You make people hate the very religion you are trying to promote.
Culheath, I apologize for the handle mistake haha.
One I and you are mammals straight from the primates, so there is a bond with knowing what animals think, and plenty of research by accredited and qualified scientist throughout time. Science has always been in my life, especially natural science from wild kingdom to Nova and all the reading. There is so much more evidence that animals behave for prominance more than any other thing. rams butting heads, lions running less dominant males off .... Homosexual behavior is a behavior that resembles the adjective Homosexual. These are Homosexual people by there own admittance are Homosexual and they aren't fighting to just have sex with their partner they are fighting to show they can love just as deep and true as heterosexual. That is where my differences lie.
And I agree not enemies, combatant, I like that word. Animalistic in nature, territorial.
Because it's not... reality (ie nature) is not black and white. This is obvious. Hell, it's been indicated in one way or another throughout this thread. The discussion on murder, pedophelia, and everything else just proves that things aren't black and white.
Laws try to accomodate the 'shades of grey' - the various degrees of offenses and the mountains of jurisprudence over history stand as a testament to the fact that reality is not black and white.
It's about balancing reality and the restrictions we seek to put on reality. Moderation is how we cope. Oversimplification leads tyranny, bigotry, and racism just like the other side of the spectrum is anarchy and chaos. Finding the balance between is what we strive for in human society.
In modern civilization we have coped with this by ensuring freedom and liberty for all - and that one person's liberty ends where another person's liberty begins. You have freedom so long as your freedom does not infringe upon the freedoms of others.
Right now, the freedoms of homosexuals are being infringed upon by those who seem to think their freedoms are more important.
those are laws we made to define things not nature
Are we really going to do this again? Here we go...
Finally, no, the founding father's didn't want Christianity in our laws. You can post all the quotes about their personal religion that you wish to, the truth remains...
James Madison...
"Strongly guarded is the separation of religion and government in the Consitution."
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Ben Franklin...
"I have found Christian dogma to be unintelligible."
Thomas Jefferson...
"I contemplate with solemn reverance the act of the American people which declared that their legislature 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
And, my personal favorite, from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, and ratified by congress...
"The United States was, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Woohooooooooo
Congrats to Washington. A step forward for everyone to have equal right in America.
Exactly, we make laws to manage the 'greys' of nature.
If nature was black and white - laws would not be necessary, it would be a different story all together. We don't impose complexity on nature; nature imposes complexity on us.
God hates cotton-poly blends.
I like #9 Sarah....
Being heterosexual, I must admit I really think it's rather gross when a very unattractive hetero-couple are making out/getting busy or whatever.
Because of my heterosexuality, obviously... I'm not attracted at all to dudes. I find dudes, in fact, rather unattractive. So I have a bit of a similar reaction to two dudes making out as I would an unattractive hetero couple.
But does this mean I want to ban ugly people from making out? How about from getting married? No, of course not, because that would make me a selfish pr!ck.
And even though they're unattractive and I find it icky because of the unattractiveness - I still feel a little fuzzy when I see unattractive people (or dudes) making out, because it's all-romatic-like regardless. I'd still clap at their wedding and be happy they found eachother.
Well put. I like dudes, myself. However, not ugly dudes and when they make out with ugly chicks, I really don't like it. I'm ambiguous to attractive gay couples making out and attractive hetero couples making out. Not a huge fan of unattractive gay couples making out.
However, they should all be treated the same under the law. If I don't like, I don't watch. Isn't freedom great!
Lol I guess I am also a bit more turned off by two ugly dudes than two good looking dudes. Like, if I HAD to choose to see one or the other, I'd prefer to see 2 Brad Pitts or something than two Sasha Cohens.
And as a secure heterosexual I am fine with admitting I can tell the difference.
- also, my stance on two women making out is a given =P lol.
Leaving many comments collapsed. Let's not turn this into a conversation on religion, folks.
fxdx1450, don't use anti-gay slurs please. You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 5 of the Code of Honor.
Seta, you have a history so you are suspended for a month. Last chance.
Just the Truth-830761, stop comment spamming and making broad-based personal attacks please.
You are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 and # 5 of the Code of Honor.
raleigh dolly wrote:
Really? I'll have to let my cousin know that--she's a lesbian and has 2 biological children.
Please don't use the same tired excuse of "well, they have to get fertility treatments"--I know plenty of heterosexual couples who used fertility treatments to have children.
Sarah, thanks for post #1.111. Well spoken.
love is ALWAYS a great thing. Congratulations, Washington!
We're FINALLY dragging the US into the 21th century
DBAkron
That's fine. No one, and I repeat no one, is keeping you from believing that. But how does someone else NOT following YOUR beliefs (including other Christians) hurt you?
Wrong. The whole point is those of us who don't oppose gay marriage are the ones who DO care about others. We care that they have the same legal, social rights as every one else.
And besides, you have yet to show how gay marriage harms anyone. It would be different if
a: You were FORCED to marry someone of your own sex.
b: Your church (synagogue, Mosque, whatever) was forced to perform gay marriage against the believe of that particular religion.
Then yes, you could show harm. But you have not yet shown harm ... merely disagreement.
Levi ..
That's perfectly fine. It's your choice to make. I do not feel that churches who do not support gay marriage should be required to perform them. That's the whole "freedom of religion" thing. But those churches shouldn't have the right to say what their NON MEMBERS do.
Actually, most people who are arguing the "anti-gay" side are hardly "nicely and respectfully voicing their disagreement". The ones that do, are generally answered the same way.
And this is a "nice and respectful" way of "voicing your disagreement"?
Sally, it may be foolish to disagree with Newsvine, but I respectfully DO disagree. I think that gay marriage is very definitely a conversation on religion. The basis of most of the arguments concerning gay marriage are religious ... those that use the Bible to rail against it and those who use Christian compassion.
SARAH Et Alii: Marriage is the basic social institution of all societies, tribes, etc. in all history in all the world. It is not religious in origin. There are only Two sexes. Hermaphrodites are accidents like two-headed people etc. Men with breasts are Men. Ancient Greek men were very homosexual, having sex with small boys, teenage boys, and men, but they married only Women.
Marriage is a responsible stable biological union of the two sexes of the human species for reproduction of the species and the raising of the children that are produced. Infertility can be a cause of divorce or annulment. Property has not been and even today is not a universal characteristic of marriage. Property can be exchanged to purchase a bride, or for a bride to take to her husband. But there are tribes in the Amazon that are true communists and all work together to make the huge common lean to for up to 200 people. Each person makes his or her utensils, clothing, hammock, etc. There is nothing to inherit except skills.
Many forms of marriage have been or are permitted throughout history even of the US, and have legal precedent. Polygamy wasn't prohibited until the mid 19th century in the US, but there are various religious groups, the largest being the Muslims, who permit or promote polyfamy. Can they be denied if it is their religious belief if we permit homosexuals to marry?
Another precedent is the marriage of young girls in the US. In the 1870s and 1880s the age of sexual consent for girls varied between 10 and 12 years of age. There were cases of girls marrying at that age even more recently. As homosexual activists speak of homosexual children and teens, it is to be surmised that they are the next goal of homosexual militants, and there have been many attempts to enter the public schools to propagandize their (non-scientific) beliefs or teachings. Since many say young girls have "reproductive rights" in speaking of abortion, is it not logical that at least they have the right to reproduce as well and with whomever they wish?
There are few examples of legalized Incestual marriage, the most famous being the Pharaohs of Egypt marrying their sisters or half-sisters, although some scholars say that it was frequent among the common people as well. Herodotus mentioned that he could find no virgins in Egypt, so it must have been common in households to use the girls. There's an old saying from India, "What, you have a 10-year-old virgin? Has she no cousins, uncles, brothers, father?" If the two siblings are adults, what are the objections to this type of marriage? Genetics? Negative factors don't necessarily come into play in these cases. Besides, what other genetic conditions block marriage?
Marriage with animals is poo-pooed by Sarah and others, but there are thousands of "furries" who practice bestiality in the US. There are several countries where it is not illegal. Since Consent has not always been requited in marriage, why should the animals be required to "consent", especially if they are the property of the person? There are examples of pets inheriting large patrimonies and special treatments and even being allowed entry to wherever the owner is.
Group marriages have been promoted whereby either several men marry several women in a promiscuous heterosexual relationship, or several men and women engage in a bisexual relationship, of several people of the same sex marry each other. Why does the "new marriage" have to be limited to only two people? Because that is historical? Logic? You toss out history and precedent to quote history and precedent?
The question is, if you are going to change the Universal characteristics of marriage for one group, why not change it to suit all people? Otherwise, it is discriminatory by your same reason. Please everyone else, or leave marriage as it has always been. Civil unions will take care of the rest.
Sarah says we must follow legal precedent!! How absurd, when that is exactly what you are violating in completely redefining "Marriage" and trashing Sociology, Anthropology, History, Biology! Also she argues that the partners have to be adults? Who says so? She does? Why? What about children's rights, and in "Reproductive Rights". A 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles got pregnant by her lover-seducer. Her mother wanted an abortion, but the girl did Not. So she has no rights?
Let's face it folks, this has become an ideological battle for One Group only and it requires overturning the whole nature of marriage. It has been refused by the People, where they get to vote on it, but the "Vanguard Party", as the Communists used to call themselves, will think for the People and impose the opinion of those who have the money and the voting blocks and the press in those states where the People are denied the Right to Vote, or else some judges will Legislate. The un-thinking will follow, for as Dr. Martin Luther King wrote, "For most people, there is nothing more disagreeable than having to think." Right on, Dr. King!
that very comment shows your bias and ignorance. those tribes aren't "true communists", they live communually, but don't know about the idealogy, don't want to know about communist idealogy, and wouldn't care is they did.
like corporate and billionaire financed "super-pacs" doing their absolute best to silence the message of any opposition by buying up the resources to scream louder than anyone else to the point that they are capable of completely drowning any opposing message through sheer dollar power
why is it that so many conservatives claim to be all for freedom from government interference, and then turn right around and do their absolute best to legislate fantastically intrusive government controls of an individuals most basic choices?
Sally, I hear what you are saying, but the facts are, it's religion that teaches and preach bigotry and hate toward gay people. So for me, any gay Vine story will always have religion to come up in it sine people use religion to attack gay people.
People collapse people's comments because sometimes they hate reading and hearing the truth on how ugly religion is.
Why post on the Vine if you are going to be censored and told what you can or cannot post, or express your opinions.
George,
Because women were property, sold by their male guardians and had doweries. Hence, the contractual property agreement.
Wrong, marriage today is mostly economic. Not many people marry just to have children, and everyone who is married engages in sexual behavior that doesn't create children, nor does everyone who gets married want/have children. In addition many who aren't married procreate.
No, I don't even get where you are coming from on this one. Religious polygamy is legal under the 1st Amendment, since it doesn't negatively effect the populace. As I've already mentioned above, gay marriage won't lead to legal, accross the board polygamy. The state doesn't have a good enough reason to rewrite all of the family law statutes, tax codes, insurance laws, probate laws, yada, yada, yada. There isn't enough interest in it.
Women/girls have rights to their bodies and privacy. They already have the right to reproduce with whoever they wish. What they don't have before the age of consent is legal capacity, that's why it's the older person in a statutory rape case that gets in trouble. This is also the reason gay marriage won't lead to pedophilia. That whole paragraph was so illogical/paranoid, I'm not sure it even deserved a response, but there you go.
No, they don't. Bestiality is having sex with an animal, not having sex with a legal, consenting adult, dressed up like an animal. This might be the most epic failure of logic ever.
We already went over this, there isn't enough interest to justify rewriting contract law, property law, family law, probate law, insurance law, tax law....
The laws of consent we already have.
As my friends Shuklak and Indie said the other day, nothing doesn't equal something. Removing religious elements used in law doesnt' constitute a state support of Athieism. To use Indie's example, if you're pushing against a wall, and you stop pushing, does that now mean the wall is pushing you??? NO! Furthermore, if the absense of religion constituted a state sanction of religion, we would have to right disclaimers on every non-religious everything, that said "This is not a sanction of Athieism".
George, that was an epic failure and a total waste of your time. Just saying.
Way to go Washington State!
The Enumclaw horse sex case was a 2005 incident in which Kenneth Pinyan[1] (June 22, 1960 – July 2, 2005), an American Boeing engineer residing in Gig Harbor,[2] died from receiving anal sex with a stallion at a farm in an unincorporated area in King County, Washington, near the city of Enumclaw. He had videotaped previous sex acts with the horses and distributed them informally under the name Mr. Hands.
Gay sex with a horse in Washington State
In this country "All [people] are created equal." If a person loves another person, who are you to say they can't get married. Religious people always say that homosexuals are out to destroy marriage, but straight people have destroyed it all on their own, 50% of marriages end in divorce these days and 15-18% of married people have admitted to cheating on their spouse. Gay people just want to be able to make the same commitment to their partner that the rest of us are able to. Who are you to stop them?
LOLOL no idea what that had to do with anything roger but it was a good laugh
....and Washington state slips another notch down the scale....
For you MORONS who just DON'T get it! Every gay man or woman has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight man or woman. The institute of marriage was designed as a special relationship within which a couple (1 MAN & 1 WOMAN) was encouraged to procreate and raise children thereby cementing and continuing the societal fabric of a country or "a land". When a "society" tries to normalize deviant behavior by including that behavior in an institution that it was not meant to exist in... You devalue the REAL relationship that marriage was designed to honor, and make the institution worthless on its face. Which in turn leads to the degradation of society as a whole.
Congratulations Washington State for taking another step BACKWARDS!!!!!
Where's the referendum....I would like to sign it now!
Wasn't even a good laugh. Roger sounds like a very sick man. He is insinuating gay sex is the same as beastiality. I love my house, I should marry it. I love my car, I would marry her, but maybe I can't since she is my dead mother. Wow, to no ends will some here try to justify their homophobia.
To those who are sickened by seeing two men or two women kiss, I say it is equally repugnant seeing a man and woman doing the same in public. Get a freakin room, I say. I say that to a couple of same sex too.
All you religeous bible thumping morons who spout off about the constitution, stop treading on my rights to not only have my freedom of religion, but my freedom to reject it as well.
The second amendment does NOT give you the right to kill us.
You will not take over my house to quarter soldiers, (unless they are cute (joking here)) or we have been invaded and it is necessary.Pitch a tent in my yard if ya have to.
Stay out of my bedroom. Don't harass me on the streets.
Do not deprive me of my life, liberty,or property
If you prosecute me, I want a jury of MY peers.
Stop bashing me for being me
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (show me where it says anything about me marrying anyone I want).
Just let me marry my man so I can have the right to be as miserable as you are!
And to those family members who disowned me for being me, after I die, DO NOT contest my last will and testament. I don't want you to have my @!$%#.
I don't know that congratulations is in order, I think in terms of big picture that this is a mistake - it does depend upon your point of view though in our world.
What I find intersting is that this is precisely what Sen Rick Santorum stated to students. This is a representative democracy. If don't agree with a law, work to convince the majority of the people to and the lawmakers to change the law. That is why it is called - a "representative democracy".
Just the Truth
That is correct. Short of the Old testament statement that the first marriage was Adam and Eve, there is no understanding as to where the term came from, but the tenants of marriage were, not only one person of each sex enter this covenant, but it was to insure procreation and the raising of the resulting offspring occured.
Throughout history it is clear that husband was a man, and wife was a woman. My how twisted we can make things, just because we want things our own way.
Yeah, how dare society change the things which society created.
Just the Truth: You have your head stuck so far up your arse you are blinded by religious zealotry.
hurray! this is awesome! i think god would very much approve of gay marriage. isn't god love, not hate?
not if you are an evangelical, or worse, a Christian dominionist. (the American Taliban)
I just can't stand the blatant hypocrisy inherent in such remarks as "we love you,we just hate that demons won't let you see things the way we want you to."
Where they going?
Out of the backwoods theocracy BS.
We in Washington state are going to the ballot. What a stupid move for the dems here. I normally vote Democratic but they really screwed up on this one. The republicans here are loving this one.
We in Washington State are going to take this to the ballot if we must and get it passed. Marriage should be available to all adult Washington and U.S. residents. No one has the right to impose their private religious views on anyone else. This is a secular country.
So, a widow or widower beyond child-bearing age should not be allowed to marry, as with those who are sterile. Please vote Newton Leroy Gingrich for the republican nominee.
JustTheTruth ... spamming the same message over and over again doesn't make it any more valid.
Yeah, he'd be better off defending his stance against the reasoned rebuttles in the first thread. But we all know he does not have the intellectual capacity to accomplish such a task.
Also, he's a rereg troll - which means he is really really incapable of defending his position.
Maybe some day he will realize that if he can't defend his position with a cogent argument, then his position is not valid.
Excellent!!
Nice.
This whole gay marriage thing is a farce. It's pretty funny gays are now allowed to marry but there are no gays wanting to marry each other. All they wanna do is be promiscuous and play house and act normal, leave them alone. LMAO!!
Thanks for your support albeit a left handed one. You should have left out "it doesn't mean anything to me." People's rights should mean something to everybody.
Donald: Do you get any smarter when you are sober? Just askin.
@jpsholly,
Rights too be gay lol, Of course people have the right too be gay just like people have the right too be pedophiles, complusive masterbators, etc.. Perverts will be Perverts!!
Whatever a person perversion behind closed doors is there business. I don't give a damn just keep that weird stuff too yourself and don't hit on me and we'll be cool lol
I think Donald's response just made me dumber for having read it.
or just like people have the right to take a spelling class in the 1st grade and realize the difference between "too" and "to" eh, Donald?
Seems someone is full of themselves. Nice to see you supporting this cause though. You choice of colors are well received within the gay community. They thank you for your undying support.
Donald, does the nurse know you have access to the internet?
Don't worry Donald, the gays won't hit on you, they prefer ecucated ones that can spell. It is their, not there
Man... I have 3 weddings to go to this year. Two of them are for gay couples. I'm pretty sure they are stoked to get married. And their weddings are just as real as anyone else's. *Proud to be from Iowa
C'mon Donald - fess up. You tried a toy didn't you? Huh? You liked it too. I get that you don't want anyone to know about it, but I bet you look on craigslist for that discreet little experiment like so many married men. We want you to know it's ok. You don't have to marry him. It'll be your little secret, and well, ours now too, but we won't tell anyone.
Actually, my aunts who have been in a committed relationship for more than 30 years would very much like to get married. This bill finally gives them the right. I speak for my entire family when I say that we couldn't be happier.
Donald none of us have any problem with your need to masturbate. In fact, we support your right to do it.
Whack at it if you want!
From reading you I am sure it will be your only outlet for your frustrations.
And don't try to pretend you never choked your chicken, Even Frank Perdue would be proud of you compared to his companies record.
By the way, it is true if you do it too much you will go blind...
Just saying'
What was that?!!!?!? Did the lights go out in your trailer?!?!
Oh, Starbuck. Check your spelling. You have fallen victim to Muphry's Law, aka the Iron Law of Nitpicking.
I probably have too. That is the way Muphry's (sic) Law goes. :-)
Awesome about Washington, by the way!
"Don't worry Donald, the gays won't hit on you, they prefer ecucated ones that can spell. It is their, not there"
ecucated? If you accuse one of misspelling words, spell them right yourself. Plus, how do you know gays are only interested in men who can spell. That's a pretty broad, generalist statement that can only lead to stereotyping. And I know how much you liberals hate that "S" word (even though you do it all the time).
Yeah, gay people only want to have promiscuous sex. I am completely confident that their are absolutely no stereotypes of black men who do the exact same thing. Hey at least homosexuals are unable to run out on on their children due to the fact they cannot biologically reproduce; a thing I pray you have not been able to do yet. Also keep on doing loose comparisons of homosexuals to "pedophiles, complusive masterbators, etc.. Perverts will be Perverts!!" and I will return the favor and just say keep on being an ignorant dip-@!$%#, with a below average IQ, I mean I support your decision to do so and for monkeys, coons, and 90% of food stamp recipients to do so as well.
This law will make the divorce lawyers happy
You don't know @!$%# about gays and you probably don't even live in Washington, so what does it have to do with you?
Never mind her fencesitter, she's still upset because someone dropped a house on her sister.
We can see our liberty from government being shunned. Demand by a group hijacked by progressives within a society of individuals with inalienable rights to life liberty and pursuit to happiness pretending they don't to impose upon marriage instead of facing responsibility for their liberty.
A legislator has no claim to care how Christopher from the village feels about himself and no right to enable popular delusion and ignore the entire reason there is a word to describe men and women committing, celebrated because of the promise in hope for propagation - more men and women.
There was a gay guy who also was a coworker. He made the mistake of trying to talk about his weird sex life on a break, and what he was going to do with his "sweetie" when he got off of work. After I told him my other coworkers and myself don't want to hear about his weird sex life, he ran like a baby to the front office to tell them I upset his weird a$$. I was called in and when I was about to be scolded for hurting his weird feelings, I immediately said that if they didn't back off, my lawyer would hear about this sexual harassment case! That was the end of that bit of weirdness!!! I nipped that in the bud very quickly!!!
johnny swift, funny how you cry about "governemnt intrusion" and turn right around and demand that the government intrude on what people do with each other.
a true Constitutional Conservative would not want the Government to have ANY say in marriage, one way or the other.
but the religious right loves to trample the rights of others with their sharia law
Just to answer the question about what scripture says about homosexuality:
Romans 1
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Funny is seeing someone compelled to respond like that.
Also,
Psalm 103:8-12 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
God knows what is the right and best way and the Bible gives the perfect advice. When we sin and go our own way, everything becomes messed up and confused--like this world definitely is with all the hate and wars and perversion. God loves people, but He is just and hates sin. People have a choice to reject the God Who made them or follow what He says which leads to peace and eternal life.
sreply.
I'm concerned that you stopped at the end of chapter 1. Don't you think people should know what comes next?
Romans 2: "1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."
Seriously, I'm a Christian, but homosexuality is one 'sin' I'm fine leaving between homosexuals and God. I don't understand it, and I don't need to be involved.
Even the Pope stroked the chicken.
sreply i doubt god hates gay people. he created them. and the world has always had problems. not just now.
God hates scallops. It's right there in Leviticus. He also hates cotton-poly blends. Are you all as concerned about Wal-Mart clothes and Red Lobster??? Perhaps, with that "limited government" conservatives desire, you can pass statutes insisting that adults wear only 100% cotton???
Fantastic news!
Oregon Next, I hope!!!!
Here here.....
Now that makes my day. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Religious Right.
That is also legal in WASH, with a prescription.
And now on the ballot for full legalization.
What a progressive state! :)
Washington is regressing. They are going ass backwards straight to Hell.
The DEMONcrats are regressive not progressive. They are on the Highway to Hell.
I don't begrudge gay couples making commitment to each other, I think that is fine and we had domestic partner laws here in WA but that was not enough. Why do homosexuals have to have to usurp our language? First it was the word gay, now its marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. By the way homosexuals weren't denied the right of marriage, they chose not to by choosing not to marry someone of the opposite sex, so now they get special rights! Lets pick a different word to destroy the meaning of to represent a homosexual couples commitment to each other, how about companionship, or abhoration?
Why do homosexuals have to have to?..chose not to by choosing not to....word to destroy the meaning of to...too much to
Seeing that progress means moving forward, and that it's the right which advocates going back to some fabled 'golden age' that doesn't really exist.
I think you might be confused.
Mark,
"Marriage" is a contractual property agreement, predating all organized religion. They would be usurping your words if they wanted to call it "Holy Matrimony".
Religion, usurped it from the law.
I would argue, Sarah, that there is more to marriage than a contractual property agreement between two parties. The rules regarding marriage don't change from transaction to transaction like other contractual arrangements. The rules regarding marriage are defined and imposed by the larger society in which it is practiced. That is why marriage rights are denied to certain groups of people. The society is party to the contract, and the society retains the right to decide with whom it will contract and with whom it will not.
Indeed, marriage is about the love between two people and their commitment to spend their lives together.
And that's all.
No, Walt, it is not.
Brothers are precluded from marrying their sisters, and mothers from marrying their sons because the society refuses to recognize that kind of pairing as fitting its agreed-upon definition of marriage. The same is true for group marriage. Even if everyone in the group loves each other and wants to commit to spend their lives together, it is not permitted by our society. Gay marriage is also a precluded class in our society. It is by no means the ONLY precluded class. If gay rights activists are really about equal rights with regard to marriage, they would lobby just as hard for marriage rights to groups and siblings as it does for gay couples.
Yes it is. You clearly know nothing about what marriage means.
No it isn't. That's only the case in offensively bigoted states.
Actually, Walt, it is you who seems to be having trouble grasping the concept of marriage.
Society in this country expresses itself through how it votes. And every time the question has been put before the voters to express society's opinion on the matter, marriage has been precluded from same-sex couples. Even in California.
To my knowledge, marriage rights have only been granted to same-sex couples by judicial fiat, or legislative action. Not by a vote that expresses the will of the people of the society. In these cases, the society is being compelled against its will to contract with people it would prefer not to contract with. That is an affront to liberty. If the issue is put to a vote in Washington state (as I'm sure it will be) and the people indicate by their vote that they wish to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in Washington, then I have no problem with it.
Ask yourself, Walt. Are you in favor of extending marriage rights to groups? Would you extend marriage rights to siblings? Parents and children? If so, then you may have a claim on an argument for equal treatment. If you are not willing to extend marriage rights to these people from whom marriage rights are precluded, and you only want to extend those marriage rights to same-sex couples, then YOU are just as offensively bigoted as the states you decry and you are a hypocrite to boot.
actually, I'd be fine with group marriage among adults, but incestual relations have a clear and deletrious effect if they have offspring, as well as typically springing from controlling older sibling/parent and not love, so should remain banned.
@Paul: I clearly understand marriage better than you, since I understand it as it is, instead of how you want it to be. You simply aim to impose your preference for what marriage is on others instead of respecting other people as you would expect them to respect you. You violate the Golden Rule, and nothing so clearly labels your perspective as immoral than that.
Society in this country expresses itself through its specific means of governance, with a legislature that passes laws, an executive branch that executes them, and a judiciary that ensures that the rights of all are protected. This is very deliberately not a democracy, and instead is a constitutional republic. Otherwise, we'd probably would have had slavery far longer than we did, and perhaps women still wouldn't have been able to vote, if your wet-dream of tyranny of the majority was allowed to hold sway.
You talk about liberty. Given your inclination towards tyranny of the majority, you probably wouldn't recognize liberty if it hit you in the face. Liberty is not you getting the right to impose your will on others; it is the right of everyone to govern themselves. Each person's body, family and home are for most practical purposes their own domain, and each person has an unassailable right to personal liberty.
The right for two non-related adults to marry and live their lives together with all the benefits of society that the rest of us enjoy should not be interfered with to placate right-wing religious reactionaries seeking to return our nation to callous barbarism.
So, danwill, since you are of the mind that marriage should only be conferred upon persons with regard to the welfare of any potential offspring, you must be against gay marriage, right? The nature of the biologies of the respective parties precludes any offspring.
Walt, you also don't seem to understand the concept of a representative democracy (ie republic) any more than you understand the concept of marriage.
With regard to representative democracy, you seem to be of the mind that it is up to a few powerful elites (judges, legislators) to decide what is best for everyone and impose their will upon society, without regard for the will of that society as expressed through the way it votes. That is how it works in totalitarian dictatorships, friend, not in a representative democracy.
With regard to marriage, you seem to be of the mind that it should be extended to any two people who love each other and want to commit to each other. But that is not how it is. That is HOW YOU WANT IT TO BE. At least as far as it benefits gay couples.
As I've already said, a brother and sister who love each other and want to commit to each other are not afforded marriage rights in our society. You have not indicated whether you think marriage rights should be extended to them as well. What rationale do you use to preclude related adults from marrying? Or, again, a group of non-related adults who want to marry and live their lives together. What rationale do you use to limit it to two? I'll bet it boils down to something like "well that's just gross".
You have very strong opinions, which I admire. It's too bad you haven't informed them with anything of substance and can't respond intelligently to even this most basic line of reasoning.
Yet-another vacuous, "No I'm right you're wrong!" The reality is that I understand both things far better than you do, as evidenced by my positions and my explanations in this seed.
On the contrary, what I know is that it is the responsibility of the judiciary to protect the citizenry from tyranny of the majority - that a majority vote is not a valid cudgel to withhold from citizens all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. Your implication to the contrary is both morally offensive and un-American.
It is how it is now here in Massachusetts, and the reason it is that way now, here, is because it is the only just conclusion from an honest and forthright consideration of basic human rights and the United States Constitution. It's a matter of morality, which is why, perhaps, you may have trouble understanding and appreciating it. Not everyone achieves an understanding of society's current inadequacies, with regard to protecting all its members fairly, at the same rate.
There are myriad things we ALL believe today that a hundred years from now most people will recognize as barbaric. We are tomorrow's barbarians. I don't know which things we'll come to understand better and realize we're unjustly and immorally oppressing today ... if I did, I'd advocate for them. I do know about the ones that I am aware of, and I do advocate for those.
That's nothing but self-serving clap-trap. Your failure to understand the substance of what I've written and how is it strongly supported by our nation's principles and by basic human decency is your failing, not mine.
Let's see...
On the contrary, your explanations and positions show you clearly do not understand the role of the federal judiciary (which is to defend the U.S. Constitution against encroachment by the other branches of government, not protect citizens from a tyrannical majority).
A majority vote is how the citizens of a society codify the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. That is why it is appropriate to ask the society whether it wants to confer marriage rights upon gay couples in a popular vote. The society, as I've previously stated, is a party to the marriage contract and should not be compelled to contract with persons with whom it does not wish to contract.
What I also understand about morality, and you apparently do not, is that morality is a highly personal thing. What is moral to me may be entirely different than what is moral to you. A society's collective morality is also expressed in the way it votes, and again, gay marriage has failed every time it has been put to a vote.
This is a very clumsy and completely inadequate deflection of an honest question you are obviously afraid to answer, because it will reveal your own bigotry. Any argument you have expressed in support of gay marriage can also be made by any other of the groups for whom marriage rights are excluded. That you would extend marriage rights to gays, and not the others, is comically hypocritical. And that is your failing, not mine.
Wrong. My explanation and positions show clearly that I do understand the role of the federal judiciary. As I said, to protect the citizenry from tyranny of the majority - that a majority vote is not a valid cudgel to withhold from citizens all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship. Your implication to the contrary is both morally offensive and un-American. And your repeating your offensive counter-perspective doesn't make it any less offensive.
Wrong. Society, when it does vote on such things, codifies the rights, benefits and responsibilities of citizenship by majority vote of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Once codified, the judiciary interprets the code to determine what it means in the context of specific circumstances.
Get over yourself. You aren't Lord High Inquisitor. You asked a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question and I answered it on my terms. I am not bigoted against any of the groups you outlined. Not one of them. You are simply lying to try to have some rebuttal to what I wrote. You're projecting your own bigotry, and clearly a broad-based bigotry, onto others.
I understand it very well, and the only rational conclusion from this very fact you yourself have expressed is that with regard to a matter such as same-sex marriage, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
since no offspring can be produced, your entire "point" is completely irrelevant. since it has repeatedly been demonstrated that adopted children raised by gay parents grow up perfectly healthy and very well-adjusted, there is no reason top prevent them from marrying each other.
reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? last time I checked, "incestuous relationships" pretty much covers all categories of "related adults".
and
by your statements, you clearly believe that it is perfectly Constitutional for a group (right-wing religious fanatic Christians in this case) to vote to eliminate the citizenship of all who disagree with them and eject them from this country. and the Courts would be powerless to do anything about it.
so much for your hypocritical and utterly false claims of belief in the US Constitution
Paul,
This will be quick...
No, marriage is a contract with consideration only between the two parties. Hence the reason "society" doesn't get a share in a divorce.
Group marriage/polygamy being legalized would mean we would have to rewrite family law, probate law, tax law, insurance law, yada, yada, yada, and there isn't enough state interest or public interest to garner that kind of time and money. And, it is legal for limited religious reasons.
No, it isn't comparable to incest. First, you basically can marry your cousins. Second, incest between immediate family members is based in abuse, power, control, and mental illness. If you can find me two immediate family members who didn't have abuse issues while below the age of consent, and literally knew they were family members, were healthy adults, and wanted to marry anyway, well more power to them.
We don't vote on civil rights. This is a republic.
This bears repeating. The presumption that a religious zealotry has a right to inflict itself on people who subscribe to other beliefs systems is patently un-American.
Walt,
I really can't get over this...
Paul,
This bears repeating too...
Wow, so wrong. The society is only a party to the contract because people like you try to insert yourselves into it. Two names go on a marriage lisense. Two parties work out a pre-nup, divorce, or child custody. Two adults file taxes together or share insurance.
The only way society is a party to it, is by being intrusive. Get your nose out of other people's business.
Then what are "pre-nuptial agreements"?
You are wrong, Sarah.
Marriage is defined by the society in which it is practiced, hence it is a party to the contract. There are places on the planet where polygamous marriage is commonplace, and times in history when marrying a sibling was not taboo. The rules regarding marriage are put in place by the society, and our society has rejected gay marriage every time it has been put to a vote.
Marriage is not a civil right any more than voting is a civil right. (It's not, otherwise it would be unlawful for convicted felons to be denied voting rights like they are). These are rights that are conferred by society as the society sees fit; not a judge or legislature.
What happens between two consenting adults in their bedroom is their business. When they come out of the bedroom and demand marriage rights from the society in which I live, it becomes my business.
just as easily:
"When those mixed-race marriages come out of the bedroom and demand marriage rights from the society in which I live, it becomes my business. so I have the "right" to vote against their rights"
you never answered my point:
by your statements, you clearly believe that it is perfectly Constitutional for a group (right-wing religious fanatic Christians in this case) to vote to eliminate the citizenship of all who disagree with them and eject them from this country. and the Courts would be powerless to do anything about it.
which perfectly reflect your statements about one group having the right to vote against the rights of another
my position is that the government has absolutely no place whatsoever passing laws declaring what personal choices one may make, providing those choices do not bring harm to others. any true libertarian will tell you likewise. I don't always agree with libertarians, but they have some very good points about personal freedom and the right of an individual to make their own choices without government interference.
The government has not passed any laws declaring what personal choices one may make in this regard. Homosexual behavior is not illegal, nor should it be. Marriage, as I've already stated, is a contract to which society is a party. And society should get to decide with whom it will contract. Society decides those things by the way it votes. The government telling the society with whom it must contract is an infringement of liberty and constitutes exactly the kind of government interference you seem to be against.
It is wrong-headed to equate one's sexual preference to an immutable aspect of a person's identity like race. Sexual preference is manifested by the way one behaves. There is no 'black' way of behaving, nor is there an 'asian' way of behaving. There are a few high-profile examples I can think of off the top of my head of people going gay then going back.
But back to my original point; marriage, in our society is narrowly defined. It denies marriage rights to many people; not just gay people. So answer my question! Are you in favor of extending marriage rights to siblings? groups? If you are not, and you only wish to extend them to gay couples, then you do NOT own the "marriage equality" argument because even you would deny marriage rights to some people. And your rationale for doing so is the same rationale that precludes gay people from marrying.
I should hope so; mine certainly is. But the contractual property agreement is the only aspect of the marriage over which I cede any sovereignty to the state; the state is not qualified to oversee any other.
I would legalize plural marriage (to which I am neither morally nor politically opposed, though I couldn't imagine living in such circumstances) and consanguineous marriage, as well. Since marriages between parent and child, even where the child is an adult, could have an element of coercion, I find the notion a little suspect, but I think that cases of abuse or coercion could be addressed case-by-case through laws regarding domestic abuse and/or sexual harassment (which is concerned almost entirely with power dynamics).
Not really. They might do well to support such groups if and when they make their voices known, but it's not my job to give a voice to every voiceless minority. One's political interests will necessarily arise from whatever other interests one carries about.
Definitely; yes, despite some misgivings; possibly, if there are enough cases that demonstrably don't involve coercion.
The point of a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy, is that we vote for our representatives, who then appoint those authorities they are empowered to appoint; all then "impose their will upon society," so to speak, to whatever degree they are not constrained by either federal or state constitutions. I would submit, on the one hand, that the doctrine of free exercise of religion amounts to a mandate for moral self-determination; thus the state is not empowered to legislate morality. Beyond that, though, it seems rather clear to me that when individual laws are subjected to popular vote, we are no longer engaged in representative democracy.
Precisely why morality should not be the basis for legislation.
Inevitably, yes. But those for whom citizens vote are, or should be (if free exercise actually has any meaning), at liberty to live according to whatever moral codes they devise for themselves (generally on a collective basis). That is, citizens may vote according to the whole of their concerns, including moral conviction, but the government which they elect candidates to run are extremely limited in their capacity to impose moral precepts by way of law.
Trouble is, we are a pluralistic society. The way I see it, the state is still too large a unit to accurate determine what any given society is willing to tolerate; after all, Seattle is quite demonstrably a different society from Spokane (for instance), given the cultural distance. On the other hand, because certain federal rights are currently conferred upon marriage, contracts recognized in those municipalities should be subject to Full Faith & Credit, just as states are.
Not really; sexual orientation circumscribes sexual or erotic responsiveness, and with whom one falls in love; the way in which that manifests is incidental. One can choose the manifestation, but not what is being manifested. I, after all, would hardly claim to have chosen to love my wife.
Going from homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior, you mean, and that could be indicative of either bisexual responsiveness or a willingness to engage in relations with someone to whom one is not erotically or romantically responsive.
Yep. More or less.
Oh God...the religious zealots...I can hear them chanting...
"Burn in hell...burn in hell...BURN IN HELL...BURN IN HELL!"
The zealots came last time with referendum 71 and the voters sent them packing. And soon we will get to see the names on the petitions and the organizations who gave them money so we can use it as a guide to where NOT to spend our money :)
Thanks Washington state! Haters to the (far) right. Bring your little referendum. Washington voters will tell you to get lost like they did when they approved REF 71 after you put your silly referendum up there last time. HOPEFULLY you won't even dig up enough signatures this time. Oh, and all your signature names for that referendum will soon be exposed to the public (again) once you run out of your pathetic appeals. Also, lets see those videos! The judges have reached a decision whether or not to make THOSE public and will let us all know tomorrow :)
The only reason you want those names to be public is so you and the rest of the disgusting left can persecute those with whom you disagree. You pigs make me sick
Hi someguy, it works both ways. People shouldnt be able to hide behind the skirts of justice while throwing stones. Personally, I would rather keep my money away from businesses that support hatred and vitrol. The days of hoods and shadows should be long past us. Face to face in respectful debate just like we saw at the senate debates in Washington State tonight.
Why is "free enterprise" suddenly "disgusting" to you, someguy?
Aren't people free to decide where to spend their money?
LOL, really Cyrix? Have you met many of the extreme right? They are not scared and wouldn't mind a good fight. How silly.
It's not "persecution" to withold my custom from businesses that espouse behaviors that I find offensive. It's actually totally all-American. As a long-time customer, I stopped shopping at WalMart when I found out how they treated their female workers. As an American citizen, I have the right to spend my hard-earned money where and how I choose - for whatever reason I choose. You can't tell me that as a bigot, you won't turn around and walk out of any business that is full of gay couples. It's your right. As Americans, we HAVE to have the right to examine petitions and verify the names. I have a right to know who is working behind the scenes to take away my equal protection under the law, as enshrined in the Tea Potty's oh-so-sacred Constitution. (Well... "Sacred" EXCEPT for the first half of the Second Amendment, that is...)
Why shouldn't the NORMAL people of Washington state know who is putting up money to discriminate against equal marriage rights? Being a bigot is abnormal.
Quite a conundrum, because it's also unAmerican to restrict the rights of others because your religion forbids it or because you think it's icky.
I think the question is: Which would be more American? Excercising your right to be a bigot, or advocating equal rights for all - even those you don't like?
I think I know the answer: but do you?
someguy3456, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Gay marriage is ghey. Marriage is a stupid concept in general. Hurr durr let me lose 50% of my belongings because I signed a paper saying I love someone.
What's the percentage of divorce rates again? 51% or something? Odds are you'll stay together!
You don't have to lose anything; sign a prenup. Save a lot of money that way.
Nice move Washington.
Polygamy is next. If a homosexual coupling is endorsed by the state, I'd like to hear a thorough rebuttal for why a man can't marry two women simultaneously?
Vincent, I would actually like to hear it as well. Whats wrong with polygamy?
The only ones who would advocate for polygamy are religious cults.
I'm not religious... I just dont care if consenting adults want to enter into a group contract.
Do you REALLY understand what a stupid statement that is? The old "slippery slope" argument has been disproved time and time again. When they finally gave in and let women vote, it did NOT - despite the doomcriers - lead to chipmunks voting. When laws against mixed-race marriage were struck down, it did NOT - despite the doomcriers - lead to mixed-species marriage. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, it did not lead to civil rights for amoebas. Polygamy - AND polyandry, of course - is a totally unrelated issue. Gay marriage rights is about WHO you can marry; polygamous marriage rights would be about HOW MANY you can marry. Apples and oranges.
Polygamy is an intersting concept in this debate, and it has actually been debated in the courts. I'd suggest doing some research on the topic Vincent.
The 'slippery slope' fallacy, on the other hand as Jockmama put it - is nonsense. Unless you can backup how moderate positions would be impossible, then it has no basis in reality.
Back to polygamy, I personally see no major issue with it. Every single one of us likely came from some ancestor out of a polygamous marriage. Polygamy was (and still is in some places) very useful to human societies. This is because a man can impregnate a woman just about every day, while a woman can only get pregnant once every 10-12 months. Polygamy makes sense in places where infant mortality is a problem and population increase is important. In modern civilization it really is rather outdated, though.
How it's currently practiced in some cults though is a problem, because it includes underaged girls and whatnot. But polygamy itself is not on-its-face wrong. The problems though, as enumerated in the court cases regarding the practice, is that with polygamy comes problems with inheritance, abuse, neglect, and other problems unique to the practice.
There is also the problem with polygamy as not being condusive to a free society. What polygamy encourages is breeding among the wealthy (since the wealthy can handle huge families). This played a role in our distant past, but today it could be very harmful.... or very lucrative. Hmmm, come to think of it, polygamy could manage income disparity by not concentrating the wealth so tightly - but to instead spread it out across large families.... interesting.
Those findings, though, I think are worth revisiting.
Shuklack, Just because something has never happened does not imply it will never happen.
You keep suggesting the slippery slope argument is invalid- I suggest it is always valid.
Sick.
Head, back into sand, please now?
i know - "sick" is right- thats what the modern world thinks of your bigotry- !!!!!!!
Only in the minds of degenerates can homosexuality be considered equal to heterosexuality.
You have been brainwashed by your religion.
You have gay friends and co-workers all around you that you know and like. But, because of your bigotry, they will never share with you this about themselves.
So, you truly believe that "heterosexual" Newt is moral?
I'd marry a homosexual any day before I'd marry Newt (or his wife). And I'm straight (but not narrow).
at least they cant breed
No one really cares about old men hitching up..hahahahaha
Old men do. Particularly if they are gay. You should too, if you believe in equal rights.
The senate blocked an amendment to send the measure to the people for a vote. We'll get a referendum on the November ballot and get marriage defined properly as one man and one woman.
Hi newstracker, the right tried that last time (ref 71) and the voters sent them packing. How about we vote on your marriage? or have a public vote on slavery?
I seriously doubt that the Fundies will get the required signatures. In the off chance that does happen, you can be sure that Marriage Equality will be upheld in November. Remember this is a BLUE state, it is a Presidential Election year, we have a new legislative district with open seats, so the Democrat base will be out in numbers... ensuring a victory for President Obama as well as affirming Marriage Equality in Washington.
Under the United States constitution, EVERYONE is entitled to the pursuit of happiness.
It was written to protect MINORITIES from oppression. I don't care if a majority of people do vote the measure out due to their ingrained prejudices. Gay people should have just as many rights as YOU are entitled to.
And same sex marriage will not be permitted in Washington state if it ever comes to a vote of the people.
Unfortunately Sara, nice sentiment but historically incorrect. That was in the Declaration of Independence.
@Beth
Since you want to give a history lesson, here's a protip:
US Constitution DOES NOT EQUAL the Declaration of Independence.
US Constitution equals government, laws, etc..
Declaration of Independence equals the Continental Congress giving the British Monarchy the middle finger prior to the Revolutionary War.
Dare I ask, are you that ignorant on American History?
Actually, all gay guys have always had the same right to marry a woman as non-gay guys. Therefore, technically, they are not being discriminated against. No right is absolute; else perverts would be marrying their 12 year old sweethearts left and right. The question you guys never answer is why we should make a special exception for gays when we won't for polygamists? Or pedophiles?
The simple fact is almost everyone has a line they won't cross. I won't cross it for peds or gays. I would for polygamy. I see no reason why marriage should be limited to two individuals.
Fact of the matter is, making a special exception for gays is discriminatory to all other would be marriage types, and therefore should be considered unconstitutional. But, I doubt you guys will stop patting yourselves on the butts long enough to consider that aspect.
Just curious. What's next on your agenda? Lowering the marriage age to 14? The gay man boy love association would love that, I'm sure.
On a side note, I would vote for same sex marriage if I was still a citizen of WA. This fight is brewing in CO, and it would pass here under current conditions.
And, pray tell, where did I say that it did?
I simply pointed out that Sara cited the wrong document ... but that it is a nice idea.
On a side note, I agree on the same sex marriage,
You didn't, but the Declaration is a far cry from the Constitution. The Declaration isn't part of US law. I may have been confused by your post after reading it again.
Interestingly, that is the exact same argument opponents of mixed race marriage used in Loving Vs. Virginia.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395
Didn't work then, and shouldn't work now.
@Joey
Gay /= straight. It's equal rights under law. Marriage, in your meandering, is a religious deal. The state is different. Based on that logic, gays are being discriminated against under equal protection of the law. It's not that hard to figure out.
EMDF9A, the problem here is that it's not the Dems who will come out in force. The republicans will come out in force to vote against it. They'll put an online petition and get more than enough votes to put it on the ballot. We will see I guess.
We barely held on to the governorship last election. Only by a couple of votes. We barely outnumber the republicans in this state. This may give the right enough voters to turn us republican. As if there wasn't enough to be gloomy about, living in a red state only makes it worse.
You are a bigot. You don't have to the right to vote on another's human rights.
" ... The question you guys never answer is why we should make a special exception for gays when we ... "
Actually the correct question is ....
The question YOU guys never answer is why we should make a special exception for religion and churches? Or for the bigots that belong to them?
And it's NOT a "special exception". It is simply affirming that they have the same right(s) that you have.
But you would, and have passed a law denying them that same right. Or at least you support it. Isn't that a "special exception"?
But then I don't have the narrow view of the world that you do. Nor do I have your narrow mind either.
Homosexual behavior is a violation of the natural function of the human body and as such deserves no special recognition or endorsement.
And, where pray tell did you get that bit of false information? There are countless examples of animal species that engage in same-sex activity. Should we lock up all of those gay penguins and the two male swans in Boston?
Do you also want to regulate how straight people have sex? Just askin'
The reason that "homosexual behavior" DOES deserve special recognition and endorsement is because of the bigoted attitudes like the one you just expressed.
Your kind of attitude is exactly why the Civil Rights for people of color was so hard to obtain.
hi someguy, wait until you see the prop8 trial videos when they become public. you'll see that when the fundies tried to say the very thing you just said in court, they got ripped to shreds by EVIDENCE to the contrary. The truth is, there is no reason at all why the government should be in the business of discriminating on behalf of the churches. The Washingon bill even says that churches can hate all they want as long as it is in their walls and while they can hate, the government cannot. one law, to cover all marriages, not multiple laws for different types of unions. Less government, right?
Someguy -- almost partly correct! Homosexuality, like being left-handed, is not the human norm. It is the natural born condition of a significant minority of humans. And agreed, they are not entitled to special recognition. Like the rest of us, they are entitled to EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. I know that's a complicated concept for a second-grader, but maybe your teachers can explain it tomorrow. Now go to bed.
someguy3456,
Good point. By your reasoning, we should stop any laws that forbid homosexuals from any of the same rights as anyone else. They want to marry, so be it.
THIS is the part that I just can't seem to get past. How the bigots somehow manage to morph EQUAL rights into SPECIAL rights in their rhetoric. As if the right to a civilly-recognized marriage would ONLY be available to gays, but withheld from straights. Apparently to the haters, it's a CIVIL right if THEY want it, but a SPECIAL right if someone they don't like wants the same. But, of course, to these "Christians," the Golden Rule is something they only give lip service to. It applies only when they find it convenient, or personally advantageous. Otherwise, as Susie Chreamcheese said, "Fer-get it!"
For some people it's just a beautiful thing to make love to someone of the same sex. For some people it's the opposite sex that attracts. Reproduction always strikes me as a funny reason to be against gay marriage. There are seven billion plus people on earth and we can hardly house and feed everyone so a demonstration of support and honoring two people of the same sex showing a loving commitment seems rather benign in the big picture of important matters on earth. It simply allows those two people to make a commitment legal and binding *IF* that is what they want and it takes nothing away from those who have no interest in it whether gay or straight. The Bible has nothing to do with it as we don't live in a society/country/state practicing Sharia Law or anything like it (or we should not, anyway.) As for polygamy: it matters not to me if more than two people want to join into a contract to create a loving family/household. It is neither business of mine or the states, in my opinion. The test I use when these matters come up is: "Are the interested parties of age to offer legal consent, emotionally well, and of intelligence to make that decision?" This eliminates the argument of being able to marry children who are under age or marrying your favorite chair or marrying your dog. Silly comparisons. Please stop with the backwardness and Congratulations to Washington State for moving forward in the 21st Century!
Actually an increase in homosexual behavior in a population is a natural reaction to overpopulation of a species.
I read some interesting studies on that actually, it's definitely possible.
Wouldn't mass suicide work just as well.
Sara, because there are gay penguins is no proof against the natural function argument. Just as there are no gay wolves supports the argument.
The genitalia just don't work.
Great job, Washington senators!
Gay people are just PEOPLE like anyone else. For goodness sake, they deserve the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else in this country. EQUAL RIGHTS IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.
Those of us stuck in the regressive red states in the Bible belt applaud you. What is going on in our state is appalling. The governor here in Kansas is doing his best to RAISE taxes on the poor while he cuts safety nets. That way he can give his rich cronies more tax breaks. He wants Kansas to be a theocracy- with himself the assigned pope to make all of the rules. And, in his spare time, his aides spy on Kansas' citizens social media sites to see if anyone dare mentions BROWNBACK'S name.
What makes you even consider calling a marriage between two members of the same-sex a "right?" Gays need to spend a little more time in the closet and stop trying to get straight people to accept their deviant behavior.
Fighting for gay marriage is just another attempt to convince the majority that homosexuality is "normal."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So every state should quit denying some citizens equal protection of the laws-- same marriage rights for all couples.
Joyce, I'm glad I don't live in your sad, angry little world.
It's normal if you are gay just like heterosexuality is "normal" if you're straight. This isn't too terribly difficult to understand. The problem is that some people still believe, despite facts and logic, that people actually "choose" their sexual orientations. You have as much opportunity to do that as choose your eye color; it's genetic.
Oh and Joyciepoo, the Supreme Court said it was a right in its decision Loving v Virginia (1967)
Joyce, what proof do you have that homosexuality isn't "normal", whatever normal is? Who are you to make such statements?...God?
Sara I beg to differ...we gay people are NOT like everyone else.
Have you seen the average gay home....so much more taste!
OK except mine, but I am a bit on the 'butch' side
Hell I even watch baseball...well at least baseball players.
But that is another story for another day.
I wholeheartedly agree with Bill M. who says that, in general, I tend to believe that anyone who is as homophobic as Rick Santorum is gay EXCEPT for the fact that no self-respecting gay man would wear that ugly sweater vest! That might pertain to some of our fellow posters. Yeah, Washington!
Rhea, where does it say in the 14th amendment that two men have the right to marry? You do understand that no right is absolute? We have a right to happiness! No. Not if your idea of happiness is sleeping with 10 year olds. Or killing people. Or any number of other things.
Post, normal is expected. Evolution split us into 2 sexes, with a desire for the opposite sex so that competition and selection would produce the best offspring. That is the norm. Two males ducks spending the mating season together is outside of that norm, and is an activity that if persued by all ducks would result in their extinction. I would definitely encourage ducks to mate and continue their species; they're so tasty!
I'm not going to say that gays are immoral, destined for hell or any of that stuff. But they definitely are not what nature intended, they are not benefitial to the survival of a species and they are not normal. Then again, why do you care? The norm is for people to want to have kids, to perpetuate a part of themselves. It's supposed to be a part of our animal drive to breed. I don't care to have kids. Therefore, I'm technically not normal. Doesn't bother me.
"...normal is expected. Evolution split us into 2 sexes, with a desire for the opposite sex so that competition and selection would produce the best offspring. That is the norm. Two males ducks spending the mating season together is outside of that norm, and is an activity that if persued by all ducks would result in their extinction."
Evolution (are you saying you believe in it...???) divided us into two sexes for the purpose of propagation of the species - but it did NOT "require" that every one of us propagate. It just needed ENOUGH to propagate for the species to survive. Now that the planet is hopelessly OVERpopulated, couples that DON'T produce offspring could be seen as the truly responsible ones.
And you must have slept through your Statistics class. Because even though heterosexuality may be far more common that homosexuality, that doesn't make it the "norm." It's merely more numerous. And one could just as easily aver that heterosexuality is a strictly SOCIAL construct, rather than a biological imperitive for ALL creatures, that exists ONLY for the purpose of getting enough people to have opposite-sex intercourse to keep the species alive. Otherwise, how do you explain all those heterosexually-married Rethuglican politicians that keep getting caught having gay sex...?
TD3K-That's absolutely false.The studies that suggested a genetic link are disputed and perhaps you could explain why identical twins are not both homosexual if one is.
So now Sarah Palin can see gay marriages from her house!
Doug -- She's been able to for several years: Canada is right next door, eh!!!!
Hmm, that's true.. but now if Russia gets gay marriage they'll have her surrounded!
But she thinks they're Russians (or at least commies).
@real, Here in canada, we're just proud she has the concept of geography down and can (possibly) grasp the existance of countries other than the usa .
Good on you wash. I'm sure the rest of the 50 states will eventually yeild.
Another nail in our coffin...
Thank God all you "enlightened" folks are out there to set us backward folks straight. I have to be tolerant and accepting of YOUR values but you do NOT have to respect mine because they disagree with yours? Wow... Five bucks says those same folks will "collapse" this comment before it's all done. So accepting they are...
I don't think you have to marry a gay person, Mountaineer. Not sure which of your rights you think are being violated.
No one is 'not accepting your values'. Exactly how have you been hurt by this or any other issue where 'your values' are concerned?
Our nation was founded on equality for all. Not just for all - unless you believe as we do. Get over yourself and leave people to their own beliefs. Nobody is making YOU marry a gay person, nobody is taking away YOUR ability to share financial benefits. Nobody is taking away YOUR rights to make medical decisions for your spouse. But these rights and many others have been denied to gays. It's about time we stop treating them as second class citizens.
Marriage is strictly reserved for two members of the opposite sex. Do you want to marry a member of the opposite sex and a member of the same sex? Why not have the right for a mother to marry an adopted son as long as he is of age? How about a father marrying an adopted son as long as the son is of age? How about first cousins that are adopted?
Joyce 4263422 said "Marriage is strictly reserved for two members of the opposite sex."
Not anymore, Joyce! Thanks be to God!
Joyce I am sorry you cannot find anyone to love you, that you are so alone.
Get a dog..maybe a female one..you know then you will have two bit--s in your trailer
Mountaineer and Joyce, just one question and only one....How does it hurt you?
Mountaineer--the word "tolerant" comes from the verb "tolerate." It doesn't mean "approve," it doesn't mean "applaud," and it doesn't mean "join in." It just means that one tolerates something--usually because it doesn't affect one at all, as is the case here.
You have a right to believe whatever you like--you can believe that people should never divorce, though if they do they should not remarry. You can believe that one should never have sex unless one intends to procreate and that no woman who is too old to procreate should ever have sex. You can believe that all forms of birth control are evil. You can believe that people who have sex before marriage or extra-maritally should be condemned. These beliefs, too, are tolerated.
Of course, in all honesty, you should then dislike the Palin clan (virtually all of whom became pregnant out of wedlock--mom and dad, son, daughter). You should dislike McClain (who divorced his sick wife to marry someone else); you should dislike Gingrich (who is a serial adulterer); you should dislike Ronald Reagan (who divorced and remarried and who almost certainly was still intimate with his wife long after she was fertile). You should dislike practically everyone you know who is younger than 50, since birth control is pretty much universal these days. All of these things I mentioned above, by the way, are also condemned in scripture. Well, not birth control--but the other things, overtly.
However, in the legal world, one can divorce and remarry, people have sex for purposes other than procreation, and birth control is acceptable. There is a strong distinction here between personal beliefs and legality. You are perfectly free to disapprove of gay marriage, to refuse to attend gay weddings, to refuse to acknowledge your neighbors if they are gay, to put your son in Boy Scouts where you can be sure that openly gay men will not be leaders, and to send your child to a private school which does not allow the children of gay couples to attend. People are also free to believe that you are closed-minded, but the law permits you to believe and even to act on these things.
I fail to see how your personal beliefs are in any way violated by this law. Your beliefs are tolerated and legal--though people do not have to agree with them, either. Try not to redefine the word "tolerance" to mean "forced to agree." That's not what it means, okay?
Joyce -- you do realize that cousins CAN in fact get married in many states? And not just adopted cousins, either. I'm talking full-on blood cousins.
On another note ... so proud to be a Washingtonian right now!
There is nothing enlightened about endorsing homosexual coupling. The enlightenment is endorsing families in which both parents, one male and one female, have a biological contribution to their children. Marriage is a contract that ties men to his children.
Right, because adoption is against Gods will. let the orphans starve!
But you aren't just expecting us to allow you your prejudices. You're expecting us to live our lives according to your prejudices. Nobody has said you have no right to your opinion; they just deny that you have the right to FORCE your opinions on those who do not share them. Rant all you want. Knock yourself out. But don't you DARE tell me how to live MY life. And don't try to read your silly book of myths into civil law. Because the U.S. Constitution tells me I don't have to give a rat's patoot about your book OR your religious cult, and can't be legally forced to.
Vincent Denali,
So, there are many straight couples who choose not to have children or are unable to when they marry. At one time it has been looked down upon for an elderly couple to get married knowing that they will not be able to have their own children. Coming from someone who says "This study does not mention male homosexuals and their average of 500 lifetime partners." in another blog on January 26th. Even the most promiscuous doesn't have an average of 500 casual partners, let alone "lifetime partners".
Not that there's any chance of you reading this, but, Mountaineer, here's precisely how your rights are tolerated and respected: You don't give up any civil or legal rights when same-sex marriages become recognized.
Had inheritance rights based on marriage beforehand? You still have 'em. Had joint tax-filing privileges beforehand? You still have 'em. Had hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, and about a thousand others? You still have all those civil rights and benefits when same-sex marriages start being recognized.
Nothing at all changes for you - and no one on the pro-same-sex marriage side is asking to take away any rights from you. That's how you are being respected and tolerated. You, on the other hand, seek to limit civil rights and privileges of same-sex couples, when the only thing you personally have at stake is *exclusivity.* Exclusivity is not a civil right.
Congrats to Washington State. Perhaps this will help other states and possibly the federal government to accelerate acceptance. For offended straight people...... nothing in gay marriage seems to affect you. Where I go before and after death are really none of your business.
I am proud to be a Washingtonian tonight. Thank you Senators for stepping up and doing the right thing. 28-21 Three more "for" votes than was expected. By this time next week it will have Gregoir's signature and five days thereafter it will be in effect. Another step forward for Equality!
Only in the lunatic mind of the left can homosexuality be considered as anything other than a violation of the natural function of the human body.
I guess it's just a natural function of nearly 1500 other species of animals that it's been observed in.
I think you have an overactive imagination to think that it is common in 1500 other species of aniumals. Homosexuality is deviant behavior and cannot result in the reproduction of the human species. Understand?
Who says these people have sex? They're gonna be married for crying out loud!
Joyce, Dear, Marriage in the USA is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Nowhere in Washington Sate or anywhere else is the ability to procreacte a prerequesite to entering into this contract.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Are you saying every time you are intimate, you end up bearing a child?
Besides, someone has to adopt the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children dumped off on the tax payers. Maybe it's all part of a bigger plan. Heterosexuals have irresponsible sex and the homosexual community steps up and cares for the children left in that wake.
So what if it "cannot result in the reproduction of the human species"?
Are you also going to prohibit infertile people from marrying?
And I believe that the planet just hit a population of 7 billion humans. A few less in the next generation is probably a good thing.
With seven billion (and counting) people on this planet, somehow I think the human species will manage to survive, even if the 3% or so of the population who are gay are allowed to marry. Honestly, Joyce, I don't think you need to worry.
Joyce you silly!
I guess you would require a fertility test to get married?
No post menopausal women (I think you will have a personal understanding there) should be allowed to marry, No men who have low sperm counts may get married? (Yes I said SPERM SPERM SPERM!!!)
No women who have no ability to produce eggs?
And how do you know I can't get my husband pregnant? We try a lot! Matterof fact tonight we will try and at the critical moment I will call out your name "This one is for Joyce" See if that helps!
Weeeeeee!
Btw SPERM
SPERM SPERM
and your point is?
as if we don't have too many people in the world already
If I have a model car that gets 50 miles per gallon on a tank of gas and 30 out of a thousand only get 35 miles per gallon. The 30 are an abnormality. See how that works.
Further proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Further proof that ignorance should kill..
WOW, How much do you get paid per post to be a close minded, hatefull person?? I was going to ignore your posts, but, I soon realized that someone has to be paying you to be this ignorant!!!
I bet it's "rev" hutcherson venting a little frustration on the forums, Tee hee hee
Hey Something,
You are out numbered here and the minority in this discussion..you are also out smarted. Now self-deport yourself to the moon with Newt and Clarista...your intelligence level is way too low for this conversation. Be gone with you!!