Yay Washington State!!!

If they want it, good for them. I believe it should be left to the states to decide, otherwise I dont have a opinion on the matter..

No, it shouldn't, marriage is a RIGHT that ALL Americans should enjoy.

Sam: Consider if slavery or women's rights had been left to the states to decide, then rethink your statement.

What great first step! It's odd that I am old enough to remember when interracial marriages became legal in all 50 states after the Loving v. United States Supreme Court ruling. I hope one day it will be legal for same sex couples to marry in all 50 states as well! Then maybe one day it will be legally globally.

Way To Go Washington!!!

"Marriage is the word our society uses to describe committed lifelong relationships," said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle

Newt Gingrich replied:

Rep. Pedersen is incorrect. Marriage is actually a word our society uses to describe my ability to "morally" bang as many hoes as I want. The term "committed" and "lifelong" have nothing to do with it. In my second term as President, I ask that any women curious about getting nailed on the moon to contact me.

But seriously, good for Washington.

The state didn't decide...the lawmakers did. They wouldn't allow an amendment to allow the people of Washington vote on the issue because they are very worried if not certain it would be defeated. It annoys me when people say let the states decide, but the state lawmakers won't let the public vote on it. If it came to a public vote, chances are it would be defeated. Look at CA. One of the most liberal states voted down same sex marriage. It is not something most Americans want.

In the case of Washington, signatures will start being gathered as soon as the coward gregoire signs it into law. Opponents of the law will have no troubles getting enough support to have it on the Nov. ballot. gregorie was adamant about her opposition to same sex marriage till she decided, or should I say till she realized there was no way she would be re-elected. After that realization she a sudden change of and decided to support it. No doubt she is hoping this will get her into the record books for something other than running up a $6 billion annual debt. It is a shame the State Governement couldn't have worked on saving our schools instead of wasting time on something that will be voted down on in Nov.

No doubt she is hoping this will get her into the record books for something other than running up a $6 billion annual debt

Three simple words to pump more money into the economy, and more money into sales tax that can be used to pay the debt: Gay Bridal Registry

We have it here in DC. I've attended some lovely weddings as a result.

-Sam

If they want it, good for them. I believe it should be left to the states to decide, otherwise I dont have a opinion on the matter..

Marriage equality is an equal rights issue and states should not have the right to deny the rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution.

Newt Gingrich replied:

Rep. Pedersen is incorrect. Marriage is actually a word our society uses to describe my ability to "morally" bang as many hoes as I want. The term "committed" and "lifelong" have nothing to do with it. In my second term as President, I ask that any women curious about getting nailed on the moon to contact me.

If I got to nail Gingrich in the ass on the moon, I'd consider that Achievement Unlocked territory.

DTNICo1 wrote: "It is not something most Americans want."

Who are these "most Americans" are you speaking for? If these "most Americans" don't want to marry someone of the same sex then I suggest they not do it.....DUH!!! Live and let live. Should lawmakers be allowed to force THEIR ideologies on the rest of the country? NO!! I'm a brunette.....how about this, only brunettes are allowed to marry brunettes, and blondes to blondes, and red-heads to red-heads. Or people will not be allowed to marry out of their religion. HEY, it's no different. Or how about let's go back a little in U.S. history and re-enact the laws forbidding interracial marriages? People such as yourself are the reason many lawmakers (Congress) in Wash. D.C. are trying to keep this country in the Dark Ages. Grow up and realize you and your ideologies are only suited for the 1800s. BTW, this is the 21st century, if you don't like progress then I guess you need to go back to the 19th century where you'll feel more at home.

I was born and raised in Iowa. I am so proud of my state. :)

most americans dont want same sex marriage its an abomanation and a desecration of what marriage is supposed to be

SO proud to be a Washingtonian today!!!

The state didn't decide...the lawmakers did. They wouldn't allow an amendment to allow the people of Washington vote on the issue because they are very worried if not certain it would be defeated. It annoys me when people say let the states decide, but the state lawmakers won't let the public vote on it. If it came to a public vote, chances are it would be defeated. Look at CA. One of the most liberal states voted down same sex marriage. It is not something most Americans want.

You sound very worried, as you should be! ;)

nick-sorry redneck, majority supports equality-all latest polls say so-what an abomanation? yopu mean liek shellfish?

Jack Colton

Sam: Consider if slavery or women's rights had been left to the states to decide, then rethink your statement.

Well stated.

nick22346

most americans dont want same sex marriage its an abomanation and a desecration of what marriage is supposed to be

That's fine, I will not support any laws that would force your bigoted church from conducting marriage ceremonies of races, creeds, nationalities or sexual preferences of people that you're supposed to hate and find solace that they meet eternal damnation.

But last I checked, your bigoted church is not the US Government...so kindly stop trying to legislate your religious ideologies before we decide to vote in a manner that might impede your rights next.

^_^

sugarbooger62 "Should lawmakers be allowed to force THEIR ideologies on the rest of the country?"

I am not sure if you follow the law a lot but this happens every day. I am Christian (who by the way doesn't care if same sex marriage is allowed or not - those who argue against it miss Jesus's point completely!) and my "rights" and beliefs are being trampled upon by law makers every day (the health care bill, just for one example). So like I said, I don't care about gay marriage but your statement is most certainly incorrect. And PS aren't you working just as hard as DTNICo1 to push your ideology on him, where's the live and let live you speak of??

@DTNIC01

They did not make this a referendum because the legislature felt that issues regarding discrimination and fundamental human rights should not be subjected to the whims of the majority. They are right.

They should have this right regardless of what my or anyone else's opinion is. The majority of the people should not have the ability to decide who gets to have rights and who doesn't.

most americans dont want same sex marriage its an abomanation and a desecration of what marriage is supposed to be

Desecration of what marriage is supposed to be?

Ohhhhh... you mean that thing that lets you bang a chick for a few years, then get rid of her when she gets sick? Like Newt Gingrich?

Or... do you mean that thing that gets you a mulch-million dollar TV wedding show, millions of dollars worth of gifts, and then you can get rid of the whole thing a few days later? Like Kim Kardashian?

Oh wait, no... you are talking about the institution that is only successful 50% of the time, right? If I remember correctly, getting a 50% on a test is an F... meaning failure. So you are worried we will "desecrate" a failure?

No, I got it... you are talking about that thing that a 50 year old man did with a 16 year old Texas girl, with parent permission of course, and are now using to get a TV show. I got it right this time, didn't I? Thank God we have 16 year old Courtney Stoden, and her 50 year old husband, to show us what marriage is supposed to be.

You are absolutely right, Nick. We must protect all of THAT, and make sure no one "desecrates" ANY of the holy unions I just described. I mean, let's be honest... gay marriage makes a mockery of the sacred and holy love that Newt Gingrich, Kim Kardashian, and Courtney Stoden represent. We must protect their blessed unions.

I work at the WA capital campus. I went for a walk earlier today around the capital building and I didn't see any big celebrations going on. That is probably the best part out of all of this. Everyone is treating this as any other bill that passed and life goes on.

I don't care if people of the same sex marry each other, it doesn't effect me either way. Everyone should be allowed to seek happiness (or unhappiness).

If a man wants to marry his sheep then I am OK with that too, again how would this effect me (or You for that matter).

Why don't you just mind your own business Wayne or maybe you should think about moving to some Middle Eastern Country, it sounds like you would be happier there, since the people there seem to be like minded and in tune with your ideas of right and wrong.

I want to live in the land of freedom from and of religious bigotry...

I was very happy about this until I learned about a man named Thomas Butz.

Mr. Butz is a gay man who, in 2003, decided along with his partner, that they wanted to get married. He approached a company Starfish Enterprises, to do the wedding invitations. Starfish Enterprises initially agreed to do the invitations, but declined a short time later based on 'moral grounds'.

Mr. Butz was a reasonable man, unoffended, and had planned on simply using another service. Unfortunately, his progressive liberal friends were far less tolerant. They pressed Mr. Butz, convincing him that this was an act of discrimination under Seattle's Commerce Laws, and therefore illegal. They turned on the owner, who eventually changed her business to baby shower invitations in order to avoid further harassment or a potential lawsuit. Some ultra liberal whackjob responded to this, snidely remarking "I wonder if she (the business owner) knows that gays can adopt babies?"

I have gay friends. I like the idea of them being able to marry and be happy (and later miserable LOL). But as a libertarian I cannot stand the idea of people trying to shove their morals or lifestyles down other people's throats. I find the behavior of Mr. Butz and co as repugnant as the religious community that tries to control others bodies or reproductive habits, and I am concerned that the super progressive liberals are going to ruin this for everybody.

of course you use 3 negatives in your arguement and the whole 50% fail bull @!$%#, but what about people who do it right what abouth that 50% noone wants to bring that up what about people who do it for the right reasons what about the couple who just celebrated there 50th wedding aniversery or the young married couple who just found out there having a baby you never hear about that because noone ever wants to listen to the good about anything if you took 1 hour in your commuinity i bet you could find 100 couples who did it for all the right reasons and are succsesful but that would hurt the arguement you just made now wouldnt it

BTW, if you want to save the sanctity of marriage, then you should work to make divorce illegal.

California's gay marriage law (Prop 108) was reframed by the Mormon and Catholic Church to be a referendum about whether gay rights would be taught to young school children.

People were then ostensibly asked in these so called informational TV spots whether their children should be taught about Gay lifestyle issues. They misled the population of California with a multi-million dollar misinformation Television ad campaign and the people bought into the fear...

DTNICo1, please remember that in light of the 9th circuit's ruling yesterday on Prop8, and WHY they ruled it unconstitutional, you can bet that the Washington Secretary of State will probably challange the constitutionality of even allowing a referendum. Same Sex Marriage is here to stay in Washington and we're on the way to the rest of the country.

I am not speaking for or against same sex marriages, I am just curious how a law passed by the majority of residents of a state, can be deemed unconstitutional? The people vote to say what they want or do not want, but it doesn't count anymore, the government which was thought to be "by the people, for the people" have the final say. I don't think the government cares what the majority wants....unless of course it is election time!

Personally, like most major societal changes I feel it should be left up to the states or top down proposed to the states. Gay marriage should be involved in a greater decision on gays (like other groups!!) having full constitutional rights. Our constitution has rules in place to get things changed from the top down or the bottom up and we should use them.

There are 2 ways to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The first way is for both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to propose a constitutional amendment. This requires a 2/3 vote in each house. Once this happens, the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification. The legislatures of 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment, within a certain period if specified. At this point, it becomes part of the Constitution.* The president has no official role in amending the Constitution (he doesn't have to sign the amendment for it to take effect, and can do nothing to defeat a constitutional amendment once it has passed). Of course, unofficially, presidents can use their political clout to influence public opinion one way or another, which can affect the chances of a constitutional amendment passing.

The second method starts with the states, and was likely included to give states a check on overreaching federal power. The legislatures of the states apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. If 2/3 of the states make such applications, congress must call the convention. Once such a convention is called, and amendments are proposed, the amendment(s) must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. This method has never actually been used to amend the constitution, but Congress has proposed amendments in response to threats by states to call a convention, likely to retain some control over the amendment process.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_US_Constitution_be_amended#ixzz1lqUbhUZO

Sorry James, but we live in a secular democracy. Superstitions have no bearing on our laws.

-Sam
I disagree. This is a national issue. Far too many federal issues (taxes for one) depend on a federal recognition. Also, people move from one state to another all the time. What happens when two are legally married in one but not in another?

Nope, not just a state issue.

@sugarboogers

Should lawmakers be allowed to force THEIR ideologies on the rest of the country? NO!!

You just made my point. You can't have it both ways.

@spectacularj1

So the American people should have no say on what laws they want or not? That sounds pretty much like the former USSR and the current China form of government. Does the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" mean anything to you? To me it means we do get a say in our laws. Somethings do need to be voted on by a state or the country as a whole. This is one of them. If the majority of the public vote to support it, so be it. But when politicians vote for something they know their constituents are against, because it is how they feel, that is not doing the will of the people.

Blondenose,

In 1860 most of the population of the United States thought that slavery was just fine, after all it was the way it had always been, even the founding fathers had slaves.

Left to a vote of the people in those days, slavery would have been voted to be fine and normal, just the way it is...

Was Abraham Lincoln wrong unilaterally condemming slavery wrong and writing the Emancipation Proclamation...?

There is an obvious and glaring similarity in almost every anti-gay rights post that I read here and I am not even referring to the standard talking points. This similarity makes it very, very hard to believe that these posts come from an organized and rational mind.

but what about people who do it right what abouth that 50% noone wants to bring that up what about people who do it for the right reasons

You're right, Nick

Sure, 50% of marriages fail... but there are 50% that succeed. We should start looking at those.

Obviously the 50% that succeed are completely happy in their relationship. There are no bad marriages that stay together for reasons like... oh, I don't know... the kids, money, laziness, religion, etc.

Oh wait... actually there ARE a significant amount of unhappy married people who DO stay together for those reasons. In fact, there is a whole marriage counseling industry just for these people.

So let's recap... 50% fail and get divorced. And of the 50% that stay together, many are unhappy but stay together for the kids, for religious reasons, money issues, lazy, whatever... and some get counseling.

Hmmmm... so if my math is correct, 50% are unhappy and get divorced. Add the unhappy people who stay together to that number, and I am pretty sure that MORE than 50% of people who get married are unhappy. Tell me, Nick... when you have MORE THAN 50% of something, is that a majority or a minority? I think it's a majority.

But you are still right. How dare we desecrate something that results in the MAJORITY of people becoming unhappy. We must protect this unhappiness and misery at all costs.

All the politicians want to do is make a small group of people happy, they know if they let the people decied the answer would be no, here in maryland thats excatcly what happened the vote was left up to the decision of the people and it was voted NO then when gay rights activists tried to put it on the ballet six months later the state refused because of the way the populous voted six months prior.

@ blondeness032

Easy, because civil rights issues should not be put up for a public vote.

You know what was part of a public vote? Jim Crow Laws and numerous other segregation items.

@ james-1925718 and nick22346

Allowing government to legislate religious ideology is a very dangerous path to take.

How about you set your religious beliefs aside and actually try to piece together a causal relationship about how allowing gays to marry each other will fundamentally affect you in any measurable way.

Don't start with platitudes about what you think it will do to some made-up group of sensitive people that wouldn't be exposed to such a thing any other way. Describe to me how it will affect you, your marriage's 'sanctity', etc.

Next, I'd like for you to draw up a list of what civil right(s) you would like to have put in jeopardy when the next flavor of religious ideology has its turn at the helm of drafting public policy. But since you seem all too ready to take away freedom from other people, perhaps I should decide what will fundamentally effect your personal life that's not ordinarily any of my business...that seems to be the road you're taking after all

Hmmmmm...

1) Just because a majority wants something does not make it right--if a majority voted in favor of slavery should slavery then become legal?

2) Gays should have the right to be just as miserable in marriage as straights.

Sure, 50% of marriages fail... but there are 50% that succeed. We should start looking at those. Obviously the 50% that succeed are completely happy in their relationship. There are no bad marriages that stay together for reasons like... oh, I don't know... the kids, money, laziness, religion, etc. Oh wait... actually there ARE a significant amount of unhappy married people who DO stay together for those reasons. In fact, there is a whole marriage counseling industry just for these people. So let's recap... 50% fail and get divorced. And of the 50% that stay together, many are unhappy but stay together for the kids, for religious reasons, money issues, lazy, whatever... and some get counseling. Hmmmm... so if my math is correct, 50% are unhappy and get divorced. Add the unhappy people who stay together to that number, and I am pretty sure that MORE than 50% of people who get married are unhappy. Tell me, Nick... when you have MORE THAN 50% of something, is that a majority or a minority? I think it's a majority. But you are still right. How dare we desecrate something that results in the MAJORITY of people becoming unhappy. We must protect this unhappiness and misery at all costs

so based off of what you said with all the unhappy marriages out there and the divorce rate, wouldn't that then ring true for gay marriges eventually wouldn't 50% percent of them fail wouldn't the 50% that didn't be unhappy and only stay together because the fought oh so hard to get what they wanted, right? so if statistics hold true which they usually do then the statistics for heterosexual and homosexual marraiges would eventualy be about the same. so if thats the case then why is this such a big topic that has to be disscused so frequently

But as a libertarian I cannot stand the idea of people trying to shove their morals or lifestyles down other people's throats. I find the behavior of Mr. Butz and co as repugnant as the religious community that tries to control others bodies or reproductive habits, and I am concerned that the super progressive liberals are going to ruin this for everybody.

The government cannot force an individual to accept gay marriage, but if you are in a commercial endeavor, the government has a large amount of power over your business. For example, if you are denied service due to race then you can be sued. In Washington before this passed, if you denied gay people a service they could sue anyway. The only thing that changed is now that they have a need for wedding invitations.

blondeness032 - The reason why we have a constitution is for the minority to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If everyone thought along the exact same lines, we wouldn't have any need for law or a constitution. Everything would be orderly and proper. However, since neither are true, can you imagine how much chaos our country would be in if minorities didn't have a right to speech or petition over government policy or laws. Just look to the trail of tears back in the 1800s as an example of tyranny of the majority.

Why do these politicians believe there must be a law specifically written for every secular group?

I came from MARS and I want to marry an Asian. Is it illegal? If so where is it written? Is there a law forbidding it? Then why must a law be passed making it legal?

Besides this will be another issue decieded by the courts and not by the citizens.

Chuckline I support gay marriage but I'm not sure about a man marrying a sheep. How would we know if the sheep consents?

J from Wisconsin I think you are very knowledgeable and I feel blessed to have read your post! Thank you for that refreshing post ! God bless you!

Jemma,

Come one, everyone knows, you just watch their back legs during the ceremony...=)

Consent, that's the only reason you can see why a man can't marry a sheep?

THisis sad. What is wrong with these immoral law- makers desecrating the way marriage has been stated from the beginning of time and in the Bible. Marriage is between a man & a woman. Daddy does not marry pappa. This should be up t not up to lawmakers. Animals know to go with the opposite sex. If they want to be with the same sex-- so be unfortunately it is immoral. It is sad that people trying to twist things around to their way of thinking. It is sad also that this confuses the gay & lesbian children. We were made different for a logical reason. It does not take genius to realize this. It is disappointing that this law is passed.

THisis sad. What is wrong with these immoral law- makers desecrating the way marriage has been stated from the beginning of time and in the Bible. Marriage is between a man & a woman. Daddy does not marry pappa. This should be up t not up to lawmakers. Animals know to go with the opposite sex. If they want to be with the same sex-- so be unfortunately it is immoral. It is sad that people trying to twist things around to their way of thinking. It is sad also that this confuses the gay & lesbian children. We were made different for a logical reason. It does not take genius to realize this. It is disappointing that this law is passed.

Do you support a woman's right to divorce? Then you can kindly shut the hell up and get off the high horse. Until conservative Christians start lobbying to ban divorce at the same time they lobby to ban homosexuals from getting married then people like you are nothing more than whiny self serving hypocrites.

Leroy:

Don't forget the other side of the coin, some will being "enjoying" divorce as well, it goes hand in hand with "marriage" or marriage so called. The true beneficiaries will be the government and the lawyers, I'd laugh but it's no laughing matter! They won't be so gay when they start paying for the "right" like the rest of us, they should have left well enough alone!

You know why divorce costs so much money?

Because it's worth it.

Indie Party #1.38 : Majority rule does not mean at the expense, exploitation, detriment, hurt, endangerment, or, in any way, abridgement of the rights of the minority. Nothing more basic to humans than their sexuality. Here we are in 2012 celebrating the granting of a particular right to people who always had that right, but were denied by laws pushed and passed by a majority who hold a different expression of sexuality. In such matters, common logic and fundamental conscience, tell all who have such, that all people are free to express their sexual preferences with others of like consenting particulars outside of, and/or within the state of marriage. No one, or any government, religion nor institution, has any right or business decreeing who can marry whom, with perceived peculiarities of one to the other rendered inconsequential relative to that right.

So the American people should have no say on what laws they want or not? That sounds pretty much like the former USSR and the current China form of government. Does the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" mean anything to you? To me it means we do get a say in our laws. Somethings do need to be voted on by a state or the country as a whole. This is one of them. If the majority of the public vote to support it, so be it. But when politicians vote for something they know their constituents are against, because it is how they feel, that is not doing the will of the people.

I would have to agree with this statement. This is exactly why gay marriage passed in New York. Even a liberal state like ours would not have let it passed. It was not the will of the people in this aspect but the result of our democratic/ liberal ( and some republican) lawmakers. They knew they would lose if they put it up for a vote and now there is no way to undo the damage. Everyone knows that their votes were bought for a price. They knew there would be no way for it to pass otherwise and if the people were given the chance to vote, gay marriage would have been struck down.

Trust me, this is not something we will forget on election day. We remember whose votes were bought and sold that day.

For Babs (Barbara 4142398 above) and all you religious types...

It was not all that long ago that the Church thought that slavery was just fine too.

Jesus even talked about what a "Good Slave" should do to serve his master properly. It's not a good idea to use Christianity as a reason against Gay marriage or anything else having to do with equal rights.

Christianity has a very poor history when it comes to civil rights. I'm sure that no woman of today would want to have lived during the time of Christ. The views of the church up until just about the same time that slavery was abolished (1860) saw women as the sole property of men either their father or their husband and the majority (no women could vote back then), would have voted "no change needed", cuz that's the way its always been.

Do you really want to go back to that type of a civilization..?

Toasty;

Sounds like the voice of experience speaking, ( and not a fun experience like the one had by Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers......http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025164/

epic fail... marriage is a union between a man and a woman! ! ! ! this is not recognized by any religion in the world, our original laws, not the governmental, political b/s! what is the world coming to.... what a person "chooses" to do in their home is their business and should remain behind closed doors period!

Marriage is between a man and a woman period, God will not accept any other marriages made up by mortals, this is a shame no morals what so ever, Washington going down hill fast, Vote these clows out of office!

Easy Chuckline if not for religious people (the Bible) you might not have "marriage" To talk about.

And you're right about times changing, in the time of Christ (or now if you live in Saudi Arabia) a lot of today's practitioners would be stoned, and it wouldn't be from smoking weed!

No, it's actually just my favorite joke.

Christianity has a very poor history when it comes to civil rights. I'm sure that no woman would want to live during the time of Christ. The views of the church up until just about the same time that slavery was abolished (1860) saw women as the sole property of men either their father or their husband.

Chuckline: Jesus broke the mold when he treated women kindly. Up until then it was common knowledge for men to treat women badly. Are you sure you would like to use Jesus as an example in your statement? You will find that Jesus treated women more kindly than that of every other religion on the planet.

When you speak like that, I know you don't know anything about Christianity at all. You will find that the more "christian"(christ- like) the man, the better he treated his woman.

T Mc:

I'm sure many would agree! (A timely joke as well)

That's not what history says, Unhappy. In fact, the opposite was true pretty much from the Bronze Age until... Well, quite frankly, today.

Siara Delyn

We have it here in DC. I've attended some lovely weddings as a result.

*******************************

EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As if heterosexual unions have proven to be such an honored, enduring, society enhancing institution; am I right Newt?

Unhappy,

Tell us all what the bible says about slavery..?

It must be ok to have slaves because Jesus said it was OK, Right..?

In particular read the part where he advises slaves how to treat their masters properly...

I love all the stories about Jesus The Jewish Zombie so much I could just throw up...!

Jemma 77 #1.46 : I knew a man who regularly had sex with a ewe. He always wore overalls. He would throw that sheep (gently) on her back and put her hind legs up each of his pant legs. Think this allowed for a more stable copulation for both of 'em. I was a kid but did witness him and the ewe once. No doubt that horney ewe enjoyed it as much as He did. He died a bachelor. I asked him once if he ever considered taking the ewe as his wife. He told me no, and added He didn't want to mess up a good thing. I noticed myself, after release, the ewe didn't seem to care as much for him as She did before. Like you, I don't think a female sheep would agree to marry any male. Also I think She preferred something other than the missionary position, and He didn't.

I'm from the more conservative side of Washington state and over here many folks just can't abide with the thought of gay marriage. I don't know why the thought is so threatening. Some of my friends find it an abomination, but they come with no reasoned argument other than that.

As far as I can tell the entire institution of marriage will be no more or less holy with or without gay marriage. Right now the bar has been set fairly low by us straigt folk. In time we will see gay marraiges are more commited than straight ones, but gay folk will probably have their ups and downs just like the rest of us.

It just seems to me in this rough world if two people can find happiness together, have someone at home at the end of the day for companionship and comfort, well, more power to them. Furthermore, if they want to seal the deal with marraige vows, then that's fine, too, as I just see no threat to our country and its foundation. The threat is from those who spit venom.

Hey man, baa means baa...

"If they want it, good for them. I believe it should be left to the states to decide, otherwise I dont have a opinion on the matter.."

Thats the biggest OXYMORON!!!

To anyone in here that is opposed to it. YOUR WRONG, and YOU'RE whats wrong in this country right now!

Someone's PERSONAL FREEDOMS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON!!!

If that was the case Black people would still be slaves in the Country!! Your ignorance makes you look foolish. Anyone that says that they are forcing THIER opinion on us..REALLY? what the hell do you think your doing? DUMBASS!!

Ive NEVER been more PROUD of my State!!! WAY TO GO WASHINGTON!

And to those of you against it..GOOD stay the F out of my State!! Go back to your trailor and fry something ya racist religious NUT JOB!!

I am not speaking for or against same sex marriages, I am just curious how a law passed by the majority of residents of a state, can be deemed unconstitutional?

Simple. The foundation of our laws is the Constitution, any law that does not agree with The Constitution is by definition unconstitutional.

Lets take a hypothetical example. Supposing the Mormons in Utah decided to make their religion the one official State religion and divert some tax revenues to support that State religion. They're a majority, so they rule, right? Wrong. Such a law would violate the first amendment to the Constitution, thus would be unconstitutional. Now I'm sure the Mormons would never seriously propose such a law, as they revere the Constitution, but there are examples of other laws that were struck down as unconstitutional, the anti-marriage Prop. 8 is just the latest example.

BTW, in a Democratic Republic like ours, most laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, instead of by a direct vote of the people. It's more efficient that way.

newman1

Ok. This poster has posted in today's stores 34 times and 25 of them in just this one. In EVERY case, there are misspellings, grammatical errors, improper use of capital letters, punctuation, cut and paste errors and run-on sentences and paragraphs. All while lambasting others for not reading properly, accusing people for not growing up, not being mature and not getting the facts straight.

This is the classic "got no other life" than to post right winger. So, newman1, before you go off correcting anyone else, can you get your writing skills corrected first? Please? You make conservatives look BAD. You are not helping your cause.

Its really nice to see things evolve in ones lifetime. What used to be a minority opinion in favor of a given....equality for all....seems to be manifesting into an enlightened majority opinion. What a wonderful evolution to see taking place. Congratulations Washington State! And of course its a given that everyone in this country also has a right to speak its mind. Yet, I've yet to see one rational and constitutional argument against this move by Washington. The dissenting opinions that I've read have generally been name calling and frothing at the mouth. That doesn't wash within the legal system. Justice is being served and a more enlightened and tolerant mood seems to be emerging within the majority. Great!

Is anyone else as sick of hearing about gays as I am. Who give a flying &^%^%^% what they call their groupings, just leave the rest of us in peace.

Unhappy,Tell us all what the bible says about slavery..?It must be ok to have slaves because Jesus said it was OK, Right..?In particular read the part where he advises slaves how to treat their masters properly...I love all the stories about Jesus The Jewish Zombie so much I could just throw up...!

Chuckline: Your knowledge of Christ is apalling. Perhaps now you can explain to me that Jesus somehow owned slaves? No, I didn't think so. He never condoned slavery. He only told what he saw happening in the world. Slavery was common in those days even before Christ. Why was it so common? Because men were selfish. And yes, I said men. It had nothing to do women because women did not own slaves. This doesn't detract from my argument about women. The fact that you are grouping these things together shows just how screwed up you are.

It is a sad thing to see so many people deceived by Satan. God's plan for marriage was between a man and a woman. We read in Genesis where he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for their homosexuality. The Bible says God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow. Do we think he will just look the other way if we commit acts he says is abomination? The bible also says it is impossible for God to lie. Sodom and Gommorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone raining from heaven. If we continue on trying to legalize abomination, it will just be a matter of time until we too will get fire and brimstone from heaven.

I do not hate gay people. I feel very sorry for them because I know if they don't repent and turn to Jesus they will spend eternity in hell. NO, people are not born homosexual. They become that way because they chose not to retain God in their knowledge.Read Romans, chapter 1, verses 24-32 if you want to know the truth about homosexuality.

I pray Jesus will open the eyes of those who are defending homosexuality before it is too late. From what I read in my bible it seems we are living in the latter days before Jesus returns to take his children home. Don't wait until it is too late. After Gabriel blows his trumpet and says"time will be no more" it will be too late.

Gay Marriages would likely be more successful. They would not get married because one got pregnant (Though I do keep trying to get my hubby to conceive!), They would not stay married for the kids unless they adopted possibly.

Over time economics could bind them, but mostly love will keep us together. (Tip of the hat to Captain & Tennille there).

I have been with my hubby for 20 years now, we have our ups and downs...but I still love him except when he buys another tacky vase...

Nick (Who ranted about his Catholic upbringing) Sorry but I really don't give a sh-t what your man in rome or his pedophile emissaries think. NOWHERE in the bible does it say that any person on earth is divine or speaks for God. And your boy wears a dress, Prada slippers and a headdress....give me a break. What he says means NOTHING to me and nothing to our laws. BTW my hubby is Catholic.

James who said we are sodomites etc The word is THEIR not THERE, would want you to sound anymore ignorant than you already do. By the way I am rather adept at my sodomizing!

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one!

Please forgive them ....

For they know not what they do ....

Did they stop teaching the Constitution in our schools? For those of you who say marriage is a right you are wrong. It is a Civil liberty. For those of you who are comparing marriage to the equality of the slaves and woman, again you are wrong. That is the Civil rights. And for those of you who say it is not up to the States to decide, again you are wrong. Civil Liberties are the first ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The states through their State Constitution regulates the Civil Liberties.

The state and or the government can not take away your Civil Rights with the exception of using the Patriot Act.

The state or government can take away your Civil Liberties.

It cracks me up that all these right wingers are worried about us Washingtonians and what will happen to us, but they have no problem with Newt ditching his wives each time they get sick and marrying his mistress du jour.

@ Toasty: HA,ha, Yep. I think you're right. Yet, I kinda think baa...baaa....baaaaa........aaaaaah.........BAAAAAAAAAA, AAAAAAH, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA means just what everyone thinks it means. Like I said, I was just a kid, but I think He was gooooood.

Good for Washington state. According to Gallup, 53% of Americans feel gay marriages should be legalized and 70% of those under 30 feel that it should. Like it or not, gay marriage will eventually become a reality in all 50 states. It's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court declares it a right, like they did with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967). It's time to move out of the Stone Age and into the 21st Century. I've never understood why there is opposition to it. I'm in my early 40s and am married with children. I don't understand how allowing two people of the same gender to have what I and my wife have will somehow endanger our marriage. The argument doesn't make sense. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of your same gender, but where do you get off imposing YOUR morality on others and prohibiting those who are gay from marrying?

Don't mean to be a spoil sport, but some of you keep using the phrase "Holy or Holey union". Wish you'd quit it. Grates on my nerves like long finger nails scratching up and down a blackboard. You see, I've had several holey unions in my time with a few ladies. Most were quite refreshing, but there was that one little vixen. Damn!, she got me in a position that like to have killed my pelvis. Damn little woman had her legs locked around me and I couldn't get loose. She just kept grinding, grinding and grinding. I barely was able to get home. Had to stay in bed the next day. Couldn't walk right for a month. Wouldn't that good to begin with either. That one was a big holey union. Too big for me. Since then, when I hear about "holy unions" I get the woolies all over. Appreciate it.

DTNIC01

The state didn't decide...the lawmakers did. They wouldn't allow an amendment to allow the people of Washington vote on the issue because they are very worried if not certain it would be defeated. It annoys me when people say let the states decide, but the state lawmakers won't let the public vote on it. If it came to a public vote, chances are it would be defeated. Look at CA. One of the most liberal states voted down same sex marriage. It is not something most Americans want.

In the case of Washington, signatures will start being gathered as soon as the coward gregoire signs it into law. Opponents of the law will have no troubles getting enough support to have it on the Nov. ballot. gregorie was adamant about her opposition to same sex marriage till she decided, or should I say till she realized there was no way she would be re-elected. After that realization she a sudden change of and decided to support it. No doubt she is hoping this will get her into the record books for something other than running up a $6 billion annual debt. It is a shame the State Governement couldn't have worked on saving our schools instead of wasting time on something that will be voted down on in Nov.

The tyranny of the majority is NOT a valid excuse to discriminate against a group of people when that tryanny violates the state AND US Constitution.

Your religion or your personal morals may tell you that 'gay is wrong', but be aware that others are allowed to think contrary to your religion and your personal morals. Laws are no longer able to be enacted to support a religious belief or some group's morals because religions and morals vary from person to person, group to group.

Because your religion and your morals can be different from mine - yet both are perfectly valid by legal and Constitutional standards, therefore yours are not superior and neither are mine. Laws must reflect that difference in validity and not make yours superior to mine (or vice versa).

Constitutionally, seperate but equal and seperate but unequal solutions are not valid by any test of Constitutionality. Every solution to the gay marriage issue that is short of full marriage is a seperate but equal (or unequal) one - therefore it is blatantly unconstitutional.

No one is trying to force your religious beliefs to change - only that you must allow gays to marry in places that allow it. Churches in Washington state will still be legally able to take the option of NOT allowing gay marriages to happen in thier church. That is carefully written into the law.

Marriage has dramatically changed over the years from the transfer of a possession (father who owns a daughter giving or selling her to another man) to the loose 'I'll marry you until I want to divorce you' thing it is today. This is just another change along the way.

Might as well allow multiple partner marriages. Why not and wouldn't someone be forcing their beliefs on others for not allowing multiple arrangements?

MomfromGA

It is a sad thing to see so many people deceived by Satan. God's plan for marriage was between a man and a woman. We read in Genesis where he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for their homosexuality. The Bible says God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow. Do we think he will just look the other way if we commit acts he says is abomination? The bible also says it is impossible for God to lie. Sodom and Gommorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone raining from heaven. If we continue on trying to legalize abomination, it will just be a matter of time until we too will get fire and brimstone from heaven.

I do not hate gay people. I feel very sorry for them because I know if they don't repent and turn to Jesus they will spend eternity in hell. NO, people are not born homosexual. They become that way because they chose not to retain God in their knowledge.Read Romans, chapter 1, verses 24-32 if you want to know the truth about homosexuality.

I pray Jesus will open the eyes of those who are defending homosexuality before it is too late. From what I read in my bible it seems we are living in the latter days before Jesus returns to take his children home. Don't wait until it is too late. After Gabriel blows his trumpet and says"time will be no more" it will be too late.

You have been absolutely manipulated by your religion and I feel very sorry for you. You are undoubtedly the victim of childhood brainwashing by adults that warned you that if you didn't believe in everything in the Bible, including the events that violate the laws of nature, that you would go to hell, be denied entrance into the kingdom of heaven and be considered a sinner. That indoctrination under threat is a very insidious and all to common form of child abuse, but it is the only method that has been successful in maintaining fundamentalist religion through the centuries.

Thank you God for this blessing. May more people see your doing in making all people have equality. May those who judge others based on a book you did not create, as man did this, be forgiven and may this happen until your vision is foreseen.

Our blessed God, we thank you.

When will these law makers relaize that the majority of people do not want this digusting things to happen. Even in Cal. the PEOPLE voted against this perverted behavior.

Mom from Ga. - Get off your high horse. Religion has a place...IN YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIFE. I have no tolerance for people that think that everyone should live by their values and their values only, or heaven forbid I will "spend an eternity in hell." No wonder why more people are against religion now more than ever. Live and let live and you might get a little more respect. I really don't know what I want to believe, because every time something looks tempting to believe in, someone like you comes along and says "our way or burn." Doesn't sound like a kind of religion I want to follow.

Yeah why can not I have many wives. Lets get to work on that Washington. All is fair right?

Yeah, I doubt very much this will be overturned. Washington is run by Democrats, who are traditionally in favor of equal rights for everyone. Because Democrats outnumber Republicans, even if the vote was put to us, it would still pass. Sorry. As far as California being a liberal state, wasn't it only recently (within a year) that a Democratic govenor had even taken office? It had been run by a Republican for several years and even then that state swung back and forth regarding gay marriage. I live here in WA and I support this law 100%. Do I expect haters to go and get signatures? Yes. Will it do anything? No. Of the Washington residents polled (listed in this article) by my old university, more of us are in favor of gay marriage. Why would we overturn it? It won't happen. You guys are only prolonging the inevitable. Eventually all 50 states will legalize gay marriages. Besides, not everyone is religious. Why should athiests have to live by a religious nut's views? No point using the whole "God will burn you to hell, blah blah" because an athiest will not care. Gay marriages won't turn you gay, I promise, so please mind your own business. Funny how Republicans preach less government, but they're the first to invade people's personal lives. And on that note, how do you expect anyone to listen your "sanctity" of marriage crap, when divorce (by straight people) is so rampant? People getting married 2,3,4 times?!?!?! Marriages being annulled after only a few months? What about the sanctity of marriage vows? Does that mean divorced straight people will also burn in hell? I am astonished Republicans haven't passed a law making divorce illegal.

Why should athiests have to live by a religious nut's views? No point using the whole "God will burn you to hell, blah blah" because an athiest will not care.

Why should christians ( or any other religion) have to live with an atheist minority when it comes to this subject matter? If you feel that most people are for gay marriages then why don't all states put it to a vote by the people? The fact that our lawmakers refuse to do this shows just what is really going on here. Not everyone thinks these "religious nuts" are wrong. But a lot of people will in fact have a problem with a person's "atheistic views". The fact that most americans have some form of religion doesn't mean that we all agree with all atheistic viewpoints. On the contrary, ATHEISM IS CONSIDERED A MINORITY when you think about it.

You cannot group christians into one category and all other religions in another. This is one subject matter where every other religion would agree with me except atheism. Marriage is accepted by all other religions, no matter if you are hindu, christian, or muslim, or jewish, or agnostic, etc. None of them agree with men marrying other men or women marrying other women. The majority should be allowed to speak. Stop thinking you speak for all people.

The way to make this known to the lawmakers is to vote these people out of office. Only then will you hear from the real majority of the people.

Thank you Chris Gregoire my Governor Now since your term is up how about Washington - we need you there and take your marvelous husband with you!

Kudos girl!

Robert - below me it was not a referendum - the Senators approved - it went to the House and they approved it

What is your point?

Marine Seargant - Actually most of Washington State had no problem with this!

@Unhappy,

Just for the record, not ALL other religions of the world are anti-homosexuality. you really should research the truth before you go spouting your ignorant mouth off.

Wiccans are not against homosexuality. Certain variants of Buddhism are not against homosexuality. These are just two quick examples, and took less than a minute to discover.

Would you like it if laws were created that were anti-Christian? Shall we outlaw mentioning Jesus, or placing a cross? And no, that is NOT happening now, regardless how you feel. People have become fed up with Christians constantly trying to be the one and only religion of the U.S. People want their FREEDOM to believe what they want.

If you truly feel that the majority has the right to oppress the minorities of America, then you've never understood what this Country stood for all these years. you should leave, go to Rome, or Jerusalem. Somewhere your bigotry and hatred can be fueled by like-minded cult members until you've declared a Religious War against everyone else in the world (you know...like a Jihad, but Christian, not Muslim).

As a Patriotic American, i will not tolerate ones such as you pissing all over the Constitution and trying to force your religious beliefs on others.

And if you do somehow manage to vote out these Representatives who DO understand about Freedom, we will just vote them back in again.

And there are other ways to stop the oppression by your so-called 'majority'.

@Unhappy, The majority should be heard? Oh its been heard, and all they (your religious group) is spewing is "YOUR GONNA BURN FOR such and such"

You're voices have been heard, They been disregarded, Your group can not decide what is right or what is wrong for the country (or in this case, the state of Wshington). I'm atheist, Your Christian, I say good for you, but you have a problem with gays having the same rights as you? Grow up. The united States isn't a dictatorship under christian rule. If you have a problem with equal rights then you can leave the united states and go somewhere else that agrees with your fiction of a bible.

I'm not gay, but I say they deserve the same rights as every other American.

When I see dogs and other animals having same sex relations well I guess i'll change my mind on the issue. Unfortunately, I've seen a hell of alot of smarter dogs than so called humans. Of course there is still the issue of human/animal marriages. I guess that's the next "right" to explore!

here-we-go

There you go .... into the absurd. The issue is a legal commitment between two consenting adults. Sex may or may not be a part of the attraction between those adults. Those of you who equate this situation to marriage between humans and animals are irrational.

You religious nut jobs are too much.

In 1860 slavery was legal, if making it illegal were put to a vote in 1860 slavery would have won hands down.

Did that make it ok..? If you answer yes, then we know all we need to know about you...

If you answer no, then why not, it is the will of the people and the Bible was certainly fine with slavery? Jesus even had advice for how slaves should serve their masters.

That's because the Bible was written by the rich people who owned slaves, that my "Religious Nut Job" fools is a fact...

Gays will be allowed to marry, because no one can go before a court of law with legal standing an prove that gay marriage will hurt them.

How will same sex marriage change my life..?

It won't I'm not gay...

How will it change your life..?

If you are Gay then you will be able to name a person whom has the same sex as you to be your heir, beneficiary and to make end of life decisions for you. Just like any married couple. You will be able to cover your same sex husband/wife (I don't know which would be which) under your family insurance plan...

If this doesn't affect you, then how about you just butt out of the lives of other people and leave them alone as you wish people would do to you and your Wacked Out Religious beliefs and we could all actually get along...

Is that too much to ask.............?

It does affect you though and everyone around you for that matter. If you have children it affects them if they have people that associate with them. Saying it doesnt affect you or anyone else is a stupid statement. Its like saying a someone who drinks and then gets in a car drunk doesnt affect you. Next thing you know that drunk driver has killed family member in some sort of car accident.

Also Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women. They want to have those rights and to have a normal family. But in all honesty thats not possible. The same sex couple will never ever be able to have a child of there own that comes from them. You cant get a child from a same sex relationship. How do you not see how this is down right wrong?

If you have children it affects them if they have people that associate with them. Saying it doesnt affect you or anyone else is a stupid statement.

It only affects you if YOU allow it to do so; I'm sure that my marriage doesn't affect your life in any way -- and I'm a straight, married woman. The same applies to homosexual marriages: their lives don't affect yours. Simply associating with other people does not alter your own life unless you wish it to. Saying it does is a stupid statement.

If legalizing same-sex marriage affects you and your own marriage so much, perhaps your marriage is not as strong as you think. That's YOUR problem, not ours, and certainly not the homosexuals'.

Also Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women.

Says who? YOU? That's not for you to decide for everyone else.

The same sex couple will never ever be able to have a child of there own that comes from them. You cant get a child from a same sex relationship.

Irrelevant, as procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa. No state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license. That is why the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children can marry. But you apparently don't know that homosexuals CAN and DO procreate -- not necessarily with each other, but they do. There are also adoption, surrogacy, IVF, AI -- just to name a few of the avenues available to heterosexuals and homosexuals who want children via alternate means.

Bam,

The same sex couple will never ever be able to have a child of there own that comes from them. You cant get a child from a same sex relationship. How do you not see how this is down right wrong?

A woman can have in vitro, wouldn't this child be theirs? Lot's of straight couples use in vitro? And are you saying if straight couples adopt, the children aren't "theirs"?

It isn't up to you to "judge" anyone! There is no way, gay marriage can affect you!

BAMF

You should really spend time reading the decision that overturned Proposition 8 in California, which addressed each one of the "concerns" about marriage equality in a very rational manner.

When you oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that no conception is possible, you would have to oppose the marriage of opposite sex marriages on the same basis when age or medical reasons prevent conception, or when no children are desired.

Your analogy comparing the manner in which same sex marriage affects other people with drunk driving is so ludicrous that it truly defies description. Children in the households of same sex partners have been shown to be at least as well adjusted as those in the homes of "traditional" partnerships and better off than children in single parent households. You can be sure that children of same sex partnerships don't grow up with the narrow-minded, medieval views of, say, a BAMF.

I wonder if these were the same debates people in the South were having when the Jim Crowe Laws were lifted and blacks were allowed to attend public school with whites in places like Little Rock.

Ahhhh...how times have changed?

Marriage is in disarray and in need of desperate reform in child custody and assigning fault. Same sex marriage (gays are 1% of population and thus a 1% subset) is a step in the wrong direction.

Nick22346 - You claim that most Americans don't wish for same sex marriages to be legal. If that is in fact the case then most Americans have no need to marry someone of the same sex. But, that doesn't mean that people of the same gender shouldn't be allowed the same rights to marry equally as is our rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Vincent Denali - Marriage is in a disarray due to the failures of heterosexual marriages; infidelity, wifebeating, etc. This has gone on for decades. Gay people have had no part of these problems or the child custody battles, which sometimes lead to death. I don't really believe a loving gay marriage could be any worse than a straight one nor do I think gay children adopting children would be any worse at parenting.

Seriously wrote "I wonder if these were the same debates people in the South were having when the Jim Crowe Laws"

There is no comparison between a race-based group and a behavior-based group. I'm all for recognizing minorities and the special needs, but they should be identified and counted on the US Census. The unique feature of the homosexual lobby is that official identification has not been an item on their platform. If you're a woman, a birth certficate proves it. If youre' black, the 1/8 rule proves it.

DTNIC01 - In one breath you complain that the governor is going to sign this legislation because you feel that she feels that doing so will get her reelected. And then in another breath you complain that the people of the state of Washington had nothing to say about this legislation being signed into law. If signing it gets her reelected, doesn't that mean she is acting on the will of the people? And isn't that her job? And you have plenty of voice. First of all, you can vote people in or out of the legislature, as well as the governor. You also can use the initiative process and put the matter on the ballot. But I think the real issue is that people do have a say, and you don't want them to. Except for you, of course.

@Heather

First, I said the only reason she had a change of heart after 7 years is because she has announced that she ISN'T running for re-election. Since she knows she would not be elected again, she changed her stance on the issue. I never said she was doing it to get re-elected.

Second, I want the state as a whole to vote on it. I doubt very much that it will pass if the people have a say. That is why they WOULD NOT allow an attachment to it calling for a initiative.

Third, Yes we can vote those out who we see not doing the will of the people out, but that does not take back a bad law. It will cost more money to get it over-turned and in case you haven't noticed...WA. is deep in the debt hole. That is what the legislatures should have been focusing on first. But Governor chris wanted it done fast because she was afraid that there would be no time left if they worked on the budget first.

Finally you might want to actually read what is posted here instead of just thinking you know what is being said. I have no doubt you were in such a rush to voice your say, you didn't bother reading someone else's point of view. Most likely because you feel that yours is the only correct view.

dntc: you want the state as a whole to vote on it? When exactly did the state vote on heterosexual marriage. If there were a referendum that WA could either have both heterosexual and homosexual marriages or NO marriages at all, which do you think would win?

dntc: you want the state as a whole to vote on it? When exactly did the state vote on heterosexual marriage. If there were a referendum that WA could either have both heterosexual and homosexual marriages or NO marriages at all, which do you think would win?

************************************************

Anything that has to do with immorality should be voted on, duh!!! There is NO reason to vote on the perfection of the holy sanctity of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Again duh!!!!

If ALL people are supposedly equal in the issue of marriage then just imagine ........ that would mean that a mother could marry her son, or a brother could marry his sister and NO one could say anything against it because ALL persons should have the CIVIL right to do whatever they want when it comes to marriage. WOW, the sky would be the limit, wouldn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anything that has to do with immorality should be voted on, duh!!! There is NO reason to vote on the perfection of the holy sanctity of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Again duh!!!!

Morality is subjective, Rose -- and your bigotry and ignorance are immoral. And civil rights cannot be voted on, duh!!! Furthermore, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in THIS secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract -- what your cult chooses to recognize as "married" is its own business, not the government's. Again DUH!!!!

The real question should be, "Did the people of the state decide this in a referendum.?"

You want to marry your brother?

Representatives actually sometimes do represent their constituents

My brother is already married. Dang it!!

@2.1,

I don't recall getting a referendum on heterosexual marriages, why precisely should the people get one for this? Voting on things like this sort of an issue that's already been passed is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind.

Excellent post, Frank!!!

I don't recall getting a referendum on heterosexual marriages, why precisely should the people get one for this?

EXACTLY

Let's put ALL marriage on the ballot. As a straight man, I would vote AGAINST heterosexual marriage. Do you know how much money men have lost to women, as a result of a marriage and divorce? Not to mention the alimony payments that drain men dry.

It's like taking a bet where you have a 50% chance (divorce rate) to win or lose. If you lose (divorce), half of everything you own is given to someone else, and you have to make monthly payments to this person. If you win (stay married), you get to hear someone nag you for the rest of your life while taking your money and interrupting whatever you are watching on TV.

Uhhhh... can we vote on this f***ed-up gambling game?

lets see, my partner and i got married a little bit ago. hummm? what happened to everyone who vote no to gay married. let go over a check list? 1. the world came to an end......no..

3. all the churchs blew up and satan returned?.....no

4. everyones taxes tripled?.......no

5. the world went to hell in a hand basket?.....no

so what exactly happened that affected anyone but me and my spouse.? nothing

lesson.......mine your own business and let others live the way they want to. don't want gay marriage? then don't get one.

carriesue: congrats on your marriage! you know anybody you could introduce me to??

The people in this country never get to decide anything anymore , they let the judges do it , and most of us dont have a say , and the most powerful people are the 9 that set in the supreme court that tell us what is right and make laws we have to follow , well every dog has their day . I think everyone on here that says good for Washington state are a bunch of sick perverted people , one day you will get to live in etenity with all of the gays and perverts and then see how you enjoy it and guess what no one will be complaining , not where you will be.

While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

God Bless All!!!

1. the world came to an end......no.

Hold on a second....

(checks window)

Ok, sorry. False alarm. Thought I heard the end of the world. It was actually just life moving on like it always has.

Indie: I'm guessing any woman in your life would vote for the idea of a marriage ban where you're concerned as well.

J: Marriage is a civil, legal contract. Your religion or your interpretation of the bible has nothing to do with that civil contract. We don't do burquas in this country.

J in Wisconsin,

The Bible is not and cannot be the source for law in the US. You are free to believe it as you see fit, and know that many other Christians see it much differently than you. The United States is not and has never been a Christian nation, thus any discussion of The Bible is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman

Except that "marriage" actually existed BEFORE the Bible and Christianity. Actually, the first recorded instance was on the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, predating Christianity. See, it was a common social institution to legitimize natural human bonding. Once the Christians came to Babylon, they learned of the code and decided to adopt (or steal) certain ideas.

But don't let historical FACTS get in the way of your belief. If you want to change history into something that is factually incorrect, by all means.

Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage

You are absolutely right. It is a perversion to the institution of banging a chick for a few years, then dumping her when she gets sick, like Newt. It is a perversion to the institution of getting married for a couple days, so that you can get an expensive TV wedding and lots of gifts, then end it a few days later. God bless Kim Kardashian and her support of holy matrimony. And it is a perversion to the institution that allowed a 50 year old man to marry a 16 year old girl in Texas, then use their new union to get a TV show. We MUST protect this HOLY UNION between Courtney Stoden and her 50 year old husband.

Thank you for reminding us that ALL of these holy, sacred, religious unions are blessed by God.

Well Tracy, if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. But don't deny other people basic human rights because they were born different from you.

Indie: I'm guessing any woman in your life would vote for the idea of a marriage ban where you're concerned as well.

AP,

You would think, right? But I can't get my girlfriend off the idea. Women... can't live with them, can't do indecent, immoral, lustful, perverted sexual things without them. And if you think homosexuality is indecent, you should see what I do with my girl. DAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN. I'll give them a run for their money.

I believe the following shall never enter the kingdom of heaven read 1st Corinthians 6 9-11 ,then romans 1 24-27 , and Leviticus 18 22 are few places people need to read , and just because people dont want to believe it doesnt make it untrue at the end of time we will see who is right and who was wrong , but that day there will be no do overs.

Glad someone could write a good piece on why we should not be happy about the passing of the gay marriage. I always let people be what they are but pray for them. I feel if your were born male and feel like a woman then there is nothing you can do but make the most of your life with God on your side but for go the sex with another male. God has made us all different and with him you can have the most wonderful life. God has plans for everyone, and he has his reasons for everything go with what he wants and you will have a great life. God Bless everyone.

For all that think the Bible is irrelevant here, you are wrong. It could not be more relevant considering the words that fill it are from God Himself who created this earth and everything in it. He says homosexuality is wrong...end of story.

@ Toasty McGrath

But that goes against all of her programming. How dare you ask people to question their underlying beliefs they've arbitrarily assumed were factually correct!

Indie party I am a bit confused on how marriage predates the Bible considering the Bible starts out with "In the beginning..." which means before people were even on the earth. Hmmmm, I would love to hear your explanation.

For all that think the Bible is irrelevant here, you are wrong. It could not be more relevant considering the words that fill it are from God Himself who created this earth and everything in it.

lol!!!! Oh, wait you were serious?! You do realize that the bible was written by men, translated many times, is inconsistent, includes physical impossibilities (and absurdities) and has all the hallmarks of oral tradition, right?!?

Lastly, even if god came down here today and said the same stuff, our government is secular. Period.

@ the fab five

Because the bible is a conglomeration of other people's stories and is only one of many different creation myths. Some created before the Bible was written, and some created after.

There are people that believe that the earth is balanced atop an elephant standing upon an infinite number of turtles.

Your story has just as much likelihood of being correct as theirs...and if you base which is correct by which came first, your story is newer, therefore wrong.

Perhaps you should start reading the prose of Gilgamesh! Those crazy Sumerians have a far different story than yours, but they do seem to talk about the great flood and a similar character to Noah...perhaps the Bible got its dates mixed up (again).

Engesq, if you think God isn't here now you are fooling yourself. ALL scripture is God breathed which means the words are from Him but given to men to write down. Not to say they didn't write things from their own perspective but the Bible is God's written word to us and we all should be reading it. God is being patient so that none may perish (to eternal hell) but there will be a last day and I for one am thankful that I have chosen to love and accept His son as my saviour...don't wait until it's too late. By the way, you must not read alot because there has been many studies done on the accurateness of the Holy Bible and there are not discrepencies. Just the prophecies that have been fulfilled can boggle the mind. The chances of all the prophecies that were foretold and that have come to pass is like a bazillion to one! What part are you not understanding about God creating this earth and everything in it...if you think the government can do anything without God allowing it first you are in for quite a surprise.

That's an easy one, TFF:

The Bible is a fairy tale.

Just to correct what may be my ignorance, for all of you here talking about how homosexuality won't get one into Heaven, I thought NO "acts" got one there, but only faith in God's grace. And I thought we were ALL sinners, conceived in and born in sin, utterly unredeemed without that faith and grace. Am I wrong?

ALL scripture is God breathed which means the words are from Him but given to men to write down. Not to say they didn't write things from their own perspective but the Bible is God's written word to us and we all should be reading it.

So it's gods breath/written word, but still by other people's perspective? Does that really make sense to you?!? How about all those things in it that are patently false? Do those things not bug you?!

Just the prophecies that have been fulfilled can boggle the mind. The chances of all the prophecies that were foretold and that have come to pass is like a bazillion to one!

Wait, all those prophesies that are "fulfilled" before the texts are written?! Give me one concrete prophesy that has happened in the last 1000 years (such that it is independently documented) with any specific places, people and dates. Any at all.

What part are you not understanding about God creating this earth and everything in it...

Our earth is 4.5 billion years old, and we arose via evolution. The evidence of such is massive. So unless you are arguing god caused the big bang and evolution (which is in direct conflict with your little book) then I say I have a much better understanding of our world than you could ever hope for.

if you think the government can do anything without God allowing it first you are in for quite a surprise.

Fine, then god allowed gay marriage in 6 states, now seven, and the trend is heading for it being legal everywhere. If god were present in any way this world would be a very different place.

Sorry to burst your balloon Fab but there are several religions that pre-date Christianity by a thousand or more years and there were marriages in some if not all of those. Hinduism (2000 years older), Judaism (about 1300 years older), Zoroastrianism (about 500 to 600 years older) Jainism and Taoism (about 500 years older), and yet you think that since the 'bible' begins with 'In the beginning...' they have a lock on marriage!!! Wow that would be pretty conceited of Christianity!

Homosexuality is here and we all are in heaven homosexuals and others. When we were conceived we entered heaven and its up to us to make a hell of a place out of it. You are right. It doesn't really matter what we are, its who we are.

Indie party I am a bit confused on how marriage predates the Bible considering the Bible starts out with "In the beginning..." which means before people were even on the earth. Hmmmm, I would love to hear your explanation.

Fab,

1) Your assumption MIGHT have a shot in a 5 thousands year old world.

2) ... but then, the Torah, which comprises the first five books of the old testament didn't, were written sometime between 600 and 530 BC, and it is accepted that the gospels of the new testament were written about 70 years AD, therefore the bible couln't have come together until about the end of the first century, with some books still being debated around 400 AD.

3) ... and the bible wasn't offcially canonized until about 1500.

SO, no, the bible wasn't there "in the begining"; and therefore, the idea that marriage predates the bible is fairly sound. Took me five minutes and a thingie called Google to debunk your myths.

What is going on in this country? The American dream is a nightmare. First of all we need to elect people to Washington that would pass a constiutional amendment to ban same sex marriage which would override any state law. The judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals was way out of line when he called prop-8 unconstiutional. He cited it violated the 14th amendment which was a wrong decision. He actually violated the 1st amendment rights of the voters in Ca that approved proposition 8,which is freedom of speech. The 1st amendment should supercede the 14th amendment. The judge that made this decision should be removed from the bench. If gays want to live openly then suggest you move to Iran.

Just to correct what may be my ignorance, for all of you here talking about how homosexuality won't get one into Heaven, I thought NO "acts" got one there, but only faith in God's grace. And I thought we were ALL sinners, conceived in and born in sin, utterly unredeemed without that faith and grace. Am I wrong?

That depends on whether you're a Protestant or a Catholic. Chances are you're both completely wrong.

@nick22346

when you look at the small minority of people the lawmakers are making happy, don't forget to count all the straights like me who are happy when justice prevails.

I always love it when mainstream, Bible-believing folks decide to take the Bible as literally the word of God. A question for those folks: Does God make mistakes? If not, then everything in the Bible is literally true, without room for interpretation, and must be strictly followed as written. In that case, how is it even remotely possible for you to ignore some biblical "abominations" and believe others? Because, if God does not make mistakes, and the written Bible is not subject to interpretation, then you are participating in an "abomination" (strictly according to scripture) every time you: 1) borrow or lend money at interest, 2) wear jewelry or dyed fabrics, 3) shave, 4) bath regularly, 5) wear a wig (think about all those cancer survivors and their "abominations"), 6) serve in the civil government or army, 7) perform manual labor on feast days, 8) eat kosher food, 9) practice circumcision, or 10) refuse to stone your wife to death for adultery. Pray tell, why is it you get to pick and choose which of those you will obey? Who gave you permission to do that?

That depends on whether you're a Protestant or a Catholic. Chances are you're both completely wrong.

So says the atheist who can't decide his own fate.

Paul wrote Corinthians.

Read up on Paul(Saul).

He was just a man that wrote part of the bible.

He used his own biases as the foundation for his writings.

Paul comes across as being a misogynist and a bigot.

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful.

Yet we allow all sorts of sinners to get married - prostitutes, pornographers, swinging wife swappers, criminals, we've even allowed convicted murderers in prison to get married. Allowing sinners of any sort to get married doesn't "give approval" to their sin at all.

It would be silly to ban marriage solely on the basis of "sinfulness", indeed, the churches even encourage some types of sinners to get married!

Nor does your religious rules apply to anyone outside of your religion, this is a nation of religious freedom. So do you have any valid arguments against "same sex marriage" other than the opinion of your religion, or "I don't like it" or your hatred of "those people"?

No

So says the atheist who can't decide his own fate.

I don't believe in fate, but nice try.

seriously...no really, you are so stupid, seriously really (ha ha ha ha) don't blame the church because it is a building if you want to get mad at someone then be mad at God because he is the one who does not condone adam and steve to marry ! i bet on judgement day you will deny ( like judas e. ) that you think that being gay and being a gay married couple is just fine, God has a special place for people like you. and for your information there is a God whether you like it or not, God created the humans , not anyone else and he gave us free will after that we decide how we want to act !

Because, if God does not make mistakes, and the written Bible is not subject to interpretation, then you are participating in an "abomination" (strictly according to scripture) every time you: 1) borrow or lend money at interest, 2) wear jewelry or dyed fabrics, 3) shave, 4) bath regularly, 5) wear a wig (think about all those cancer survivors and their "abominations"), 6) serve in the civil government or army, 7) perform manual labor on feast days, 8) eat kosher food, 9) practice circumcision, or 10) refuse to stone your wife to death for adultery. Pray tell, why is it you get to pick and choose which of those you will obey? Who gave you permission to do that?

Thinkingman: You just described every other religion except christianity. In order to be "right" with God you have to base your life on a bunch of rules and regulations. The fact that you can't keep up with this form of rules and regulations proves that you are doomed to fail. I noticed that all your quotes came from the old testament ( before Christ). Nobody gave us permission to pick and choose the laws we are to follow according to the bible. That is why Christ came. We were unable to keep those laws so Christ had to do away with all of them and gave us one law instead. Look at James 2:10 where it says: For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Pretty straightforward isn't it? Which is why Christ said in Romans 3:23 " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". It really does set the stage for Christ doesn't it? Which is why Christ said in John 14:6:

Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me

Sounds like Jesus was a man with an ego.

Just believing in Jesus is the way to be "saved" and go to paradise(heaven), eh? Treating others with love and not doing any harm to others doesn't matter?

It's no wonder that so many have picked the easiest religion to follow.

I always wondered why humans will let other humans "bless" them with the supposed "power of God". No person has any more power/holiness, than any other person.

@SANDRA-3169616

There is a god wither we like it or not? Yea, that's Debatable, I say there's a alien race that's watching the earth and trying to control it and they pretend to be god!

it's my belief against yours, and you're belief does not hold any more merit then mine. Just because you say something exist doesn't mean that it does. When you show the world proof that god exists then we might believe you, But since it cant be proven or disproved, we're allowed to believe whatever we want without your religious belief trying to control us. That's what religion is, Control.

OH NOES I SPOKE AGAINST YOU AND YOUR GOD! May he strike me down for going against him! Yea not happening.

If your fake god is going to send me to hell because I refuse to believe in him, Then I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Allah, Buddha or any other religious figures, and there's nothing you can do about it, but if it makes you feel better, Pray for my soul as you people say you do. Just keep it to yourself, we don't care. (Oh and FYI, if I don't believe in god, I don't believe in Satan, which in turn don't believe in hell. So since neither of those exist I cant be influenced by them)

PS, All hail The flying spaghetti monster, Our one true god!

PSS. Things are always changing, Get over it. You don't believe in change? Good for you! wont stop it from happening.

Really? Are we still irrational enough to quote Bible Verses (we do tend to cherry pick the ones we think we agree with and understand) when discussing a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE? Nothing is so insulating against rationality as religion.

No religious institution has been compelled by law to perform these marriages. That that have done so have, by choice. In fact, the very government that you rail against for allowing same sex marriages, is specifically prevented from compelling any church to so perform one, BY THE VERY SAME AMENDMENT!

Silly, silly stupid Sandra: (2.41 above): If God made us in his image, then one of two things must be true:

1.) He made a mistake. Of course that means you must accept that He is flawed and thus nothing is perfect, or

2.) He did it on purpose, which means he saw the need for them, and thus you are going against God's express Will.

Go ahead, make your choice. How does that corner feel?

Fab five you cant reason with ignorant people that dont believe in God , they choose not to because they dont want to believe one day they will die and have to stand before him in judgement and then it will be to late , the darkness hates the light which what most people live in , they think if they can dismiss something its not true .........WRONG.

@ Wayne, I wish I could see your face when you die and there's nothing there, no heaven, no hell. just void.

The same could be said about you religious morons that try to shove your fake belief onto others. You're all mentally retarded, its sad that people believe so much in a fictional book. I wonder if I believe in harry potter so much it might become reality!

Polygamy has been made illegal why? The consenting adults want the sanction of marriage for the people who want to share a home together. Why are there laws against polygamy?

Marrying your mother or father is illegal, why? They are consenting adults who want the sanction of marriage for the people who want to share a home together and be known as man and wife. If they are willing and wanting to be sanctioned by the act of marriage why should they be denied the right?

Newman: You have it in your mind that this matters to your life or changes it in any way. At all. Even one bit. This matters to your actual life less than them approving funding for an obscure bridge in rural Washington, because the odds are you'd probably drive on that bridge before you would choose to exercise your new right to marry a man if you wanted to.

Further, for "centuries" women had no rights, blacks were slaves, and many people were persecuted based on their religion. Them standing up for inequality is what gave them rights. Also, why our nation was founded.

If I want to change the law to marry my sister and get the legislature to allow marriage between siblings and close relatives, that would not be biologically correct.

Perhaps, but having a long term, sexual relationship with a member of the same sex and species is not uncommon in nature. It has been observed frequently in captive mammals and birds, and among wild primates. But I would agree that laws like this are part of an attempt to change the nature of an instituation that has, for many centuries, been a legally binding contract between a man and the patriarch of his new property's family.

hey demoncat , careful with the stereotyping , someone might think you are a liberal homosexual .

Gay people marrying is the least of marriage's problems....

.....and I'm of the opinion that all of the "Family First" and "Protect Marriage" groups would be bettered served to apply their efforts towards actually improving families, lowering the ridiculously high divorce rates, and going on a PR campaign to make fun of dumb celebrity weddings as to bring more attention to the importance of the decision to get married.

Prop 8 is ALMOST 100% guaranteed to be upheld by the supreme court. Once they decide you can kiss gay marriage goodbye for another 8 years MINIUM. The courts majority is compromised with those who view States rights as a constitutional imperative. The legislators in California were WRONG in choosing to have the issue resolved by the Federal court. They knew district 9 would push in favor of gay marriage but they also 100% surely knew the Supreme court would strike down district 9 decision. As they have done dozens and dozens of times before.

Once this issue is sent to the Supreme Court of The United States, Washington-and every state who by courts grants gays marriage rights will find themselves not being able to give gays rights for 10 years since the courts pro states rights justices are majority right now with 5-4 as it has been since the 1980s.

This is a win for conservatives, hands down

newman-those issues havent been brought up yet-bring them up if you want to marry your mother

Brooke: The thought of teaching little kids about Steve, his second wife Mary, his third wife Anne, and the girl he is likely cheating on Anne with before he divorces her is a little more "wrong." And guess how many more marriages that actual scenario describes compared to the handful of gay couples who will probably never be seen or heard by school children.

Hell, Newt Gingrich is running for President and that is his actual life.

Side note: Hopefully kids aren't Googling "Adam and Eve," seeing as how a sex store comes up. :-)

Brooke: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve? That's clever! Did you think of it yourself? Just one question for you, B: if God didn't create Steve, who exactly did? Last I heard, only God was in the business of creating people.

Brooke, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say your a closet lesbian. Those that throw all that religious crap out there are the ones who end up swinging both ways at the end of the day. I'm not buying it.

Now a days more and more churches are becoming more acceptable to freedom of choice to live and let live. So where is your precious god now.

Yea, that's what I thought.

marriage is invented by heterosexuals for heterosexuals...im not sure why there is such a push to conform to heterosexual standards of behavior, a 50 percent divorce rate is not very appealing....aside from all the intertwining financial issues that married couples have to deal with...marraige is hardly an answer to anyones problems...if it were just about acknowledging ones commitment you don't need an official marriage license to do that,...if its about the tax breaks,...shame on you,...also since most states now recognize the "living will" as rock solid...i seen no point in it at all for gay couples...other than "just because heterosexuals do it we should do it to", which is a pretty weak reason....and a little juvenile.

@ ok so im gay.

Simple, civil unions do not offer the same level of legal protections and functions as "marriage"

Unless civil unions change to exactly mirror marriage, to the point that from a legal standpoint "marriage" is simply an arbitrary title, like husband is for a man, and wife is for a woman...then there will still be a major push for marriage to no longer be specifically gender-based.

@vico-2355381 - I fear you'll be gravely disappointed even if the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts and upholds CA Prop 8 (which is far from an almost 100% certainty). You will discover that Washington will still be able to make SSM legal. I live in a state where SSM is already legal and I'm quite safe from CA Prop 8, irrespective of how the SCOTUS decides Perry v. Brown.

@ok so i'm gay - who's pushing anyone to "conform to heterosexual standards of behavior?" The legalization of SSM simply makes the civil contract referred to as "marriage" available to same-sex couples just as it is to opposite-sex couples. Nobody will force you to enter into one. Why would you oppose giving same-sex couples that option, even if you ignore the constitutional issues with prohibiting SSM?

If God made us in his image that must mean both inside and out with the same appendages and orifices as He has. Makes me wonder who he screws when He gets horney. Gwad!, I hope He ain't messing around with Gabriel. Might cause him to lay back for a while and be late tooting his horn. Come to think about it, according to the Bible all his pals are male. Hmmmm? Suspicious! Us heterosexuals might just be the queer ones here.

christopher, i'm assuming that you know all about swimming both ways huh ? your hate for God is so obvious, who is your god, satan ? (ha ha ha ha !) you will crap in your pants when you come face to face with God because he will send you right to where you belong, in hell !

@Sandra again...

Hey Sandra, I seen other christian post that in the bible it says it's a sin for Christians to judge anyone since that's gods job. You're trying to do gods job for him? You're more likely to go to hell then gay people.

also, curious side note: If god gave man free will, Why does he try to force us to believe in him with religion? Sounds like Satan made Christianity more then God. So by that logic, Christians are going to hell for believing in the Devil since the christian god is the devil.

All this "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" stuff makes me wonder.... since Adam and Eve were the only 2 living humans to begin with, how do people who believe this feel about having sex with your own relations? Unless God created other people, then brothers and sisters were having sex and having children. Do you think this is okay?

Hey, oooookkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,

First, please provide the original format of the Scripture, not one that has been translated 50 different times and 50 different ways by 50 different people putting their 50 different sets of bias into it. Thanks!

Second, please provide empirical evidence that your Scripture is historical and scientific fact and should be the basis of our laws. This would not entail using a different Scripture from the same text claiming it as fact. That is not empirical evidence. Also, please do not say God told you to. That is also not empirical.

While you work on that, I'll be over here, rooting for equal rights for everyone, and for less religious theocracy ruling over the nation and brainwashing (and scaring!) kids into an ancient, corrupted, patriarchal, fabricated dogma system (as another astute user so accurately described it).

@oookkkaaayyy

You have sited biblical scripture that appears to be against marriage equality, and gay people so if you follow those laws I am sure you also follow these few examples:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: "Suppose a man is caught in a town having intercourse with a young woman who is engaged to someone else. You are to take them outside the town and stone them to death."

Leviticus 20: “Any person who curseth his mother or father must be killed. “

Leviticus 20:10: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”

If you don;t I am waiting with interest at how you have selected which verses to follow and which not to follow, I mean I would hate you to appear a hypocrite.

The world is a big place. it falls a piece at a time. LOL

Yes, delete everything.....

Lol, exactly Sam, that would be the only way to bring the bible up to date.

Seeing as how the bible has been edited many, many times since the King James version, you have multiple branches based on different interpretations of the bible AND the Constitution separates church and state so the bible should be the basis of government decisions, I say feel free to edit your book as you so see fit. You have been all along!

Get a life. Who says ONLY your book is right?

Who says your opinion is right?

Newman, you are funny. Doug said ONLY your book...the idea is that since you don't get to choose who has the right to marry it doesn't change who YOU can marry and really isn't any of your business. If your book says don't do it and that is what you believe then don't do it. Not everyone feels that way though, and you aren't the only right person in the world.'

My book is always right! it's written by Gary Larson...

Just throw out the bible altogether. Its not like anyone really follows it anyway.

It's just an old book of Jewish fairy tales. Treat it as such.

The Bible has many rules. Some based on the basic human experience - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - and some based on the specific living conditions of a nomadic people. Some believe that the whole thing is written by God and therefore must all be held holy and true. Others see the works as inspired by the writer's view of the world at their time - possibly encouraged by the writer's belief in an overseeing God - but subject to the social conditions which prevailed when they narratives were written. At some time when parts were written slavery was an accepted condition and normal part of society. We, now, do not. Therefore we ignore the sections which accepted slavery. The Bible is like a Rorschach Test into which we project our own hopes an fears. Let's hope that our grand experiment in democracy continues to observe the equality of ALL its citizens - even though some seem obsessed by marrying sheep.

The bible or any other religious tract has no bearing on secular law in any case, nor should it! America has secular laws not theocratic ones.

leroy brown, you are so stupid, were you born that way ?

Newman - Obviously you don't know history - most of the Royals married first cousins to keep their hierarchy going - ended up with a drooling King George IV I believe

But you not being a student of history - the Pharoahs married their thirteen year old daughters also to maitain their deity

None of this is relevant - same as your inane babbling - you sir give me a headache - worst still I find your ignorance apalling - how little you know about anything

And frankly sir your saying about relations marrying has nothing to do with the subject at hand of same sex marriages

Education is calling you - Community Colleges would welcome you - better yet your local library- at least you wouldn't take up space here!

Find a good book

Chester, procreation is not required for marriage, and vice versa. Furthermore, if the "evolutionary design of nature" was all about procreation, then homosexuals would not exist at all, and there would not be homosexuality in the animal kingdom (it has been documented in approximately 1,500 species, besides humans).

In addition, homosexuals may be an "ultra small minority," but we are not a country of majority rule, as the tyranny of the majority would deny rights to the minority -- and a minority of ONE deserves all of the same rights as everyone else.

Homosexuals do not claim to be heterosexuals, but that does not mean they should be treated as second-class citizens.

Your ignorance is underwhelming. In addition, you have shown yourself to be the one lacking in education.

There absolute IS homosexuality in nature -- many of the homosexual couples observed in the animal kingdom stay together for life, just as in humans.

This country is not one of majority rule; we are a constitutional republic, not a true democracy, as we are governed by a constitution, not by majority rule. If we were a true nation of majority rule, any candidate or issue put to a vote would require AT LEAST 51% of the votes in order to win. As it is now, the winning candidate or issue is only required to get a plurality of the votes.

You need professional help. You have a mental impairment that you can't read what I wrote or you can't understand what I wrote? "Homosexuals are people and have the right to be treated as people and enjoy all the rights."

You also said: "However, genetically, or environmentally, they are not going to be part of the evolutionary design of nature." Since homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed, it seems that they have been and continue to be "part of the evolutionary design of nature". It has been posited that they exist to prevent overpopulation of the species (just one example).

BTW, you may be "having a discussion with Barbara," but you are posting in a public forum. YOU need to chastised for deciding who can comment on your posts. You don't like what I have to say? Too bad. YOU are not allowed to make baseless claims about a group of people and attack others who take exception to your ignorance.

Perhaps it's time for you to stop playing with your mother's computer and let the adults have a conversation.

Talk about "deliberate distortion of the truth" -- you seem to be a master of it, Chester:

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

See I can post in bold letters, too!

Have you learned any other skills? Like how to do research?

I remember when we used to have free kittens in America.. those were the good ole days

You actually PAID for a cat??

Yes, cat lovers "pay" for their cats.

Smart people just get them for free.

That leaves someone out of the smart category.

ALF loves cats!

He says they are very tasty.

don't buy adopt from a shelter!!!!!!

I thought that this vine was about Gay marriage and not cats??? Why hasn't Palin been mentioned yet??

Sarah Palin? Does she have a gay cat too??

I'm pretty sure a saucer of milk and a net would be a much cheaper way of acquiring a cat.

leroy brown, you ignorance continues to show it's ugly face !

She probably bought the kitten to because she loves it and will want to marry it.

Alex, I am sorry that you have had to miss the good ol' days when people knew that marriage is between a man and a woman...

youre feisty, mmmm i like that. i bet u have a cute little but mister big scary strait man! ;)

Alex, I'm not all that much older than you, but I am very glad someone as young as you will be the future of this country; and thank you for being someone who remembers all me are created equal.

As a man, my happiness would be to start using the women's bathroom. Now that we're all equal, I can't wait to start!!

alex1201, really, you are leaving this country ? where will you be moving to ? not that i will shed any tears !

I'm only three years older then Alex but I share his views, Equal rights to everyone. I look forward to the day that Christians would learn that they don't run this country like they think they do.

Nah, you just don't believe in equality. That's fine, as long as you admit it. :) Also it's funny how Christians complain about being discriminated against in this country when you could be executed in a Muslim country. I think you guys have it pretty good here.

Out of curiousity...I would be interested to know where you would like to move. Do you plan on living in an area or state that does not have any gay people near you?

Yeah it does- disagreeing with "equality" kinda by definition makes you a bigot. Also, saying "At least you don't get shot here" is a farce of an argument. Granted, we are still struggling with legacy laws that were "ok" when they were made, but now it's time to step up and actually be the America we tell other countries we are.

Your statement is either poorly thought out or well thought by an idiot. To say that gays have it good as compared to The Gambia, as if they should be happy with what they're given is a moronic statement. No American should have to except limited rights and have to follow certain laws because of their sexual preference. And to compare the rights of an American to those of a third world country is like saying that we shouldn't expect the right to privacy because citizen of North Korea have no right to privacy. You may be a traditionalist but that doesn't mean you have to be closed minded about who you think should have rights and who shouldn't.

Inadaze It is amazing at the ignorance of liberals such as inadaze. Islam specifically accepts the right of people to believe in the religions of Christians.

On the other hand Islam/Muslims do not accept homosexuality.

"Funny how Christians complain about being discriminated against..." Yeah, that's all I ever hear is the Christians complaining. Give me a break.

Are you completely ignorant or do you just not think before you speak? I'm a gay female and I'm only 18. You come across as someone who has never been in a meaningful relationship. Marriage is the joining of two people because they love each other to the highest degree. And if it's 'no big deal' then why is it even a question to why it should or shouldn't be legal? If it wasn't important then there would be no question and anyone could marry whoever they wanted. People that are like you are the only problem in this country now.

@ Newman1 yes that's right, never in the history of mankind have muslims abused a different religious minority in their own country. Never happens- all those newstories of race riots in Egypt or Shia/ Sunni muslims hurting the minority doesn't happen. Hilarious- I bet you'd read an article talking about a religion driven murder or attack and attack them for being barbarians.

Certainly, the salem witch trials were fabricated as well.

Newman, it's interesting you call someone ignorant. Might want to rethink that one, pot.

nicholas-ok, so jews in teh US have it pretty good, but in nazi germany they didnt-are you really comparing teh US to savegs in Africa?? women dont have righst tehre either-shoudl women be grateful?? idiotic bigot! die off please!!

Inadaze - You have never been deployed. From reading those statements of yours you're ignorant of the world around you. Yes this stuff happens, they dont send our troops overseas to sell magazines door to door. You're trying to eliminate history that has already been written. You can't dismiss it, rather you could, but that makes you even more stupid that when you opened your mouth the first time.

As for Newman, dude you need to get a life. Seriously just get a life.

I am constantly amazed at the people who say "well, look at (insert ant theocracy here) THEY don't allow it, why should we"? And then in another post will rail on and on about the same country's citizens not having the same freedoms we do.

Can't have it both ways. Either we are a country where all are created equal or we aren't. If you believe in civil liberties you don't get to pick and choose who those liberties are granted to. Our founding principles are based on those civil liberties.

Most Americans don't want to live in a theoracy. And those who do only want their own special 'flavor' to rule. Fine, Go found your own country. That's not the US, never has been, and according to the Constitution, never will be.

nicholas, i agree with you %100, only a few people posted comments that do not criticize God ,

but the ones that are, are dumbasses !

Inadaze As you are so found of saying, it is different what the religion says and the people do.

I take it you will still love your cat if it turns out gay then?

not concerned with what the3 people think!!!

So, 3 people didn't want gay marriage, they can get over it

Has nuthin to do with politicians. If you were in office your butt would be voted out in a heart beat.

Robert-301053,

Here is the problem with the reasoning that you copied from someone else:

Say for example, that in your state, the majority of the voters are white. Those voters get enough signatures to have a referendum to "enslave black people again" as a state constitutional amendment. The vote takes place and it's a 53% majority.

This reasoning fails for very clear reasons. Just because the "majority" want's something to be their way doesn't make it so. There is Equal Protection Under The Law - Where every human being in the United States of America is afford the very same rights and liberties as ever other human being in this country. This is a guarantee of our Civil Rights.

Even if there is a referendum, and that goes to a vote and the majority votes to stop same sex marriage. So what? That still doesn't work because you have to apply all our rights to all people equally. Look what happened in California.

"The courts are there to stop the tyrannic nature of the masses" -Thomas Jefferson

Those 3 are the 1%

Bill in Mill Creek Your are argument is facetious. Grow up, educate yourself and learn to accept the rights of others that have 100's of years of tradition.

pm121 be careful what you wish for pm121. Without those 1%ers you would be paying a hell of a lot more taxes, if you had a job, you would be paid much less and you would be stuck at a much lower economic level.

Hell you wouldn't even be able to afford a computer, pay for the internet service or the electricity to run the computer.

Remember the 1%ers don't have to work and can just pick up their lock, stock and barrel and move to Canada or Australia or some nice little country where your ilk wouldn't dare bother them.

Grow up, educate yourself and learn to accept the rights of others

You first.

Bill is right; we are not a country of majority rule, as we are not a true democracy -- we are a constitutional republic, as we are governed by a constitution. Civil rights cannot be voted on, as the tyranny of the majority would deny rights to the minority.

BTW, currently 53% of Americans support gay equality -- and that does look like a majority to me. If we WERE a country of majority rule, looks like you'd be on the losing side. Just sayin'.

Australia and Canada both have the same law. Those who invest outside of either Canada or Australia don't have to pay taxes in either Canada or Australia. That means all those nice 1%ers can move to Canada or Australia, invest their money in other countries with very low taxes etc. and not pay any income taxes, capital gains taxes in the U.S. and that drops the tax burden down on the next class of people. Nice eh?

Newman...facts don't change because you want them to. Just because you want the world to run totally as you see it should doesn't mean it will. If voters wanted to make blacks all slaves again you think that would automatically happen? Just because some might not want people to be considered equal and have rights doesn't mean they lose them. Sorry you don't get to run things your way...lol.

newman1

"...Your are argument is facetious."

1. Get an editing program.

2. Your tradition is inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States of America.

3. Your ilk are constantly telling who can and can't be married. What books can't be in our science classes. Trying to force religion in our schools. Always up in arms about womens choices. Constantly railing about children born out of wedlock. . . . in short, always telling others how to live their lives. Sounds like BIG, GIANT, MASSIVE government to me.

If you and your lover want to have a fun filled night with a tub of butter, scuba gear, a tennis racket, a stuffed goat, . . and a plan. By all means. Take photos and put them on a website and share them with your friends. . . . . Go ahead. We don't care. Have fun.

We will not tell you how to live your life and you don't tell us how to live ours. That's the deal.

Robert

I find this sort of strange, but if the elected officials vote your way, then it's WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY, WE'RE A REPUBLIC, RULED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS. If they vote for something you don't like, suddenly we ARE a democracy, and it should have been done by popular vote.

If you get your way with a popular vote, then it's THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! and the heck with elected officials.

If the popular vote doesn't get you your way, you run to the elected officials to get your way, see line one above. Round and round. So in other words, it's whichever way and whatever it takes to get YOUR way, if you can. How convenient.

NW, a republic is a form of democracy, and as such it is perfectly accurate to call the United States either.

I'll never understand why some people insist thar we're one and not the other...

Robert: You obviously have a very poor understanding of Washington State voters. Take a hint homophobe...that's one of the last places you're going to find your fellow haters.

ram-762581 You liberals need to read and comprehend. You did neither. Anyone reading your comments will quickly come to the realization, you have nothing concrete or beneficial to add to the discussion.

It is you and your kind who want to change the world and have it run your way. I was very content to let the past system with fewer laws, allow the people who know how to make this country run, continue to run it and permit homosexuals to have all the rights as heterosexuals under civil unions.

They and you are not content with moving forward and making a more successful country with the best leaders. Your continuous meddling and not looking at how many minor changes could make this country great again is what is causing this country to slide into 2nd class status.

Better education based on the proven successful formulas that charter and private schools have demonstrated.

The use of hydrogen fuel as is being used in China, England, Japan and Norway and completely ignored by the U.S.

Redrawing the trade agreements that have harmed the U.S. and which Obama has consistently dropped tariff protection for the U.S.

Getting the other countries to put in their share of military expense when required. New Zealand, Australia and many other countries refuse to cooperate with the U.S. in military actions.

Getting Russia, China, France, Germany and many other countries to pay their WWII debts and obligations to the U.S. Remember the Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, the military aid to China and Russia?

U.S. governments and this administration have refused to demand any of these repayments or help.

Keep on with your liberal braying. It just falls on the liberal ears that want to hear it and not challenge it.

ErinNJ How can you be so obnoxious and make such delirious comments! Laws are passed by majorities. Representatives are elected by majorities. Reread the bill of rights and constitution. You sound like you just landed on these shores from some totalitarian regime. This country was founded as a democracy. Look up the term and read the definition.

We are democracy with a bit of republic leanings. Learn to understand the principles under which the democracy was founded and how it has been modified. You are definitely demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of the terms in the constitution and the definition of democracy and republic.

It is a waste of time to discuss with an uneducated person who cannot equate herself to the level at which a meaningful discussion can be held.

I am grateful that we are not governed by "majority rule" and this question should not be left to the voters of Washington state or any other. Civil rights are not subject to majority rule, thank goodness. And even if the issue were to be decided by voting, we would just have to keep voting and voting as attitudes change and younger voters become involved. A recent PEW research study showed that while close to 70% of Baby Boomers and older disapproved, about the same number of under-30's don't care and don't even know why it is such a deal. One more generation ought to about do it.

Bill in Mill Creek You make statement similar to ErinNJ. Noone can understand what you are trying to write or say. I am not a legal organization who can tell who can and can not be married. You give me too much power. I am stating what I can rationalize, arrive at conclusions, think and make my opinions.

You can not express yourself clearly. You are assuming way to much. You know what assume means. Someone is an ass for jumping to conclusions. Please show me where I mentioned anything about religion, or science books. If you can't you owe me an out right apology. If you don't apologize, then you are a rude crude obnoxious person who is libeling and defaming me on an open network in front of millions of people.

Karen C.-1567472 You should keep up to date in order to comment. It is a historical fact that as humans age, they get more conservative, have more time to think, consider and want to protect their traditions, beliefs and time won intelligence. Younger people are much too worried about finding a mate, children and succeeding at their profession to give these serious issues much attention and just go with the sound bite, they get on the tv or radio and whatever sounds good to them. It is only later in life do they have the ability and time to really focus on the issue and get insights into what is happening to this country and why some people are allowing it to be run half ass and to understand that politicians are not to be trusted and major changes are to be made.

Many young people can't spend their valuable time, working, tending to a family, maturing and getting to a stage where serious and careful thinking is involved. Just go back to the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U.S. and add up their ages and divide by the number of individuals. Remember in that time 40 was considered real OLD!

These people were wealthy, for the most part land owners, had given the matter considerable thought, knew that if they lost the war or new country, they most surely would have been killed or jailed and all their property would have been confiscated.

Mr.McGrath: This country was founded as a DEMOCRACY. It was not founded as a republic. Read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and show me one place that the word republic appears.

Since the United States of America was founded as a Democracy it can not legally be referred to in any shape or form as a republic.

Someone recently said that only U.S.A. citizens can be referred to as citizens of the United States.

He is wrong. The legal name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico. Therefore it is completely legal and proper to call Mexicans citizens of the United States. One has to be accurate if one wants a healthy discussion.

There is a real answer why the U.S.A. is a democracy and not known as a republic. It was formed as a democracy using the laws under which a democracy is established and has always been politically established and designated as a DEMOCRACY. If the U.S.A. was established as a republic, then the Declaration of Independence and all the terms of the Constitution of the U.S., the Bill Of Rights and all the amendments would have been written and voted on differently.

Just look up the terms Democracy and Republic. Put them side by side on a table and work your way through the Declaration and Constitution and see why the U.S.A. is not a republic. It is simple.

This country was founded as a DEMOCRACY. It was not founded as a republic. Read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and show me one place that the word republic appears.

WRONG. This country has always been a constitutional republic, as we are governed by a constitution, not by the notion of majority rule. YOU read the Declaration of Independence if you want to, but it is not the foundation of our laws and government -- that would be the Constitution, which you should also read (someone can explain the big words to you). The tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights to the minority -- which is why we are a republic.

Do you even know the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you recall the words "...and to the republic for which it stands..." that are near the end?

re·pub·lic

   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA

noun

1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

de·moc·ra·cy

   [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government

Definitions #1 and #3 under "republic" describe our form of government exactly: we elect representatives to make our laws, and our head of state is elected. We are not a true democracy, as we do not directly vote on everything. And the majority does not rule in this country.

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.[1] The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

Newman, we were founded as BOTH. That's the point. We are a democracy. We are a republic. We have a presidential system with a bicameral legislature. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

We are democracy with a bit of republic leanings. Learn to understand the principles under which the democracy was founded and how it has been modified. You are definitely demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of the terms in the constitution and the definition of democracy and republic.

Gee, so all that time I spent as a paralegal when I lived in Washington, DC must have meant nothing -- as do the two bachelor's and master's degrees I have managed to obtain. All of that pales in comparison to your superior bull@!$%#. /s

It is a waste of time to discuss with an uneducated person who cannot equate herself to the level at which a meaningful discussion can be held.

I agree -- so it's time to put away your mother's computer and go to bed -- you need to study for your civics and US history classes, if you ever plan to attend either. It's clear you have not so far.

How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic? There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mention the word "democracy".

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NotDemocracy.html

newman, I am pretty confident that I am worthy to post here. You make a point about people becoming more conservative as they grow older but, I think that in this case younger people have grown up knowing gay people or knowing about them and are forever far less likely to see them as a threat the way that older people do. When asked the fundamental question on the subject...how does it hurt you? they will be far more likely to see that it just doesn't. As more and more people ask themselves why anyone would choose to be ostracized by many in society and begin to see that no one would choose, then they come to the conclusion that there is no choice in the matter. And if that is the case, then people of fair mind and good heart can't hate people for what they are. Some people still can hate but, it is then something within themselves. The argument that homosexuality is akin to having sex with sheep or one's mother is old, tired and dumb and should be retired.

I'm confused, is Newman saying countries like New Zealand are not working with US because of their views on gay marriage ? I was totally lost there. Clear to clarify Newman you lost me there.

You should fast for about a month or two. That would show them.

By all means, please do, because talking to yourself and not eating is clearly the most logical thing to do as to prevent people you don't know, and likely don't hang out with, from doing something that won't change your life in any way, shape, or immoral form.

You really have to wonder what people like Karlene are afraid of.

Yes, good point...Karlene, what are you afraid of? How will two gay people getting married affect you?

This is a call to all gays and lesbians. We need to fight to homophobic religious nonsense that the breeders want to inflict on all of us not just themselves. We need to fast and to pray that God does have mercy upon them for their intransigent inbred and secular attitude pertaining to their beliefs that they want us all to adhere to. They are no better than the muslims with their own sharia law and would have us all put to death for something that NONE of us chose to be. God DID make us this way contrary to what they espouse that it is a choice. But since we are, let's fight back for our own civility and dignity. I don't ask them to give up their right to marriage nor should they be allowed to deny me of a basic right to happiness. Enough of their bullsh**.

I'm right there with you Karlene! lets pray and hope all this can stop soon Im tired of seeing all these gays and lesbians, they are SINNERS and they shouldn't get any rights. They are against what this country was built on.

Hi Karlene, it would be a good idea; however, the Bible is clear in what direction this world is headed. This was predicted by Jesus himself about 2000 years ago. It doesn't mean we have to accept as is being correct. Society has failed in many ways it will continue to do so until God returns for His children. Those who decide to go against the Word of God are not His children and there is no need to argue with ignorance. Just stay true to the Word of God and continual praying for this nation, which is going downhill very fast.

What are the homosexuals afraid of that they have to encroach on the heterosexual system to obtain a bit of legitimacy for their awkward situation. They are free to obtain all the rights of heterosexuals and they can't allow us to keep our language and legal system?

They have everything they want. Why do they insist that they are heterosexuals and use the term marriage? It is not marriage. No way can you twist marriage and nature to include homosexuals.

They want to live together and do what they want, have visiting rights, be declared a family unit, get the same tax breaks as a heterosexual, leave the civil union or have right of survivorship fine.

I want marriage to keep its meaning. The legal joining of one man and one woman.

I find it so funny that people like Kim Kardasian and Britney Spears make a mockery of marriage, the divorce rate is 51%, and more and more men and women are foregoing marriage and just shaking up, having children out of wedlock, all with barely a wimper in protest, but two men or two women want to get married, and suddenly our country is morally bankrupt?

Newman: you don't own the word "marriage".

Homosexuals do NOT have "everything they want" -- they do not have full equality; they are treated as second-class citizens under the law.

Yes, please fast and pray and do nothing else. It will defiantly accomplish something. Every time us liberals try and do something, just fast and pray and it is guaranteed to go away.

Karlene Johnson, please feel free to fast yourself to death.

Please fast for at least a year. I'm sure it will turn everyone straight. I'm positive. You just need to try and get all your religious friends to join you. <sarcasm>

ErinNJ Heterosexuals own the word marriage. If you can't discuss a topic rationally don't enter into the comment area with libel and defamation.

WRONG, Newman. Heterosexuals do not own the word "marriage". Civil marriage existed for thousands of years before religion got involved, and same-sex marriage was legal in ancient China, Greece, and Rome.

All YOU have brought to the discussion is misinformation and lies; hardly "rational".

NO ONE owns the word "marriage," least of all christo-bigots and regular bigots like you.

You can't fast and pray away peoples' basic human rights in this country.

Karlene: Inspiring Christians to spread hate and intolerance?? Seriously?? Where did you learn your "Christianity"??? ...if you want to take up that banner of hypocrasy go ahead, but I'm guessing real Christians won't be following.

Newman: seriously?? You're so homophobic that you actually think some gay person is going to force you into marriage?? What?? And you claim someone else isn't being "rational"???

How sad that people incorrectly equate behavior to human equality. People with homosexual tendencies/behavior have the same rights as every human being. One canNOT equate this with racial equality. It is not the same. One is changeable and the other is not. Withholding the ability to marry does not reduce their rights. Marriage is a sacrament established by God that the states support. It is not a right.

However, every person has a right to do whatever they wish in private. The behavior of homosexuality is for them to choose. God gives everyone free will. However just because they choose to participate in such action does not deem it acceptable nor warrant the definition of marriage. For example, when a heterosexual married person cheats on spouse, it is not deemed acceptable nor honoring the marriage vow. Both expose a weakness called sin and a separation from God. If we repent from all our sin/weakness, God has his arms open to forgive us and provide His all loving grace. It is for each to make the choice. Blessing to all.

Ummm Newman....I am heterosexual and nowhere in my will do I see listed the word marriage. Just sayin...if you own it, I would like to see your receipt please.

Votefor: Your logic makes sense if you ignore one small thing, it isn't a selected behavior. If you knew any gay people, you'd realize that they are what they are. Wasn't a choice. No one chooses a lifestyle in which they will be discriminated against, persecuted, and possibly hated by their friends and loved ones.

And, in terms of religion, free thinking can go a long way. ;-)

Sorry Votes, the Constitution doesn't work like that. The United States is a secular democracy whose laws and government are in no way based on any religion.

ErinNJ Show me where in Washington State today it says that a marriage license can be issued to two men or two women. You want to get married to a women go ahead. To 99% of the world you are not legally married. Enjoy your self delusion. Your so called marriage will not be recognized in India, China, Japan, Russia, many European and Asian countries, African countries, most Latin American countries, all Muslim countries. Sort of makes you the odd one out doesn't it?

It is estimated that there were 30,000 same sex marriages and that depends on roll backs.

60% of the states have prohibitions on same sex marriages.

President Obama has said he believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman,"

Well that settles it for you liberals. If your liberal president is against same sex marriage then according to you, I am in good company.

SweetAZ Show me where I said I own it. Then issue me an apology.

Newman, you are the deluded one: like all "good" bigots, you ASSume that because I support equality, I must be homosexual. And you know what "they" say about those who ASSume.

I am a straight, married woman; married to the same man for nearly 30 years. Since you like to demand them so much, YOU can issue ME an apology.

BTW, President Obama has also said that his opinion of same-sex marriage is "evolving". And I do not based my opinions on what others may have to say; I, unlike you, prefer to have informed opinions; I deal in facts and research, not hearsay, fear, and nonsense.

The current situation with regard to the states and same-sex marriage will be changing sooner rather than later: DOMA has already been ruled unconstitutional by several federal judges, Prop H8 has just been found unconstitutional by yet another federal court -- so enjoy going down with your ship.

Currently, 53% of Americans support marriage equality. How sad for you to be on the wrong side of history! How pathetic you are!

Oh, BTW: show me where I "entered the comment area with libel and defamation". And tell us how YOU get to decide who can "enter the comment area".

ErinNJ All you have is a computer and the intelligence to type and not do research:

"Washington state law grants domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples within the state. Couples must register with the Domestic Partner Registry administered by the Washington secretary of state in order to be legally recognized. To register, couples must meet six criterion."

Read more: Domestic Partner Definition in Washington State | eHow.com #ixzz1lqpo2eS9

Get used to it heterosexuals are heterosexuals. Homosexuals are homosexuals. Bisexuals are Bisexuals.

Washington State definition of marriage:

Marriage

• The definition of marriage in Washington state is "a civil contract between a male and a female..

Read more: Domestic Partner Definition in Washington State | eHow.com #ixzz1lqqQOzR7

A few want to change that and make themselves permanently ridiculous and forever known as liberals who caved into a politically motivated act so be it. Erin you make less sense every day.

Here in black and white Washington state says that Domestic Partners have the same rights as married couples. It goes further and states that marriage is between a man and a women.

Now you go through out the United States and look up the 50 laws, then go to Puerto Rico and the U.S. islands in the Pacific and find their laws and get back to me.

Get used to the fact nature never intended to create homosexuals as it never intended to create albinos, people with two different colored eyes or children with Tay-Sachs or early aging syndrome, Progenia.

And why is that? Because Tay-Sachs and Progenia kills the children before they can breed.

Ancient custom was to kill people with two different colored eyes as it was considered evil.

Albinos in most animals are killed or eaten quickly and sunlight makes them almost blind.

Homosexuals are nature's dead end. Normally, they cannot reproduce. And don't start with adoption, surrogate mothers, and sperm donation. That is not natural and not a viable excuse.

ErinNJ You fell into the trap I baited for you. I said IF you wanted to marry a female. I didn't say you were a lesbian. Learn to read and avoid bear traps. It makes you look even more foolish, that you didn't recognize the trap and walked right into it.

I owe you no apology. You owe me an apology for calling me deluded, when I knew perfectly well what I was doing.

Newman, nature by that logic never "intended" to make left-handed people. Should we thus deny them basic human rights?

This is in response to Jack : You can believe what you wish. But the facts are there are many former homosexuals who are no longer practicing homosexuality. Some have remarried. Wasn't there a "sex in the city" star that recently stated that she now prefers homosexual relationships; previously she was heterosexual. She is bisexual. It is a choice that one chooses to practice.

I wrote a paper on Oscar Wilde (one of the most witty writers), who was bisexual; practicing both homosexuality and heterosexuality. he never alluded to being born with it; rather he choose all forms of pleasure seeking. How then do you explain bisexuals who happen to practice homosexuality?

And Jack, I do know of a friend who was not a homosexual until she went away to college.

You logic makes sense if you choose to ignore that many people make bad choices; some choose a lifestyle of drugs, drinking, cheating, embezzlement, etc which is no less discriminated against.

I feel sympathy for those (self included) struggling with any weakness. There is no hate here; only prayers for them to know the truth and find real freedom.

ErinNJ Learn to recognize Political Speak, at your age, you should have learned already. Doma was ruled unconstitutional in two states and has been appealed. Actually DOMA was signed by your hero CLINTON.

When the new president gets in, it will take on 38 states to ratify an amendment to make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.

ErinNJ P8 is already under fire under different attacks. The judge is guilty of misconduct by not excusing himself. He is gay and had a biased interest in making his decision.

Try and not continue to be ridiculous.

ErinNJ All you have is a computer and the intelligence to type and not do research:

Really? So I guess being a librarian means nothing, too, against your superior bull@!$%#ting, make-it-up-as-you-go-along skills.

Washington state law grants domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples within the state. Couples must register with the Domestic Partner Registry administered by the Washington secretary of state in order to be legally recognized. To register, couples must meet six criterion.

And the Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal".

It goes further and states that marriage is between a man and a women.

Guess that's changed, now that his law has passed. Get used to it. Homosexuals are taxpaying US citizens. Heterosexuals are taxpaying US citizens. Bisexuals are taxpaying US citizens. Gee, Newman, you make less sense every second.

Get used to the fact nature never intended to create homosexuals as it never intended to create albinos, people with two different colored eyes or children with Tay-Sachs or early aging syndrome, Progenia.

So the fact that homosexuality has existed in humankind in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind itself has existed means nothing, too, I guess. Or the fact that homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species besides humans -- nature must not have "intended" for any of that to happen, either. I mean, since you seem to be the authority on what nature "intended," perhaps you can explain all that to us.

Homosexuals are nature's dead end. Normally, they cannot reproduce. And don't start with adoption, surrogate mothers, and sperm donation. That is not natural and not a viable excuse.

Reproduction is irrelevant to marriage, as one is not required for the other. No state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, or else the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children would not be allowed to marry.

So you don't want to hear about adoption, surrogacy, insemination, or IVF? TOO BAD. I suppose heterosexuals who choose those avenues to have families are "unnatural" to you. You do not get to decide what a "viable excuse" is for everyone else, either, since you are such a poor excuse for a human being.

Show me where in Washington State today it says that a marriage license can be issued to two men or two women. You want to get married to a women go ahead.

Where is the word "IF" in there? You didn't "bait" any "trap," Newman; you're not that smart, as evidenced by your numerous posts.

You owe me an apology for calling me deluded, when I knew perfectly well what I was doing.

ROFLMAO! Hold your breath, Newman...

Doma was ruled unconstitutional in two states and has been appealed.

Perhaps you missed the memo, Newman: the President and Attorney General have said that the DOJ will no longer defend DOMA.

You obviously have no idea of the process involved in getting a Constitutional Amendment passed. It is extremely time-consuming to even get an amendment proposed. Several attempts have already been made for a Marriage Protection Amendment, and the votes are not there -- not even close. And there will be no new president until January 20, 2017, by which time DOMA will most likely have been ruled unconstitutional and/or repealed, and anti-gay marriage laws will be struck by the Supreme Court.

Dream on, oh deluded one!

McGrath I thought you were smarter than to make that ridiculous argument. Many of nature's adaptations have been accepted by the environment. And most have been rejected. As being left handed is not a fatal flaw like Tay-Sachs, it was left in the DNA to occasionally pop up.

It is not like Progenia. I do wish, you wouldn't bother me with teaching you elementary genetics or biology.

ErinNJ You have not demonstrated the ability to be a librarian with the nonsense you have so far stated.

You owe me an apology for calling me deluded.

I accept that you are dishonest enough not to recognize that you are disingenuous, fell into a trap and libeled me to the extent that an apology is required.

You are not only deluded, Newman, you are uneducated and willfully ignorant. You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetic. You throw bull@!$%# out there, hoping that you may have stated one "fact" in all your droppings. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, I guess. While you think you have "superior knowledge," the truth is that you have nothing at all -- except the perspective from the inside of your ass, which I guess is where your "facts" are coming from.

ErinNJ, This president may not defend DOMA, that certainly doesn't mean a future president do the same. As this president flip flops like a fish out of water, you never know one day from another what he is going to do.

ErinNJ Everything you said, I have refuted in fact and with statistics. I pity the poor school that uses you for a librarian. It must be Newark or Camden.

ErinNJ you are screaming your head off like a wounded animal. That can only mean, that I have mortally wounded your self esteem, your belief in your principles and challenged successfully your ability to reason.

Newman, you have "challenged" nothing but my patience. I notice you have given up the argument about whether the US is a democracy or republic -- perhaps because you lost that argument, too.

BTW, what "facts" and "statistics" have you provided? You can't even cite sources for your claims -- but then, it would be hard to make up a citation for the Encyclopedia of Your Ass.

ErinNJ I have degrees that make your pitiful Degree in Library Science look like a first graders take me home picture for mommy. Erin the Washington State statements are direct from the Washington State on line sites. Do stop trying to demonstrate your inability to understand direct facts.

The law has not changed until the governor signs it and it is successfully adopted after it is appealed.

There is no information that homosexuality has existed in the same numbers for any length of time in the history of mankind. You are demonstrating your complete insanity in making up these ridiculous statements.

That's not even a cop-out, Newman. You just cherry picked which minorities you want to discriminate against whilly nilly.

ErinNJ I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself and trying to keep up with me. This is enjoyment for me, watching a liberal squirm. You can't look up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and find that the word republic does not show up. You can't argue the points I make so you change the topics. That is not good debating. That only shows how deficient you are.

McGrath, show me one single sentence where I have discriminated against one single minority.

ErinNJ what facts and statistics have you asked for?

ErinNJ you are beating a dead horse, that you know the answer to. Marriage is to ascertain that the children from the woman are the prodigy of the man and will inherit the wealth, belongings and rights of the husband.

I have degrees that make your pitiful Degree in Library Science look like a first graders take me home picture for mommy.

Where did I say that I have a degree in library science?

This is what you do: make it up as you go along, then try to claim that you "planned" it that way if you accidentally are correct.

Your ass must drag along the sidewalk if it has such a big book of facts hidden in there.

ErinNJ I am going to take the liberty of making a personal observation, you sound like a lonely old spinster who takes no warmth or enjoyment from her family and just gets on the comment area to watch your comments get beaten down. Definitely you find no intellectual stimulation from the man you married. Or he might be too bored with you to bother to answer your ridiculous often repeated statements.

You said you were a librarian. To work in a school in New Jersey you need a degree in Library Science. Of course if you don't have a degree in Library Science, then that is a reason you are so incapable of debating with me.

I went back and saw that you said you had two degrees and a master's degree and work as a pitiful school librarian?

And you can't debate with me? You hop from one theme to another like a cat on a hot stove.

Of course it can not be believed based on your answers that you have any degree at all in any subject. You lack objectivity, the ability to reason and the ability to answer competently any question.

ErinNJ Two things. My eighth grade history teacher was very strict but very intelligent. She told me something that remained with me all my life. When a person resorts to vulgarity like you do and makes personal attacks that means they do not have a capable vocabulary or sufficient intelligence to answer conclusively.

The second matter is that the following vulgarity automatically loses you the debate and authenticity to reply: "Your ass must drag along the sidewalk if it has such a big book of facts hidden in there."

No one with any education would make that statement.

ErinNJ Dream on Obama is on his way out. He just flip flopped on Pacs. As you no doubt realize a president has to be presidential. The very last thing that Obama is is presidential. If he has to beg the American public for a second term like a school boy begging for a second chance, that is a poor example of a man who wants to be president.

Just one?

Homosexuals are nature's dead end.

Face it dude, your more recent posts show an attempt to sound superior and mature, but your earlier comments illustrate how ill-informed and childish you are capable of behaving.

McGrath, if you had the intelligence to understand the meaning of that statement and had any sort of argument to support any claim that homosexuals are not nature's dead end, then you have failed to provide those facts or claims.

You have such a low and immature opinion of yourself that anything that sounds reasonable and true makes you unsure of yourself.

Name calling and insulting is the product of a person who is unsure and worried about his convictions.

McGrath as with ErinNJ, I will offer a free personality diagnosis. First you are a lonely old man who lives alone and has very few friends. You take any statement that you perceive as an attack on your liberal dogma and respond not with facts but with personal attacks. That automatically concedes the debate in my favor. It is my opinion that you only come on to repeat what you have said day after day to get other people to clap you on the back and say good old MCGRATH he gave it to him without either you or your liberal friends having any idea what you are saying or replying to.

Second you are a person of very limited education and social standing. You have no confidence in yourself or respect for your oft repeated statements. That is the reason for the personal attacks. If you had any facts, conclusions, information to counter my claim that homosexuals are nature's dead ends, you would report them. As you lack any information, you fall back on the personal attack.

Third, I will not personally attack you. Your ego is too fragile and you might have a serious medical issue if you took the personal attack with the force that I were to use against you.

Fourth, you don't even make the good fight. You just amuse me with your own self bewildering rants and ravings.

If it is natures dead end then you better cross off these animals off the list in the animal kingdom. Black Swans, Gulls, Mallards, Ibises, Penguins, Vultures, Pigeons, Amazon Dolphin, American Bison, Bonobo Chimpanzees, Bottlenose Dolphins, Elephants, Giraffes, Monkeys, Japanese Macaque, Lions, Polecat, Sheep, Spotted Hyena, Lizards, Dragonflies, Fruit Flies, and bed bugs. This is just a small sample size of animals in the world that exhibit homosexual tendencies. That doesn't even go into species that by nature are hermaphroditic and by definition are homosexual. Maybe you should reform your ignorant comment and realize that many species have used homosexual relationships and mating for hundreds of billions of years to evolve more complex organisms. Who knows what evolutionary changes will happen in the millions of years that are going to come when we are long gone. One thing for sure is that nature won't care about your opinion or mine.

To newman1 - you are one of the most hateful people I have ever read the comments of. You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and then rethink you personal attacks against anyone who does not follow your own personal beliefs and dogma. You tear down others and accuse them of name calling, and in the same breath you name call and attack their education, ability to think, self-esteem, social skills, relationship maintenance, job skills, and it would seem most anything else you can think of. It must really be hard to live with all that venom in you. I feel sorry for you, as well as for anyone your venom leaks out on.

Oh, and by the way, quoting that a state's laws are a certain way is a pretty weak argument for keeping them that way. I'm glad that certain laws have not been kept on the books just because they are already there. Take for instance, Jim Crow, slavery, the 'rule of thumb' that allowed husbands to beat their wives, women not being allowed to vote... Oh, and that thing about discriminating against a minority and not allowing them to marry whomever they choose. I'm sure proud to be a Washingtonian today! I'm glad my representatives in the legislature are listening to the will of the people, and not kowtowing to the pressure from the religious bigots who want to force the rest of the world to live according to their own personal biases.

May God bless you, and help you to overcome your hatefulness!

Once again Newman, taking a superior tone doesn't convince anyone that you know what you're talking about. You have repeatedly deflected and changed the subject at every opportunity, falling back to name calling and blatantly unfounded assertions. You have a lot of growing up to do, kiddo.

Apparently Newman doesn't realize -- or doesn't care -- that resorting to ad hom attacks is a dead giveaway that he has lost the argument.

Furthermore, his constant projection of his own shortcomings on others grows tiresome. I've dealt with children's temper tantrums that were more worthwhile.

Newman: I'm sure you are a perfectly nice person, but you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about when it comes to this; only shoveling yourself deeper into misinformed thinking. I'm not even saying that as a petty online argument, you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

For some, exploring bisexuality is indeed a choice, and it is not terribly difficult for them to avoid doing so. Full on homosexuals can't just "turn it off." It isn't a choice. It isn't a light switch. You can think it is all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

And while I'm sure that one Sex and the City episode and the obscure article that you wrote serve as emphatic proof to you that people can change, reality is for every one person who has faked "changing," there are dozens of teenagers who have committed suicide because they were told they were evil, wrong, etc, etc.

If you would actually like to understand this, there is a great documentary available on Netflix: For the Bible Tells Me So.

SlimJim2.. not only was that comment a waste of 5 seconds of your time but it also showed your ignorance.

When has it become a crime to express an opinion?

What is the difference between a homophobe and a non homophobe?

an education.

newman1 - Apparently you consider it a crime, but only if the opinion does not coincide with yours.

Same with the kids of single moms and the foster care kids who get bumped around home to home. Strangely enough, I don't see ya'll complaining about them. Also way, WAY more of them. Easier to complain about the molehill than the mountain?

notatl: parts are for lots of things--pleasure, beauty, bonding, power, etc. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of times in your life you used your parts, you were at least hoping NOT to create another life.

I think most animals (including humans) figure out what their parts are for just fine. But it is a funny thought that so many people must be wandering around wondering what those parts are for...lol. How funny and totally ridiculous.

I can't speak for women, but every guy discovers what his bits and pieces are for by the time he is 13. No confusion there.