Congratulations Washington !!

A Great Day

Cue the fundies.....3,2,1...go!

thank you microsoft for coming out in support of this as well.

Going.....going.....getting ready to go:

Thanking Liberals for passage of the bill, and waiting with open arms for Santorum who has stated he would support a FEDERAL ban on gay marriages:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum once again touted his support for a federal ban on gay marriage, saying on Saturday that any now-legal same-sex marriages would be invalid under a constitutional amendment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html

Typical Liberal mindset in the State of Washington.

It would be an even prouder day in Washington state history if you went about convincing the people of WA that gay marriage was proper instead of legislatures and courts imposing their will upon the masses. If you win on a public vote, I will respect you. Everything else is dirty pool and you know it.

Washington State... Welcome to the 21st Century in the United States of America. An era in which equal rights are finally coming of age.

Next Step; US SUPREME COURT, where it will be come legal.

ldo - InSanitorium won't even get the nomination. If he is so great, why didn't he introduce an amendment while in Congress?

David-2637217 - Sure David.... that's exactly what happened in the 60's.....When many southern states wouldn't give equal rights because the "Public Vote" said so.

@ Ido
Typical Conservative mindset. They claim they want smaller government but then turn around and say government should regulate societal affairs and morality

Congrats to WA!! As a resident of Hawaii you can imagine how envious I am--we got civil unions but we would love to someday be celebrating a victory as sweet as yours! Kudos to your elected officials for saying YES to equality! Aloha nui loa!

Sorry Floyd. I'll keep my residence here, but I love being able to travel the world & get a broader perspective on things. (You might like to try that some time)

FYI: Murray is a US Senator not a Washington State Senator. To ABO: whatever happened to state's rights? Or is that only then you agree with a state's policies.

. If you win on a public vote, I will respect you. Everything else is dirty pool and you know it.

Welcome back slavery!!!!!

@lido Typical Liberal mindset eh? That's right. Please remain closeted in your typical fly over mindset and leave the progressive path to the rest of us.

Considering NOT A SINGLE MAJOR SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT in the US EVER came from a vote, why should people be demanding one now?

Slavery, women's votes, integration of military, civil rights, etc....ALL came from government.

David - If it goes to a popular vote & gay marriage as law is voted down in by the populace, the courts will overturn it just as been the case in California. Majority does NOT rule in the United States.

I am for any union the gay / lesbian community wants to call its partnerships by, except for marriage. Leave it alone and call it something else. Everyone will leave you alone if you will just call it something else. How hard is that??????????? The entire country will get used to calling you by what you want, and everyone will learn what that term means. Remember common-law marriages...???

David, you don't leave civil rights issues up to the voters. If the voters had had a chance to vote on interracial marriage or desegregation, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus and interracial marriages would still be illegal. This is a civil rights issues and best left to the courts to determine. Which by the way, they will determine and so will the Federal Supreme Court that gays have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry.

All 1400+ laws relating to marriage should be amended to read "civil union" so that the nomenclature properly refers to what the civil issued license really is......a civil contract between two people.....and should be made legal in every state for all couples (opposite-sex or same-sex, it doesn't matter) who desire such a civil contract. Let the religious groups keep the nomenclature "marriage" or "holy matrimony." Most of them don't honor those "holy" vows anyway, hehe.

@concernedone: That means you can't use the word "marriage" to describe your civil license either. All unions licensed by the state/local governments would be known as civil unions. Only a ceremony performed in a church (holy matrimony) would then be able to use the word "marriage" but it would no longer have any societal meaning, since all of the rights and benefits currently only offered to "marriage" would be transferred to all civil unions.

@ Bart
Exactly. The masses usually hold anti-democratic views and are not very committed to democratic values.

chadical - i agree with you 10000 percent - i live in wa state - a sad day here

Since when is marriage a "human right" or a "civil right"?

There are basic, long-standing laws what defines an appropriate age of consent and blood-relative line for marriage. The fact a few liberal-minded, alternative lifestyle citizens decry that they can do whatever they want with whomever they want (who isn't a minor and is consenting) is irrelevant.

Strangely, as others have brought up mocking Santorum, he was making a logical, moral-based point at that liberal, snotty college in New Hampshire about the definitiono f marriage. If gays "have a civil right to marry", then I can marry my dog to get lower tax rates or shelter monetary donations to a spouse, etc. Or, the current prohibitions of marriage (parent-child, siblings, polygamy) have to be throw out too.

It's the continuation of the end of another of the world's great societies/civilizations...

Jimee, I live in Washington. There are far more left wing morons than right wing nuts.

Remove Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia, and this is Texas jr. I got to hand it to you liberals though-keep those big city folk scared of their neighbor and they'll keep voting Democrat!

M Leder, human and civil rights ALWAYS trump states rights. That is why the Federal Government came in and struck down Jim Crow laws in the bigoted south, many were voted into law by the majority, and the ban on interracial marriage.

The majority is NEVER always right and NEVER has been.

M Leader, the Senator Murray referred to is State Senator Ed Murray, the primary sponsor of the bill. Knowledge... What a beautiful thing!

Conservatives continue to oppose these laws and this progress, despite the fact that it is only the oldest demographic in this country that opposes marriage equality. Isn't it obvious that even when attempts at marriage equality are thwarted it is only a matter of time until the Constitutional rights of the homosexual community are upheld throughout the United States? Why do they continue to spend their time and money fighting a battle that they will inevitably lose? Why is it that so many conservatives base so much of their politics on denying rights to those they hate? Why is it that so many "Christians" base their beliefs on the Old, rather than the New, Testament? Is that really Christian?

Read your constitution, chadical. It makes NO distinction on who is entitled to the equal protections and rights granted in the US Constitution. Where my rights begin, your rights end and that is the real problem in the interpretation of the meaning of the equal rights clauses of the constitution.

I've never understood why chadical and others like him are so set on denying a privilege to others they claim for themselves, even though it would cost them nothing to give it. It's pure prejudice as they gain nothing by it.

Anti-trust

Why should we change all the laws, all the forms, etc just to protect the sensibilities of the religious right? They have no ownership of the word 'marriage'. If they want to refer to it as 'holy matrimony' fine. But as for making all those changes, nope. They can just get over it.

Gay marriage? Seems reasonable to me.

concernedone - I completely agree. Like when those deviants wanted spouses of another race and wanted to call it marriage. Why couldn't they call it something else? They used the courts to push their abnormal lifestyle choice on us and redefine marriage. Now we have all these mixed race offspring running making a mockery of right wing marriage defense arguments with sarcastic parody.

And in case you didn't get it, that last part was about me. Hello. Mixed race child of deviant destroyers of traditional marriage here.

Hats off to dogs and cats and other animals, at least they can figure out the gender difference... then again, there is always earth worms. Boy, we sure have come a long way.

You dolt. We've documented homosexual behavior within the vast majority of mammalian species, including dogs. I had a dog that couldn't get enough male dog action. Goodall et al documented the same behavior in the great apes. Not-so-ironically, the ratio of homosexual behavior in animals other than humans is about the same AS humans.

Chadical- Yeah, because when we gave blacks the right to vote, we also gave dogs the right too. Give me a break! That's bs

re: 1.27

When did the schools stop teaching that 100% was complete/ total/ whole? There is no 10000 %

...no matter what they say on Maury Povitch

It is a sad day for America..not necessarily WA making same sex marriage legal but rather marriage being an issue for any government. Marriage is a religeous institution not a political one. Government should not sanction or prohibit any marriage. Let the various churches define it for themselves. The only reason the government got involved in the first place was to track people through census for tax and representation purposes. We can do that effectively by other means...treat marriages of all types as a contractual partnership and get the government out. It is simply the most obscene mixing of church and state that has ever existed in this country

Stop the Bullsh1t - Wrong on many points. First, if it were a moral based argument, all the defenders of marriage would have been fighting to ban divorce, open marriages, The Bachelor and other shows like it, etc. They aren't defending anything. They are attacking a specific group they don't like. As far as the animal marriage nonsense, how can you use that handle and honestly say something like that? The rules limiting who one can marry based on their gender are more similar to those laws which limited based on their race than ones based on their species. Man = Woman, legally speaking, just as white = black. Does Man = Dog? No. So please, Stop the Bullsh1t, stop the bullsh1t.

StopTheBullSh1T - Your comment is although humorous is completely out of context.

Since when is marriage a "human right" or a "civil right"?

Since the day marriage came into the world.

There are basic, long-standing laws what defines an appropriate age of consent and blood-relative line for marriage. The fact a few liberal-minded, alternative lifestyle citizens decry that they can do whatever they want with whomever they want (who isn't a minor and is consenting) is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? What oustanding laws are in place that say marriage is between a man in the woman? I must have missed that in the United States Constitution. Can you show me where this is, I would love to see it.

Strangely, as others have brought up mocking Santorum, he was making a logical, moral-based point at that liberal, snotty college in New Hampshire about the definitiono f marriage.

Then why didn't he introduce an amendment while in Congress to define marriage between a man and a woman? Is it because it wasn't a presidential election year? You conservative sit there and spout less government in our lives, and yet, you want the government to pass laws making it illegal for gay/lesbians to marry. Sounds very hypocritical to me.

If gays "have a civil right to marry", then I can marry my dog to get lower tax rates or shelter monetary donations to a spouse, etc. Or, the current prohibitions of marriage (parent-child, siblings, polygamy) have to be throw out too.

Can your dog give consent? If they can, by all means marry them. Since you seem to think that the only reason gays/lesbians want to marry is for lower taxes and monetary donations, perhaps if you are married (or any other married people) should GIVE UP ALL OF THEIR benefits of being married right? Its only fair?

It's the continuation of the end of another of the world's great societies/civilizations...

Please move to North Korea, I think you would fit in just fine there.

Congrats Washington, you just helped open the door to even more sick special interest groups who want the right to have sex with whom or what they may.

Yes, welcome to the 21st century, where we all have the the right to do whatever feels good to us, no matter how sick and wrong it may be.

If you're going to be a part of the 21st century, you might want to read a book or two.

@Soggy:

The many marriage I have been to include Atheists who did not mention god. Their marriage was about togetherness not about god.

The tradition of marriage is a fallacy no one owns the term marriage we each interpret in our own way, we all just want our marriages to have the same protections and privileges in law. Whether it be a marriage in a a chirch or in a garden in front of god or in front of friends.

Lets stop dividing people this country is supposed to be about equality, without equality in marriage law the founding principles of this country are a shameful sham.

Chadical, I got no problem with polygamy or beastiality...assuming that all parties consent. I dont even care if some crazy church performs a wedding for a man and his dog...does not affect me at all. I could care less if some guy has twenty wives as long as he does not come to me to support them. As for pediphiles, we dont need to have laws limiting marriage just to make having sex with kids illegal. The govenrment has the right and duty to limit behavious which pose risk to the person or property of others. Protecting the safety of children by making it illegal to have sex with them makes good since...but marriage is a creation of religeon and the government should not get involved there. I agree that pediphiles are making many of the same arguments that gay and lesbians once made...that they were born that way, that its natural, that only our strick puritan cultural history finds it improper etc...but reasonable people can distinguish between behavious that harm another and those that dont. You can think whatever you want about the morals of people who engage in certain act but the law should not set out to determine who, or what, may engage in the religeous practice of marriage

@Stop the Bullsh1t

You asked since when is marriage a civil right, since the ruling below:

"The U.S. Supreme Court first the civil right standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal civil rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ..."

This does snot effect you so let it go and enjoy your life so others can enjoy theirs.

Very proud to be a Washingtonian today!

Soggy-2602420

Marriage is not a religious ceremony to everyone, can't you understand that? You call it religious while others do not. What gives you or any other religious person the right tell someone what their marriage is or is not?

By your definition because churches have music all music is religious or churches may have wine so do we all have to treat wine as sacred? Of course not. Your definition of marriage is religious, mine is not. You may have to accept this and try to get over it.

Krestov, I agree except I believe the only true equality is if the government does not recognize any marriage. The government has no place in this religeous practice...or cultural practice if you perfer but either way government has no place and should not be defining it.

How the heck does my comment get "collapsed by the community".!? Are the LGBT types into censorship too? I said nothing derogatory. I expressed an opinion.

It's a historic moment

As Marcelle the Shell would say "Compared to what?" Just think yesterday I had no idea who Gov. Gregoire was and today she ranks right up there with Katy Perry, Dwight Howard, Miley Cyrus and a host of other famous people making history in the news!

They should save the pen and table the documents were signed on as I'm sure tourists will beat a path to see where this great moment in history took place! Someone call the company that manufactures plastic-leg lamps, this governor deserves a "major award" for her part in this monumental accomplishment.

Much ado about nothing.

Do I seriously see Conservatives hoping that the Federal Government will override a decision made by the States?

@Soggy

Ahh I see where you are coming from! Sorry if I misinterpreted you!

The problem is marriage and property has gone hand in hand since the bad old days in the middle ages, where a marriage would involve the joining of families, fortunes. We have no choice but to have the government involved. Two people come together there must be a contractual side of things for property, it, is also part of the tradition of marriage.

However regardless of who can marry your marriage if it was carried out in a church is between you, your other half and god, It is irrelevant to the sanity of your marriage who else gets married or who does not. I doubt any government would mess with the religious aspects of marriage.

Soggy

Marriage is a religeous institution not a political one. Government should not sanction or prohibit any marriage. Let the various churches define it for themselves. The only reason the government got involved in the first place was to track people through census for tax and representation purposes. We can do that effectively by other means...treat marriages of all types as a contractual partnership and get the government out. It is simply the most obscene mixing of church and state that has ever existed in this country

You have it backwards, Soggy. Government decides the rules about marriage, including age of consent, rights, benefits, etc., and churches can decide whether or not they wish to participate. The Catholic Church, for example, requires (or at least used to require) both parties to be Catholic before they would perform the wedding ceremony. Some churches will perform same sex marriages .... others won't. In other words, churches have always been able to opt out of any marriage when they did not "approve." The marriage equality laws do not change the requirements for churches .... they may still opt out. We cannot expect churches to preserve equality for the citizens of the United States, but we must require that government does.

I wish all the outside Fundamentalist Reconstructionist groups would stay out of Washington's Business. Why does some fundy preacher in Colorado think he can tell the Citizens of Washington State how to live and what to do?

And thats my Opinion

Granting peple the right to marry their pets is laughable, they can't give consent unless you consider that longing look in their eyes ;).

As far as marriage being only a religious institution, then why do all states require a marriage license? How come a justice of the peace can marry people? Why are atheists allowed to marry?

If you don't like gay marriage just don't have one! It isn't hurting anyone, doesn't infringe on your rights and will not destroy the family! Prove it!

@Paul N - You have got to be kidding me. Mixed race babies making a mockery of marriage? If you are so against people of other races and people who are Gay or Lesbian go buy yourself an islannd in the middle of nowhere and set up you little Nazi regime there. I have a beautiful wife and have no issues about who marries who. It doesn't affect your life or mine. The world will not end, the are no plagues happening (well except what ever you're suffering from). It has no bearing on you yet you and other fight tooth and nail to oppress people who aren't like you. It's really sad seeing such closed minded people. Also, not realizing we aren't a democracy we are ruled by the constitution and Bill of rights. NO LAW can supercede either of them. So if you'd like to try and change civil rights, feel free

TCLucas

I think Paul N's satire went over your head .... maybe you were sitting too low.

TCLucas - please read my post to the end.

The WA state Supreme Court will ignore both the WA state Constitution and the wishes of the populace (yet again...too many cases in this state to list here with the space restrictions) and overturn the public referendum.

This where where you are wrong they will uphold the civil rights these people have. The same civil rights you and I enjoy. You really should read up more before you spout off about the constitution.

Since when is marriage a "human right" or a "civil right"?

Are you sure you want that question answered? If I were to answer it, we'd be calling into question your "right" to be married.

Here's a few things to consider:

1. We do not have "rights" in this nation, we have liberties...which is the ability to do as we please, and we have the civic responsibility to not do harm to others, hence the reason why we are innocent until proven guilty. It was a severe and unfortunate mistake that our forefathers decided to name the civil "rights" amendment as they did...perpetuating the idea that we have only the right to do what we are told we may do by our elected officials.
2. There is no civil declaration of your "right" to be married.
3. Your religion doesn't own marriage (it actually started with the pagans).

Have fun with that;)

Congratulations, Washington!!!

Paul N - My apologies

I am really not against this at all. I am personally acquainted with a lesbian couple that are great people. They are the ones that actually changed my opinion. I don't agree with there chosen lifestyle, but I gree that they should have a choice.

However, Do not be surprised when the local church (no matter the affiliation) won't marry you or allow you to do so in their church. And when that happens don't be pushing to make them. That is not your right!

To all of you liberals trying to blame the lack of gay marriage on the right:

The right is composed of about 35-40% of the population, a lot less in California. Prop 8 was voted on by independents and liberals too. They just won't admit it.

I wish all the liberals on this site would crawl back into the holes from which they came. Why does some lawmaker, who makes about a million a year, get to decide the morals for every person in this country? Not one of them would be willing to put this onto a ballot and let the people of this country actually vote! My guess is that they are too scared and know that it would fail.

You judge christians by saying they should stay out of people's lives, why don't you atheists do the same? Who made the federal govt. the morality guru, when in fact their other policies are so far out of whack?

This is something that affects every religion, not just christian. But perhaps its easier for you atheists to target a specific group rather than admitting to yourselves that people in your own party would actually agree with us.

Really, we really haven't gotten over this yet, seriously...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

The it's unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don't argue against. Like babies with health issues surviving. That's not supposed to happen according to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" either. Nor is marriage about procreation. Look at all the couples who don't want/have kids, and all the single people who do.

So, if you don't like this fine, but no more illogical attempts to justify your standpoint. No more lies and paranoia about what's occurring. Own your position and own the fact that legally it's unjustifiable.

TCLucas - No problem. The perils of parody.

Neighborofthebeast, why don't you move to Idaho where you'll be much happier? Bye!

BTW David:

How dare you have an opinion that's not ad hominem. The nature of this news story brings the cloak of hatred "out of the closet" demanding a one-way street on tolerance. Any opinion that goes against the grain of their agenda is considered totally unacceptable and wreaks of bitterness and scorn. It's the trademark of someone who has something gnawing at their insides about being accepted for their deviant behavior. The problem is as old as time and legislation will never change the hearts and minds of those who know better.

I see nothing wrong with your right to think for yourself, don't be intimidated by the unnatural, close-minded, bigoted thinkers who collapsed your post because of opinions instead of merit in context.

Why does some lawmaker, who makes about a million a year, get to decide the morals for every person in this country?

Why do you want a say in what is morally right for me?

Jason Whitlock (Black Sports Reporter) The FOX sports columnist addresses the offensive remark he made on Twitter about Knicks guard Jeremy Lin during Friday night's game against the Lakers.

Only had to apologize --- White writer does the same, he is hunting a job!!!!!

So Rod, you hate Republicans??

@Sarah - This looks so familiar to the "discussion" that was going on with the 9th circuit court thing doesn't it? The same ols same ole of people wanting to oppress the civil liberties of people who are different. You may as well copy and paste your statement from there. I particularly hope the Web MD thing comes up again. You had me laughing so hard.

Is it about equal treatment under the law or the "cause of the month" Sarah?

In reality, and from a legal, constitutional standpoint, there is only one valid argument... if you afford a segment of the citizenry specific rights and privileges at the exclusion of other legal and recognized segments of the citizenry, then you are in violation of the constitution.

That one statement includes ONLY the marriage of two people under the law and excludes such notions as polygamy and bestiality and such. We allow NO ONE to engage in polygamy and such, so are not holding biased laws against anyone.

And since being gay or lesbian is not otherwise illegal, gays and lesbians are being excluded from rights and privileges afforded heterosexual couples...

A second test can be argued that "no harm" occurs to the existing citizenry by allowing gay and lesbian marriages, but that argument is not a legal one... it just implies: "Why not?".

Anyone want to now discuss separation of church and state and how THAT has mucked up this discussion?

For those claiming that 'marriage' is a religious term. Which religion? You cannot deny that marriage existed long before Catholicism, or Christianity were around. Egyptian's, Roman's, Greek's, Chinese etc... were all partaking in marriage.

So, who really has a right to define what marriage equals?

What's sad about America is that we actually to spell things like this out. "All men are created equal" isn't good enough for some people...nope...you have to treat them like children and say..."don't oppress that person because of their race, creed, sexual orientation, age, etc." Isn't that just pathetic that it's necessary to do that? Isn't it pathetic that someone would ever think that two men or two women marrying would somehow be a problem?!

How sadly trivial is your own marriage if you are one of those people that thinks gay marriage harms the "sanctity" of your marriage? "Hey honey...Jim and Jon got married...what we have feels so small and unsatisfying now."

Of ALL the people that get married (100%)

50% get divorced (UNHAPPY)

Of those who stay together (50%)

Some % are not happy but stay together for the kids (UNHAPPY)

Some % are not happy but stay together for religious reasons (UNHAPPY)

Some % are not happy but stay together for monetary reasons (UNHAPPY)

Some % are not happy but stay together because they can't find anyone else (UNHAPPY)

Some small % are actually, truly HAPPY

Now add the 50% divorced, who are unhappy, with the % of those who stay together unhappy. Last I checked, anything more than 50% represents a majority. So regardless of actual numbers for each, the majority of those who get married will be unhappy.

Family Policy Institute of Washington on its Web site, in an urgent appeal launched Sunday.

"Don’t forget to continue to pray that the citizens of Washington State will be fearless in their support and defense of traditional marriage between one man and one woman."

Why exactly are they "defending" an institution that leaves the MAJORITY of participants UNHAPPY? Yes, let's protect that which makes people miserable... what an incredibly excellent use of time and resources.

Wait for it, wait for it.........., wait for it......................, It's coming folks. It's going to be the law of the land, the Constitution says so. You can't be FOR the Constitution and AGAINST equal rights. Right or wrong, good or evil, it's going to be. Personal feelings aside, religious feelings aside, it's gonna be so embrace the idea and get on to something else. Peace.

Look, whether you approve of gay marriage or not doesn't really matter. This should be a constatutional right under "pursuit of happiness" As a Good ol' boy in the south born 6 months after Dr. King was killed here in memphis i grew up with the rule, respect everyone as you want to be respected, treat others as you want to be treated. Because i have i have lived a good life, have had many friends of many colors and religions and those who have been gay and straight. Life is too short to worry about what others do in there own bedrooms. Jesus gave us two basic rules to follow in life; Love God and Love thy neighbor, stop playing the old testament crap and drop the rocks to throw...time we all start follow those basic rules and because we will never find peace in our street until we do.

@ItsAboutTime:

marriage is between a man in the woman

Nice Freudian slip there. Gave me a little bit of a laugh. I needed that it's been a long day.

Anna-4201050 - Yikes... I guess... I was typing to fast on a small keyboard :) Hope you have shorter day tomorrow.

Kudos Washington! I think the next time I take a vacation I may go to Washington and help stimulate their ecomony.

Gonna go Google some of the nice touristy attractions that Washington has to offer.

Marriage between many men and women worldwide:

• A public contract which assigns equal responsibility to both parties in the fulfillment of the contract, but provides for the monetary compensation of spouse and custody arrangements for offspring in the event of the contract being nullified.

Marriage between a gay couple:

• An opportunity to publicly celebrate and acknowledge the lifelong bond that two consenting adults have made. In some cases this does involve one or more legal agreements, but rarely include an "escape clause" (divorce).

Whose marriage is ruining the sanctity of the institution??

Sarah-3043284 - You technically don't shouldn't have to go through each of those scenarios. You can just point that they fail simply because they all represent the classic strawman argument. A singularly overused type of informal fallacy.

It's nice to see that Washington follows the Constitution. I wish I could say the same for most of the rest of the sates...

StMiller--exactly!

What REALLY tickles me is that the ones who call gays' behavior 'immoral' don't seem to recognize that there is VERY little gays do sexually that at least some hetero's don't ALSO enjoy. Tune in late on TV and watch the infomercial from a sex toy company, and see how many toys are AIMED at straight couples and include anal penetration to one or both partners, INCLUDING strap-ons for the female to penetrate the guy. And there is nothing else sexually that only the most rigid (can we say repressed?) do not occasionally/ordinarily practice.

I am reminded of the fact that our 'designation' of the "missionary position" supposedly was used by Hawaiian natives to describe the ONLY way the missionaries did it--to the amusement of the locals on how much the missionaries were 'missing' pleasure wise. Then again, the "church" has NEVER been a big fan of anyone having FUN having sex. And PARTICULARLY not the females.

What it boils down to is that GAY marriage is not what is killing so called "traditional" marriage--no fault divorce did that years ago, as did the 'Great Society's encouragement to young unmarried women to NOT get married by denying them welfare if the man lived in the home.

@Jemma77:

Thanks for the personal attack. Hopefully, the moderator will suspend you. You have been tagged.

I have lived in WA ever since I was born in Bellevue in 1967. Why on Earth would I want to abandon my state and leave it to logic-challenged, intellectually stunted liberals? Once you get outside the Puget Sound metro area, the rest of the state is mostly conservative! The day will soon come when Pugetropolis does not dictate what the rest of the state will do.

chester12 - Who cares about the number of gays? Is that what you are basing your argument on? Do you realize that Jews make up a smaller portion of the US population than gays/lesbians? So are you suggesting that laws protecting their rights don't make sense either because it's such a tiny percentage of the population? Would you actually be ok with 29 states making marriage between two Jews illegal just because they don't make up a significant portion of the US population?t

Understand this chester12... one of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it protects the minority from abuse at the hands of the majority.

Chester, they could be 3%, .0000003%, or 300%. Equal rights means equal rights for all.

As to the STD argument, that stems pretty much entirely on the fact that homosexuals do not need to worry about pregnancy, so many go without prophylactics. It's not homosexuality that brings down a person's lifespan, it's unsafe sex. And that my friend is true of ANY person who practices it, not just homosexuals. This isn't rocket surgery.

And finally, it won't matter how many states have legalized same-sex marriage once the Defense Of Marriage Act is struck down. Four, maybe five years TOPS. After that, all states will be forced to recognize all marriages from other states, and constitutionality will be restored.

St. Miller,

I wish I didn't have to post them, constantly. It's just that those opposed to marriage equality can't seem to get it.

TCLucas,

Still no groin tumors. I'll keep you updated, lol.

Chester,

I didn't know offering everyone equal protection under the law constituted catering to them. Perhaps you can explain how gay marriage negatively effects you. Or has any effect, what so ever, in your life??? In other words, why do you care? I care about equality and humanity and protecting civil rights, ergo I care about marriage equality for my fellow citizens, regardless of how many of them there are.

" ... Everything else is dirty pool and you know it. ... "

You mean like the Right does? So you don't want Liberals to play by the same rules as you do?

So ALL of the anti-abortion, anti-labor, right-to-work and other bills that the newly elected Republican/Right has passed are "dirty pool"? Who would have guessed.

Sad day for Washington State. Maybe with the Governor signing that the perverts can marry and her screwing up the budget of this state like Obama did the whole country we will get a Republican Governor and more Republicans back in office.

On the other hand there are many proven scientific studies on homosexuals that demonstrate that the homosexuals demand, want and need multiple partners which is direct opposition to the principles of marriage of settling down with one partner.

Wait... wait...

Did you just say that only homosexuals want multiple partners? Are you serious?

Have you EVER met a straight, college-aged male in your life? Hell... forget college-aged... have you ever met a straight male in your life?

Congratulations... you have just won the award for "most asinine comment of the day".

Indie,

Touche, oh touche. I'm fairly sure straight men take the cake when it comes to wanting "some". Holy crap, that post was funny.

Sarah and Indie - I am going to go ahead and support your arguments by presenting my straight self as evidence that your point is entirely valid.

:)

Good day in Washington, hopefully more states will join in. I'd like to marry my partner in our home state (Utah), but I don't think it will happen soon.

To those of you bashing it or saying that its ruining your marriage, how, you legitimately prove to me PROVE to me, that it is ruining your marriage for the fact that I am gay, or that I want to get married with another consenting adult....Hmm, seeing a lot of 'I' in there not a whole lot of 'you'.

lickmynutz- Do you know what that word means? What it carries? There are men and women that are beat, stabbed, killed, with that dirty word being the last thing they hear. It happened to two people here in Utah, and they are having to FIGHT for it it be a hate-crime because that is what it was. One man has no teeth, and a family has had to bury their youngest son. All because someone thought they were better than them, and that FILTHY word was used against them. You make your own argument invalid by using that, and make youself smaller than the person/people you use it against. You 'sir', and I use that term very loosely, make me vomit. (Wonderful name for posting against a gay topic by the way, why did you choose that?)

@ Mosin -How did Obama screw up the budget?? I'm sorry he took over a sinking ship. They economists everywhere said iit was coming while your beloved George Dubya was in office. Obama said balance the budget. We stay here until you do, but the minute the Dems even mentioned tax revenue the repubs walked out. The 1%ers are paying at the tax level that they were in the 1950s while the lowere and middle class pay upwards of 35%. Oh yeah the repubs will lose their multi million dollar backing if they agree to it. where the Dems get $5-$10 from the working class trying to help those people out.

Sorry I got off subject with the budget thing. *slaps hand*

I have no problem with a legal civil union for protecting property rights etc., but marriage is between a man and a woman.

My God, seriously, straight people are sick of gay people "throwing it their face"??? That drives me bonkers, especially coming from men. I mean, be a female, of any sexual orientation, for like a day, and than you can talk about being sick of having "sexuality thrown in your face", lol.

No offense guys, but come on, at least St. Miller here owns up to it.

Off topic, but so so true, and a much needed frustration breaker. Thank you.

Okay, I'm a fiscal conservative who is neutral (neither support nor oppose) gay marriage. So this bill means that I can marry another guy... doesn't have to be gay.... to get marriage benefits, right?

Sarah and Indie - I am going to go ahead and support your arguments by presenting my straight self as evidence that your point is entirely valid.

LOL

In addition to your evidence, I would like to present the expert testimony of a doctor explaining my own, severe "rubber-neck" syndrome. (Currently there is no known cure... and I thank you for your sympathies)

Indie,

Admitting it is the first step. Good job.

Tony,

Um sure, you can marry another dude, although if you aren't gay I'm not sure why you would. It would be no different than marrying a woman you aren't really committed to. It happens all the time.

Papa,

Promoting civil unions is nothing but segregation. They are not equal.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2432.htm

David-2637217 Comment collapsed by the community

It would be an even prouder day in Washington state history if you went about convincing the people of WA that gay marriage was proper instead of legislatures and courts imposing their will upon the masses. If you win on a public vote, I will respect you. Everything else is dirty pool and you know it.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy free-for-all. Our Constitution wisely limits democracy and places rights sacrosanct. People do not get to vote on other people's Constitutional, civil and human rights. If that was allowed, people could vote to make Christianity illegal. The final decider on the equal protection of the law is the Constitution. It is up to the courts as well as legislative bodies to ensure that protection. The direct voice of the citizenry gets no say.

straight people are sick of gay people "throwing it their face"??? That drives me bonkers, especially coming from men. I mean, be a female, of any sexual orientation, for like a day, and than you can talk about being sick of having "sexuality thrown in your face"

Sarah,

I know... it's ridiculous. What do you say we go back to my place, open a bottle of Cab Sauv, and work out those frustrations to some Barry White?

Ohhhhh crap... I just did it. Sorry everyone for throwing my straight sexuality around... again. Sometimes I just can't control it.

But seriously, I've got wine.

;-)

To people saying this is a political issue. It is not. It is a human issue. All gays are human, they pay their taxes, they vote, they fight in wars (I don't agree with wars at all) and they have a right to have their unions recognized by the government with all the benefits that come with a marriage between two people. Anything less is discrimination. Remember when Negroes rode on the back of the bus. Well guess what we left that century a long time ago. Remember when women couldn't vote. Well guess what, etc. People wanting to deny gay unions are simply bigots.

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

Lol.

I'm sooo sick of the straight male agenda. Seriously!

Of course, I'm guilty of the straight female agenda, which consists mainly of nagging you about doing your dishes and smacking you upside the head for "rubber necking".

(Maybe, just maybe, this witty banter will help some of you see just how ridiculous some of these arguments you present are.)

Hmmm where do rights come from? Let's check out the declaration of independence.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights,. . .

I guess homosexuality is now a right that comes from God!

DB,

Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself. Gay people have the absolute right to be exactly who they are, and protected by the law equally.

Yes, Washington State, all of the sexually depraved are very excited about what you've done today. Your new state motto should read, "If it feels good do it!" Not that there anything wrong with that.

We're just buyin votes folks... Happy to have gay marraige in Washington State vs mine...

Move on once you've bought the votes...

Sorry Thirty, but the idea that being born a certain way is "depraved" ended back with the civil rights movement.

Typical. The Governor Didn't have the guts to propose this before she is exiting office. California voters denied this gay travesty twice, only to be overturned twice by activist judges. Iowa the same thing. What a joke. Gays should call it anything but marrige, and stay in the closet where this perversion belongs.

Constitutional rights aren't up to a vote, TFI. Unless you'd like to put some of your civil liberties up to a vote...

Yes, Washington State, all of the sexually depraved are very excited about what you've done today

Why does everyone give homosexuals all this credit?

I would put my straight "sexual depravity" up against homosexual "depravity" any day of the week. Seriously? What do they do that straights don't?

Sarah, Where did you copy that crappy list from? I know just from your other responses that you are gay, so its no wonder you did not come up with that list by yourself.

Case in point,

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion.

If homosexuals really believed that to be true, then they would be content with just having something called a civil union. But the fact of the matter is, most gays prefer to be married in churches or other religious places of observance and get upset when they cannot.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

I'm not going to even go there. Just shows how sick you are!

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy.

Tell that to the people in Utah. They have approximately the same population as the rest of all the gays in the United States. Unless your saying, numbers don't matter?

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

Obviously you haven't been keeping track of the gay lifestyle when they wanted to force christian owners of a bed and breakfast to host their gay ceremony.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/gay-couple-sues-illinois_n_827115.html

Should I go on?

If homosexuals really believed that to be true, then they would be content with just having something called a civil union. But the fact of the matter is, most gays prefer to be married in churches or other religious places of observance and get upset when they cannot.

Since the Supreme Court ruled that "separate" is not "equal," civil unions are nothing. There are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage that are not available to those in civil unions. And gays do not "prefer to be married in churches..."; they just want equal treatment under the law, which they deserve as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens.

Tell that to the people in Utah. They have approximately the same population as the rest of all the gays in the United States. Unless your saying, numbers don't matter?

Polygamy has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court, so you are comparing apples to oranges. AGAIN.

Obviously you haven't been keeping track of the gay lifestyle when they wanted to force christian owners of a bed and breakfast to host their gay ceremony.

In the first place, homosexuality is no more a "lifestyle" than heterosexuality is; they are both inborn sexual orientations.

Second, those owners of that bed and breakfast are operating a place of public accommodation, and as such, they cannot discriminate. Period.

It might help if you actually did some research before you posted, but I doubt it will make you seem more intelligent.

Another step forward...congrats Washington State...

Tone: the 21st century is not nearly as scary as it apparantly seems to you...Seriously, give the homophobia a rest...the sky is not falling.

Unhappy,

You don't have to go on, no, because you've yet to produce anything resembling a valid point and so far it's been a complete waste of your time. As much fun as hating me is, and I'm sure it is a good time, spewing vitriolic anger at me doesn't lend you any credence.

Case in point, every answer you had was based in nothing but your assumptions of what gay people want or are trying to do. You didn't have a single, substantive, argument in there anywhere.

What the number of gays in Utah has to do with Utah's limited legal polygamy is beyond me??? Not sure of the correlation there. And, I hate to break this to you, you might want to check out Title II of the Civil Rights Act, as to what businesses who serve the public are allowed to do in regards to discrimination against customers.

And, the fact of the matter is, your "churches" are perfectly safe from those evil gays. Regardless of whether a gay couple wants to engage in HOLY MATRIMONY, the church can not be forced to perform it against its will. Don't believe me, ask a divorced Catholic who wants to remarry in the church.

Chester,

Will you please list the special privileges homosexuals have received.

Sally or person or person moderating this site:

I just hit post on an opinion, had to do the spam thing. Then my post appears briefly and then just plain disappears. There was absolutely no cuss words nothing derogatory to anybody, nothing to be suspended for. So what happened????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Has anybody had their posts just up and disappear?? Is this what happens to posts the moderators don't like????????

P.S. I'm gay??? Really??? Maybe that explains my sh(*$% track record with men. But really, Unhappy, I'm straight, but I thank you for that compliment, because it's been my experience that gay people are way more tolerant and gracious about this than I will ever be.

If gay people want to get married, let them. If for no other reason than the country can use the extra tax revenue from the tax code's 'marriage penalty'.

Straight people shouldn't be the only ones screwed by the IRS!

Case in point, every answer you had was based in nothing but your assumptions of what gay people want or are trying to do. You didn't have a single, substantive, argument in there anywhere.

My assumptions, huh? It's obvious that you live in a bubble. If you were even the slightest bit literate you would see that their have been countless books written for this.

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's Written by Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen

What the number of gays in Utah has to do with Utah's limited legal polygamy is beyond me???

Didn't you write this?

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy.

There are the approximately the same number of people. Sarah, you cannot make a statement and then say later that you didn't know you said it. It just proves that you copied that list.

Skrewdworld: It does happen that they suddenly erase our posts. I have often times posted comments only to have them disappear because MSNBC wanted a post agreeing with their opinion to be shown first; and not on a first come, first serve basis.

Pray for all gays, the heterodox and the heretics and lapsed Catholics, because without God's Grace, ALL are going to HELL....

Gays are MADE, not born... [therefore, there can be no such thing as "gay rights"]...

Gays are only 1.4 % of the population...

Gayness is a Pagan product: NOT a product of modern western culture...

The term marriage meaning the civil union of one man and one woman has been around since mankind started making laws for the benefit of the man and the woman and their children.
How silly of society to change the definition of an institution it created....
What about straight couples who cannot reproduce? We should ban them from getting married too. You had your ovaries removed but you want to get married? DENIED!

@Traditional Catholic
I would rather go to hell than bow to your draconian 'god'.

Chester12-Jewish people don't need to ask because you're not trying to take them away like you are trying to limit the rights of gay people. Try passing a state law that tells Jewish people they can't get married and they will rightly fight back like the gay rights movement is. Why does this bug you so much? Is this really going to cause you some sort of harm?

Second, those owners of that bed and breakfast are operating a place of public accommodation, and as such, they cannot discriminate. Period

ErinNJ: First off, you need to do more research. The owners of the bed and breakfast were not denying the choice to the gay couple to stay there, but rather that the couple not have their wedding there. And as owners of the bed and breakfast they did have the "right to refuse service".

Since the Supreme Court ruled that "separate" is not "equal," civil unions are nothing. There are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage that are not available to those in civil unions.

You are missing the point of the argument. First of all, "Separate but not equal" refers to racism, not sexual orientation; do not confuse the two. It is not synonymous. And if the majority of gay people wanted civil unions which included all the tax benefits then would be okay. The way anyone else would get around this red tape would be to establish a will. But I doubt that would be enough to satisfy most gay people because they would still consider themselves to be discriminated against.

Unhappy,

Oh Shucks, you've got them! Yeah, that book, that's all about encouraging people to see homosexuality as something that isn't to be feared. You know, like normal. Now, how evil is that???? Encouraging people to see homosexuality for what it is, namely something THAT DOES YOU NO HARM. And maybe, just maybe, that will lead to some equality and peace in their lives. God forbid. What an evil agenda. Wanting peace.

Furthermore, you're still not making sense about Utah. My point is, nationwide, there isn't enough support for polygamy to justify rewriting tax law, probate law, insurance law, yada, yada, yada... None of that needs to be done in order to legalize gay marriage. All those laws are already written to apply to two legal, consenting adults, which is what gay marriage is. Soooo.... there maybe the same amount of people, but there aren't the same complications. The complications stand in the way of across the board polygamy, that's the reasoning for not legalizing it totally, gay marriage doesn't have those complications, that's the point.

Oy!

Wash. governor signs gay marriage bill into law

<thumbs-uo>

Chester, what the hell are you even talking about?

One giant leap into the unknown for mankind! since it is a religious issue the state should not take a position. the woman has announced she is atheist, by contradicting the word of God! equal rights they always had that, but they want to shove their life stile in your face, life stile is not up for political argument. Shame on Washington State. (separation of church and state) Gay marriageis a religious issue. Just out of curiosity what was the peoples vote. who made this decision?

Sarah, this is the last time I will explain it to you. After this, no more posts!

Furthermore, you're still not making sense about Utah. My point is, nationwide, there isn't enough support for polygamy to justify rewriting tax law, probate law, insurance law, yada, yada, yada... None of that needs to be done in order to legalize gay marriage. All those laws are already written to apply to two legal, consenting adults, which is what gay marriage is.

Polygamy: Are there two legal consenting adults? Yes .... Nationwide: If you were to go by the numbers, there is enough support for polygamy as there are for gay unions. So rewriting the tax codes, probate laws, insurance laws would make just as much sense. The point is, why do we not allow polygamy but want homosexual unions?

Unhappy,

Legally allowing polygamy would mean changing, nationwide, all of the laws regarding taxes, probate, families, insurance, and so on. This is because polygamy involves more than two people. So, whether or not your source on equal support is correct, the number may not be big enough to support having to make all those changes.

Gay marriage, however, involves none of those changes. Ergo, the number may be the same as those in support of polygamy, but gay marriage has none of the burdensome changes to legislature that polygamy does, weighing the decision in it's favor.

The changes needed to be made act as the deciding factor. One has them, one doesn't. And that's if your source is correct. The latest polls show support for gay marriage at 53% nationwide.

Am I speaking English here???

Chester, you have only shown indirect bad tendencies that correlate to homosexuality. You have not shown why homosexuality is intrinsically bad. Most Americans support Gay marriage.

Anything Homosexual or Guns always gets the keyboards burning.....I am all for it why should only the hetrosexuals have to suffer????? Equal suffering for all I say.

Anyway its all fun and games now wait till they start tying up the courts with their divorces, as if we didn't have enough trouble.

However in the end this is just a distraction from the real issues at hand which the powers that be are just so happy to have us thinking about instead of the real issues and we have plenty of them.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II states:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

So the couple were entitled to "full and equal enjoyment" of all of the inn's goods and services.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of "separate" is not "equal" to other cases, not just ones involving racial discrimination -- it is called applying the law. In fact, "separate but equal" was also applied in the Loving v. Virginia case -- the one that defined marriage as a "basic civil right". It seems that you are the one who is confused.

And if the majority of gay people wanted civil unions which included all the tax benefits then would be okay.

it is far more than tax benefits that are at stake; gays want full equality, which they are entitled to as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country. And who are you to decide what would be OK?

Chester, I notice that your masterpiece of incoherency and misinformation does not contain one piece of evidence to support your claims. So your "mean mouth, insulting, denigrating" verbal assault means just as much as any other 12-year-old's incomplete research paper.

BTW, Chester, homosexuality has been documented in about 1,500 animal species (besides humans). YOU have no proof otherwise, while I can support my claims:

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

James Owen in London
for National Geographic News

July 23, 2004

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"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.

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

I'd like to see things from your point of view, Chester, but I can't get my head that far up your ass -- and yours is too tightly wedged in there.

Erin/Indie/Toasty...

I've realized our problem. We're using logic against crazy. Let's try this...

Yes, yes, be very afraid, because there is an army, consisting of nothing but gay Muslims, coming over the border from Mexico, and they're going to take all of your guns and Bibles, and force you all to have abortions!!!!!!

They're going to make all of you marry members of the same sex, and worship Allah five times a day. Than, they're going to take all of the money from the rich people and give it all to the poor people, who will be allowed to endlessly live off of foodstamps and FIA assistance!!!

Jesus... will be outlawed. The Bible...will be burnt. And we'll all use the American flag as toilet paper.

So yes, be terrified. They're coming.

Holy sh($*, where's the f-ing aspirin. My headache just keeps getting worse.

No Chester, you were rambling about commissars, donkeys, and my screen name. Form a coherent narrative like a grown-up and try again.

Chester12-to start...because you were playing semantics
1. Humans are animals. That's fact.
2. Humans have homosexual sex. That's fact.
3. Therefore there are animals that have homosexual sex. That's fact.

Then just to help you understand...
4. And to even imply that because chester12, the person who is not a zoologist, biologist, etc, doesn't know of any animals other than humans that pair up in same sex realtionships therefore it's unnatural is silly.
5. To get you started... Black swans, sheep, hyenas, penguins, etc all exhibit same sexual based relationships that go beyond simple sex.

1996: In Romer v. Evans, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a Colorado state referendum that would have overturned local laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. The Court held that the referendum was motivated by irrational bias against gays and lesbians and served no legitimate government interest, thus violating basic federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Now, that's from SCOTUS, hence we all start screaming that it's only in Colorado. SCOTUS means binding, primary authority. Nationwide.

You have proven that reading comprehension is most definitely not one of your skills (if you have any at all). I presume this is "nonsense" to you because I supply unbiased, reliable sources to support my claims, while you have...well, I'm not sure what you have, because you show nothing to support your claims.

Chester, Illinois has laws against discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation, so the couple still has the law on their side. And the Civil Rights Act has been applied in cases of such discrimination.

You are still ASSuming things I have not said. I never said I attended three colleges, and you are incorrect about the number of degrees I hold. It seems that, in addition to research and reading comprehension skills, you also lack the ability to retain information -- but you seem exceptionally skilled at making up facts as you go along.

Chester, I find it hard to believe that you are "master" of anything except pulling facts out of your ass.

Be careful Chester, you're setting yourself up for another account ban. The mods got you for this sort of behavior last time.

Erin NJ - now you've done it....up to now we have been discussing people doing what they want to do....now you have up the ante to discussing the "Gay Agenda" which reads that they (homosexuals) are deserving of rights, things, recognition, etc because they are born that way.....and all the rest of the Gay Agenda from that point onwards. With that I have a problem.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"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.

There exists no credible scientific study or evidence that proves that homosexuality in humans is anything but choice, (but a very small hermaphroditic genetic accident). You can like that or not but you can't present any credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Trying to apply animal behaviour to justify human behaviour is a reach at best .... animals exist on a different playing field in respect to intelligence, choice, survival, community....and they don't know they are going to die like humans do. Animals do things by instinct they in fact do not have "sex"....they breed, so to try to apply "homosexuality" to animals is anthropomorphic in other words you are trying to apply a human trait to animals or visa versa....sorry science does not buy it. My male dog trys to "hump" my leg what does that say about him, me, dogs, humans????? Is he taking part in bestiality? I would hardly think so, however if a human were to do similar to a dog then the answer would be......that's right, you can not apply an "intelligent" choice to an animal but you can to a human.

The danger with this component of the Gay Agenda is, if you allow "I was born that way" as an excuse or reason for any type of behaviour and worse then try to justify it with animal behaviour then you are opening the door to all kinds of problems......it's ok for me to be a pedofile...I was born that way, it's ok for me to be a thief....I was born that way etc etc etc.

As humans we make "intelligent" (meaning we have the ability to think) choices and we are held accountable for those choices in one way or another.

As long as homosexuals seek equal rights based on their lifestyle they have my support .... as soon as they claim a right to something as a result of an accident of birth...then I withdraw that support.

Chester12... You have some deep seated anti homosexual issues and for some reason that you haven't yet fully explained it seems to really bother you that homosexuality even exists. Explain that so we all know what we are dealing with here.

The animals I mentioned I picked specifically because they are documented to be some of the animals that will pair up for life and eschew mating with members of the opposite sex. I knew exactly what your argument was and chose them to refute that.

You need to get off your arrogant horse and stop acting like you're the only person in this forum privy to knowledge. Oh... I forgot... Your credentials... You teach bridge. Forgive me chester12. I shall now bow down to your eminence.

Also, there are many, many conservatives and moderates that feel the same as liberals on this subject and stop assuming that just because I super same sex marriage that I am a liberal. You don't know me and I am proudly moderate.

Also you clearly keep implying that somehow humans are not animals. We evolved from what you seem to be referring to as animals per than humans and share a vast amount of genetic code with them, and you're damn right that we exhibit a hell of a lot of behaviours similar to the other animals.

Yank. Can you post something that backs up those claims??? Just curious as to your references. Thanks

For Chester (the bridge teacher who's a self-proclaimed "expert" with "graduate degrees" -- most likely in nose-picking) and Yank:

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

Do you have any comment on the article or comments to advance any intelligent point of view?

Do YOU have any comments to advance any intelligent point of view? Because you haven't so far.

Marriage is a word that has been used for centuries to denote marriage between one man and one woman and is used by 95% of the population. I don't care what two consenting adults do. I want marriage to connote the same meaning it has for centuries.

What historical evidence do you have for this? I can find many examples of pre-Christian cultures that allow Gay Marriage, such as Ancient Rome or Ancient Sparta.

Yank

There exists no credible scientific study or evidence that proves that homosexuality in humans is anything but choice, (but a very small hermaphroditic genetic accident). You can like that or not but you can't present any credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

The complete analysis of the Human Genetics was completed 2 years ago, without finding the "gay" gene. They are, of course running back through it all.

There is no winning end to an argument, when you deal with humans who simply want things their own way. Your facts don't matter, when they conflict the facts the way they want them to be.

Chester12... Then your simple reason for disliking homosexuals is that they are different than heterosexuals. Now I understand.

Also, again...and again... Those animals were selected because they pair up as a same sex cou
ple and avoid mating with the opposite sex. You are right that I can't nderstand you because you just keep repeating the same thing while ignoring what others here in the forum are telling you.You are the one refusing to do the research on those animals. You're simply wrong on this chester12.

It doesn't matter that the people in any number of states voted against same sex marriage. Many people in the history of the USA have supported wildly unacceptable points of views with opinions and laws derived from those opinions... That doesn't make them correct. Slavery...was legal and widely supported... Separate but equal... Was legal and widely supported... No vote for women, blacks, American Indians... Again legal and widely supported, etc. you think a majority is infallible? You surely must know that America isn't even as simple as being based on majority rule don't you? Majorities are wrong way more often than you seem to think.

You say that I am breaking the COH and that I am calling you a name by referring to you as being arrogant... But how many times have you called people in here liberals or called them ignorant, etc. the way that you refer to myself and others ignorant. Wow.

@ Chester
Even if humans were the only animals who were homsexual it doesn't matter in the slightest and I fail to why you are making an argument over the issue. I don't understand your point. At all.

Chester12... Quoting the bible as a source. Now you have truly run afoul of logic and reason and that completely explains your intransigence.

LOL giggled Silence Dogood at chester12's mention of eugenics. 1921 called and wants it "scientific" theory back.

...ssshhhhh....Its sleepy time for this person you have called ignorant, full of nothingness, a poor high school dropout, etc.

But you're right...I was the one defaming the great eugenics studying bridge teacher.

Erin...those "studies" if you read them thoroughly you will find that in fact they do not in any way shape or form provide irrefutable scientific evidence that proves that homosexuality is related to a specific genetic occurrence or mutation. They do provide some conjecture based on a study of twins and some opinions based on anecdotal and witness evidence but they do not provide a science based cause and effect theory proven by consistent actual test results.

If they did they would be printed in every medical journal, newspaper, and media outlet available to mankind.....EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN GENETIC LINK TO HOMOSEXUALITY....but as yet that has not happened. You know it, I know it, they know it, science knows it. Don't you think that if there was such proof that the Gay Community wouldn't be out in the street yelling it from the rooftops.... they would be walking around in tee shirts saying I'm Gay and I Was Born This Way....Science says so.....they would all be out testing for that special gene to prove that they "have it", but yet they and you are still dreaming that they are in fact special and born that way.

Lifestyle choice yes and that is their choice and I respect that.....born that way....no proof at this point in time. You can argue, deny, call names, quote reports and studies, find out of context statements you can make up your own studies and facts......but science is science and you will not find a credible scientist on this earth that will swear that there is irrefutable proof that homosexuality has a genetic cause and effect.

CMACH....exactly what "claim" did I make that you have a problem with?????all I said was there was no evidence to support someone else's claim.....do you have something to refute that, some scientific proof that there is a genetic link to homosexuality....the gay gene.....if you do by all means share it with us and end this distraction once and for all.........nothing....... I thought so.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice doesn't matter. The legality of marriage between two consenting adults isn't based on how we're born, it's based on whether we have legal capacity to contract. Even if homosexuality was a choice, we still have an implied right to privacy and a right to equal protection. You still need a reason that passes strict scrutiny. Homosexuality still isn't considered a mental illness, ergo capacity isn't called into question.

And Chester, what was the reasoning SCOTUS remanding Ballot Initiative 3??? Well it was because it was a city ordinance, and it was already killed through the Supremacy Clause, seeing as it was in direct conflict with a Federal Statute, The Civil Rights Act, which had already been ruled in Romer (by SCOTUS) to cover sexuality... It could not be upheld. They didn't have to hear it, it was so cut and dry.

And, P.S, The Bible isn't a source.

I'm going to thank the collapsers of this entire thread for driving posts into my one liner thread right below it.

Thumbs up!

Yank

Actually, advocates of marriage equality generally do not base their argument on whether or not homosexuality is genetic. The argument is that they are human beings and citizens and to be denied their rights is a violation of the Constitution. They do not seek "special rights" ..... they seek equal rights.

StMiller You are libeling me, defaming me, and attempting to character assassinate me.

Chester - Quite frankly, you don't need StMiller's help. You are doing a damn fine job of that yourself.

Also, and perhaps I missed them, but will you be so kind as to provide links to the information you are posting? I am also interested in the book you wrote. Please let me know the name and where I might find a copy.

I would pay good money to see the Westboro Baptist Church protest a gay funeral in Washington State. It would be another Jerry Springer Show!!!! LMAO!!!!

Sarah & Don#### I have no problem with Gay Marriage (like I said before why shouldn't they know the same suffering as us married heterosexuals....just kidding I have been married for 25+ years to the same lovely lady), it is a distraction that we really don't need in my opinion.

I have a problem with the Gay Agenda if this whole Gay Marriage thing was not all wrapped up in the whole "we are a normal occurrence of nature and we want you all to agree with that so we can also pretend it's true" basis of the Gay Agenda then it would be no big deal probably.

However what you are asking for, in a world where the great bulk of the population does not accept that homosexuality is a normal occurrence of nature (and that remains the case as there is no proof otherwise), is that what everyone has seen for centuries as a bonded relationship between a man and a woman to now accept that this "marriage/civil union" thing can also be a bonded relationship between any two consenting adults no matter what sex or lifestyle choice they fit into. You must understand that is going to be a long uphill mind set changing exercise....but it is a great distraction for you all to think about and for the politicans who are bleeding you dry to dwell on so that you don't concentrate on the real issues at hand....and it is working well as you all can see.....and that is the only reason I am commenting on this subject....to try to get your minds off of it and on to the more important issues like stopping the current wars and staying out of new ones...little things like that.

But I digress from this minor issue, when does it cease, when and where does the line get drawn on what is acceptable normal human behaviour..... if what was once was considered "deviant" behaviour is now accepted as normal... where do we draw the line????? You tell me, will you consider it appropriate for a made up cross dressed male with lipstick and a wig to teach the 3rd grade and coach the swim team? Will you allow someone who doesn't "believe in wearing clothes" to teach your daughter's 7th grade math class ... who draws the line you tell me.

The next problem you are going to have with legalized Gay Marriage is..... you are going to have legalized Gay Divorces and I can't wait to see that reality show.

I don't give a damn one way or the other but I do know that every step you take in to the mire of human behaviour should be a step taken with caution, forethought and an eye to future consequences. If it was just a matter of your personal choice then of course you only have your personal consequences to deal with....but when you are making determinations for the whole of society then you need to step lightly because when you find society on the downhill slippery slope its hard to stop until you hit the muck at the bottom.

Have a think about that ..... then get back to me.

Of course if you have any daring information on the topic of the article or wish to add any comment to the specific topics related to the topic by all means show your education and information.

You first, Chester.

in a world where the great bulk of the population does not accept that homosexuality is a normal occurrence of nature (and that remains the case as there is no proof otherwise),

Actually, there is plenty of proof -- and it has been provided already. The fact that you choose to ignore and disregard it is YOUR problem (but we all know why: because NONE of the credible proof supports your bull@!$%#).

Chester I provided two examples of ancient civilizations that allowed. Here is evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient). Ancient China and Ancient Rome both allowed gay and lesbian marriage. Society did not crumble then, did it?

I also propose a report bomb of Chester's comments. Other than being a bigot, he insults fellow commenters in every post he's made so far, and maintains an elitist attitude, as if he is the only person who has any knowledge of the subject.

Majority of Americans support Same Sex marriage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx).

Maybe next year they'll make it legal to marry Raggot the Hamster.

Chester - I have two words for you: heads up.

Mr. Anon.... I love it when people purport to a poll that claims that a "majority...." what garbage.....I would love to see a one man one vote on the subject....but don't give me polls they are to easily slanted....I'm sure if I looked I could find one with the opposite result. Whenever someone says "the majority of the people" I hold my nose because the smell comes right after that.

Erin....of course I do not need to provide any proof that there is no proof......the fact that there is no proof is in fact proof enough. Until you have some irrefutable scientifically tested proof, then your opinion is all we need and we can all go on our merry way to address the important issues of the day.

There is no concept of children in a homosexual union.

Children is not a requirement for marriage or vice versa!

Of course anyone who doesn't believe that a bible was written and doesn't know there were dead sea scrolls found, has to be unaware of a lot of history and facts.

No one is saying the bible wasn't written. What's debatable is its validity and the credibility of its authors.

It is unarguably the only real written document that makes sense and has the backing of the scientific community.

Really? Which "scientific community" backs the bible? "Christian scientists?" The bible is nothing more than a book of fairy tales and fables. It is hardly a valid scientific text. Many biblical accounts and claims are outright discredited by science.

The bible reflects history and recordings of the legalities of that age.

So does the Illiad and The Odyssey. Does that mean Zeus and the cyclops are real?

There is no scientific evidence that there is permanent same sex pair bonding in animals and no correlation with humans.

Penguins and humans are but two species with same sex bonding. There are many more which have been observed to have homosexual behaviors.

Environmental factors can only affect a person AFTER they are born.

Wrong! Environmental factors can also affect the mother, and by extension, a fetus she's carrying.

When you make these ridiculous statements, you only show a complete inability to understand the English language and make coherent use of the language.

Based on some of these posts, the only one here making ridiculous (and sometimes inflammatory) statements here is you Chester!

Show me the examples that of pre christian cultures that allowed gay marriage.

The ancient Romans, greeks, Chinese, and even native Americans, among others!

Animals are animals and homosexuality only occurs in animals.

Humans ARE animals too, and we are memnbers of the animal kingdom.

A Yank in Australia

Mr. Anon.... I love it when people purport to a poll that claims that a "majority...." what garbage.....I would love to see a one man one vote on the subject....but don't give me polls they are to easily slanted....I'm sure if I looked I could find one with the opposite result. Whenever someone says "the majority of the people" I hold my nose because the smell comes right after that.

Erin....of course I do not need to provide any proof that there is no proof......the fact that there is no proof is in fact proof enough. Until you have some irrefutable scientifically tested proof, then your opinion is all we need and we can all go on our merry way to address the important issues of the day.

Gallup is a neutral source. If that isn't enough for you here are some others.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage_in_the_USA#Public_opinion

Mr. Anon and Gordy, I have come to the conclusion that Chester and Yank -- like so many bigots and homophobes -- are not interested in facts, because facts do not support their cherished ignorance. They lack the education and discernment required to make informed opinions; they prefer to hate what they don't know or can't understand, and lie about their reasons (as well as their education and qualifications to make such statements).

And of course, anyone who disagrees -- or dares to insert facts into the mix -- is an idiot, according to them. I think that being thought of as an idiot by them would qualify anyone for entrance into MIT, or some similar place of higher education.

It aint the results - it's the questions, to whom and how they are asked and how they are tallied.....trust me I know a bit about this and if you believe polls.....they gotch ya!

Someone pays for polls and the first question that is asked is "what result are you trying to get", it is called advertising, a close cousin to propaganda.

They are not, in my opinion a valid research document, any more than a TV Commercial that states that "2 out of 3 dentists recommend Crest Toothpaste" is a valid research document.

Scientifically tested and controlled research, a poll stating what the opinion of the majority of Americans is, is far from that .....when you get it you call me.

And of course, anyone who disagrees -- or dares to insert facts into the mix -- is an idiot, according to them.

Translation Erin: they're simply ranting and/or trolling because their arguments do not hold water.

Yank has just shown that no amount of evidence will convince him. I cited many examples. I did not cherrypick, I literally googled "Gay marriage polls" and clicked on all of the top results that were relevant. I also checked Wikipedia for information. If the evidence is good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for me.

Yank is unwilling to support his claims and he is unwilling to acknowledge evidence contrary to them. He ignores the fact that well over 70% of REPUBLICANS believe gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military. He ignores the fact that time and time states have debunked the idea that gay marriage is destructive to society. He ignores the fact that Washington has Democrats elected to all state level offices, and even Republican legislators have advocated for this bill.

I am a Washingtonian, and I happily inform you that this is not contrary to state opinion.

I am not gay, but if anyone here is LGBT, please feel free to speak out against the bigotry and homophobia expressed here. Blacks and women did not get their rights by staying silent.

ErinNJ....you are loopy, there is nothing that I have written that can be construed as bigoted, homophobic or prejudice.... you can paint whatever dream in your head that you want to. All I have said is there is no scientific proof that homosexuality in humans is a result of a genetic cause and effect. You have yet to be able to provide any scientifically based documentation that is universally accepted by the scientific community that proves otherwise.....have you. Now I don't give a damn who you marry and I don't care what you and the rest of the gay community do, think, or feel about me.....but facts is facts you got none so you resort to name calling and accusations of all kinds of mean nasty ugly things. I don't give a damn about your conclusions, you have not come up with one damn fact and if that makes you question your reality then that is your problem not mine.

You can throw out "intelligence and qualifications" and "MIT" if you choose but of course there is no way on this forum that that can be tested other than what lines up with your reality, in your nutshell world. I get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror and I can live with that, as is where is....no reality adjustment....you? I have been around the world more times than you have been outside of Portland Ore.( or wherever your little hole is) seen more, learned more and forgotten more than you will ever know.....stick that in your pipe and burn it.

EVERYTHING you have posted is bigoted bull@!$%# -- and several of us have provided reliable, unbiased, peer-reviewed proof that refutes and completely debunks everything you have said, but of course since it doesn't support your bull@!$%#, it is not "scientific".

All the while, YOU have provided NO proof at all to support your claims -- because no such proof exists. It's all stuff you've pulled from the encyclopedia of your ass, which is hardly reliable, unbiased, or peer-reviewed.

I have been around the world more times than you have been outside of Portland Ore.( or wherever your little hole is) seen more, learned more and forgotten more than you will ever know.....stick that in your pipe and burn it.

More bull@!$%#. You have no idea what I have done in my life, and where I have gone. And the only travels you've made have been to whatever planet you live on.

BTW, I am a straight, married woman who supports equality.

Mr. Anon....you need some help with reading comprehension.....Polls are not evidence they are not accepted in a court of law and they are not accepted unless they line up with the result that you want. Wikipedia has been found to be less than factual on so many occasions that it is not a reliable source of information.... unless of course it confirms your position.

I HAVE NOT MADE ANY CLAIMS I HAVE ONLY ASK FOR YOU AND YOUR MATES TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.....get that through your head. So because over 70% of Republicans think something that is evidence of what... I disagree with 70% of Republicans about 90% of the time and being an independent thinker I disagree with Democrats most of the time as well, so telling me what any politician supports means jack to me.

There has been no mention of Gays in the Military why do you bring that up?????? I am against any one being in the military Gay or otherwise.

You think you are pulling my chain you are sadly mistaken.....you and your mates can not provide one bit of factual evidence/proof/tests anything that will stand up to scrutiny.....that makes you question your position so you rant and rave and throw all the toys out of the crib.....I on the other hand couldn't care less....call me when you have some FACTS. Any amount of evidence will convince me.....but you have yet to provide any! END OF DISCUSSION

Because you throw out surveys and polls, no evidence is acceptable, even though you say "Any amount of evidence will convince me". However, here is further evidence to support the resolution that gay marriage should be legalized.

A common problem that gay men face is STDs. Studies have shown gay marriage reduces promiscuity and therefore increases health. This is better for the gay men. Sources:

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/same-sex-marriage-gay-men-health_n_1154201.html)

(http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/21/news/la-heb-same-sex-marriage-20111221)

Marriage also offers a number of legal and spiritual benefits for couples (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm)

And finally, a married couple offers a better environment for children (http://ur.umich.edu/0405/Nov08_04/14.shtml).

You can accept the evidence or not. As for Wikipedia, experts have shown that it is as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. Furthermore, I have stated that I am not cherrypicking for information. All of the polls I showed were the top results of a quick google search for "Gay marriage polls". As you see in the Gallup result, the majority is well above the margin of error, and there's been clear trends over the last 20 years. You can do this yourself if you want.

Ok...one last time...read carefully I FULLY SUPPORT THE RIGHT FOR THOSE OF THE GAY PERSUASION TO GET MARRIED IF THEY SHOULD BE PLEASED TO DO SO...got it?

Mr. Anon please no more meaningless polls they are not a reliable source of valid information nor do they have any logical reason to be brought up in this context as I have stated above I support the right for people to choose their poison as long as they don't hurt anyone else doing it. OK! And please don't waste your time telling me what Repubs or Demos say because whatever they say has either been bought and paid for by lobbyists or they are saying it because they believe it will garner votes...no matter their gender, party or sexual preference.

I have made no claims in respect to this issue I have only sought irrefutable proof, accepted by the general scientific community and backed up by controlled testing that homosexuality is an occurrence of genetics that in fact homosexuality is an accident of birth (like say brown hair). To date you Erin or anyone else for that matter have not provided that proof, and if you notice there is not a lot of support for your contention that there is proof and you have provided it from some of the very intelligent commenter on this subject......why? because they know as I do and you do that it does not exist.

The only weight you have been able to bring is the ol' "animals demonstrate homosexual traits so it must be natural", which of course has been completely debunked and if you were paying attention in high school biology you would know it...maybe you missed that day.

I will take you through it one last time. I earlier mentioned the word anthropomorphic, look it up, basically it means that you can neither apply human traits to animals or animal traits to humans. Homosexuality is a human behavior what animals do is instinctive it is not a choice, I mentioned that earlier as well the difference between humans and animals (despite the fact that we are both animals) is "intelligent choice", it is estimated that the ability of the human brain to decipher and choose is greater than all of the other animals put together (except in the case of Newt Gingrich don't know what happened there?).

But for a moment let's pretend and enter your fantasy world and say that when animals demonstrate a behavior that is also sometimes demonstrated by humans then it is agreed that it is accepted as normal born that way behavior.....fantasy now remember. So certain animals exhibit a behavior that in human terms is referred to as homosexual behavior OK for humans .... it's natural. Animals do demonstrate the act of infanticide (true seen it on Discovery) it is a natural behavior in some animals. Another example, animals tend to partake in the act of incest, it is a natural occurrence in many animals species (way more than homosexuality). So in the Erin fantasy world because it is demonstrate as a natural occurrence in the animal world it must be a natural born that way trait in the human world.....therefore in Erin's fantasy world infanticide and incest are OK....those who partake are born that way.

Now let's re-enter the realm of the human reality we live in..... now the last time I checked infanticide and incest both actions or behaviors which have been demonstrated by humans are frowned upon by society.

You see that in the animal world those behaviors are referred to as survival of the fittest, breeding, natural selection and it's called biology, it's science. However in human terms homosexuality, incest, and infanticide are matters of "intelligent choice"....we've come far in all these thousands of years.

OK.....theory debunked ..... got anything else? Didn't think so ... anyone else....Bueller. If you don't believe me go ask the local high school science teacher.

Maybe you can explain why the gay community is in such an uproar because some well known member of that community came out and said that she "choose to lead a gay lifestyle" you know "intelligent choice". Why would the gay community feel threatened by that statement...because when people say things like that they have to question their position.

What is going to be really interesting is when at some point in time they do come of with scientific proof that homosexual behavior in humans is a direct result of a mutated gene or is confirmed as a physios. I suspect at that time Homosexuals will be lining up to swear that they are gay by choice, it would be a choice between that or being labeled a mutant or mentally disadvantaged either way I think they would go for "intelligent choice".

Now I really don't give a damn what you think about me or whether you want to deny the facts or why or what rubbish and name calling you come back with, you don't have a lot of support in respect to your claim and it doesn't matter anyway. So I will let you blabber on I have explained this once and for all....saved it in case I need it later.

"Let’s focus 100 percent on balancing and passing the state budget now," urged Taxmaad.

What were you doing in the first place?

I can't stand the homosexual movement anymore. Somewhere along the lines they lost their minds with this gay propaganda campaign. Sure, some spineless politician, may capitulate, but that doesn't make them right that just means someone else made a deal.

@Yank:

Awesome post.

Sorry man, but equal rights are just as important as budgets. You just don't think so because yours aren't being threatened.

ItIsWhatItIs...thanks.....I'll leave it to you to sort out Mandy....I took care of ErinNJ.

Fair enough Yank. However, your somewhat nitpicky posts made it seems like you were another conservative bigot. What exactly is your viewpoint on homosexuality? As of now it appears like you are just trolling.

Apparently you are "yanking" on that part of you where your brains are stored, Yank, if you think you "took care" of me. You think YOU are the only one who "knows" all about what causes homosexuality? The proof has been provided to you numerous times; the fact that you disagree with it does not make it any less true.

Here are some more facts for you: YOU are not the final authority on ANYTHING. YOU have no clue what knowledge or education is. YOU have provided NO PROOF to support anything you have said. BTW, the encyclopedia of your ass is not a valid source. I chose to stop "debating" with you because it's too easy to make you look stupid, and you do such a fine job of that all by yourself.

For example, this little "gem": "....therefore in Erin's fantasy world infanticide and incest are OK..." Please show me where in any of my posts I said that? No, wait, don't: I'd rather you just go away. You're embarrassing yourself at this point, because you only a source of ridicule and laughter for the rest of us.

Try pulling your head out of your ass some time; maybe you'll get a better perspective -- as well as learn something (but I doubt it). And stop yanking on the little tool where your brains are stored.

Mr. Anon....couldn't care less there are far more important issues in this world than people's personal sexual preferences or what they do behind closed doors.....as I stated several times in my posts. The environment, useless wars, lobbyists running the country, a public education system that is producing people that have great finger painting skills but can't write a letter and I could go on....but they don't include people's sexual preferences or whether everyone should be afforded the right to marry.

However when people wave propaganda in front of my face no matter what the issue I just can't help myself, can't let it go unchallenged.....I'm working on it....got one going on gun control on another thread, I just can't take the NRA BS. Everything was fine until ErinNJ dropped that Gay Agenda "we are born this way" Propaganda.....and no one, despite ENJ protestations, has come up with the generally medically and scientifically accepted evidence to support that claim....because it doesn't exist.

I accept your position that there are polls which say people are generally accepting of Gays getting married and that may be true (I don't see polls or surveys as factual they are just that polls) and hope that is the case! Then we might get back on to the main game issues.

I notice ErinNJ has snuck back in to see if she can get the last word in......back to the time out corner little girl until you can learn to behave yourself.....I finished with you at 1.222 try to get a grip on difference between fact and conjecture. All this name calling, throwing all the toys out of the crib....grow up, you've been shut down, ya' got nothin but the cry baby antics of a kid in a candy store whose mummy won't buy her any. I can just see all the folks here lining up to support your little temper tantrum......oh look around where at they??????? You like so many others don't want to debate that would mean you would actually have to know something not just have an opinion.... this hasn't been a debate...you never had any facts to debate with.

Where is your evidence that homosexuality is a choice?

You haven't even bothered to look for any data to support your claims -- you just shoot @!$%# out of your ass, like a chimpanzee, and see if it sticks.

You don't like the proof I provided? TOUGH. That doesn't make it false.

Wait, if we all agree that gay marriage is fine, what are we even debating? Why is the genetics of homosexuality even relevant here?

Apparently because Yank-off wants to make sure that only HIS reasons for supporting gay marriage are valid, and we ALL have to endorse and agree with them.

And apparently he is so insecure, and has such an inferiority complex, that he needs to insult and demean others in order to feel better about himself. Pathetic!

I'll leave it to you to sort out Mandy....I took care of ErinNJ

What sort of "sorting out" do I need there Yank?

OK I have to back off my kids have told me after reading this that it is not nice to pick on defenseless young ladies. Mandy###### my bad attempt at humor, excuse.

However.... I made no statement as to the cause, likely or otherwise of homosexuality in humans and I didn't because despite the fact that it has been the subject of numerous studies both medical and scientific for at least 30 years no definitive proven and tested evidence of a "cause" has been achieved. There are many theories, no evidence, the absence of evidence to support one theory does not prove another. Given that there is no evidence (despite the posters claim and if there was, someone on this thread would have put it forward) of a genetic, medical, or other biological reason generally accepted by the scientific and medical community......you must fall back on "intelligent choice" for now until proven otherwise. Remember everyone believed the world was flat until such a time as it was proved otherwise.

Below is the entire text of the article which the poster cut and pasted a snippet from to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt (not only in it's mind but that it expected to be accepted as fact by the rest of the Newsvine Community) that homosexuality in humans is an inherited animal trait. If anyone finds in this article any statement to that affect will they please bring it to my attention and if anyone after reading this believes that the poster is full of crap....please bring it to its.

I REST MY CASE

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"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".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."

Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.

"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.

"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.

Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.

"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.

he's on the wrong side of history and just wants to pander to his right wing party to get the vice president candidate slot.

You are not stupid.

In this country we should never employ a democratic process when it is easier to impose the will of the government or special interest onto the people...dang that Christie for thinking people should have a say in how their state functions

Soggy, this has nothing to do with how the state functions. It is a rights issue and thus is not up to the people to decide.

I personally think that what WA state has done is their problem. They also need to pass laws for beastiality, incest, and whatever else turns them on. I have lived in WA and I enjoyed being married to my wife and my dog. My neighbor has a sheep that really looks good. While they are at it they should also let children marry each other. Why not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. All laws should be done away with. Let chaos reign!!!

Soggy, sorry, but the whole POINT to the old 'will of the people' re rights is that one person's "rights" extend ALL the way out to the end of his/her FIST, right up until that fist impacts another person's nose.

The constitution specifically does NOT give the majority the "right" to trample on the rights of the minority. Ask any woman. Or person of "color''. Or CHILD. Ask them if the MAJORITY has the right to deny them equal rights.

@BikeBoy

I refer you to post 1.71 above to defeat all your arguments.

To quickly sum said post up in regards to your arguments: children cannot be involved in marriage because they cannot give informed consent, incest essentially always involves some manner of abusive home growing up and not love between two individuals, and animals cannot give informed consent either and sex with an animal is animal abuse.

All your arguments are nothing more than straw men created via argumentum ad absurdium, that is argument to the absurd.

Soggy

The majority has no more right to deny marriage equality by popular vote than it would to overturn civil rights for racial minorities or un-abolish slavery.

Arch,

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.

Arch,

Thank you. Seriously, thank you.

:D

Archmagi This whole vine is absurd. I really don't care what you think.

Archmagi This whole vine is absurd. Do what you want leave ME the hell alone.

Roughly translated, that means...

I have no logical or substantive answer to the posts on this vine. This means I have to either own my position however unjustifiable it may be, or I have to get nasty. I choose the later.

Sarah No!!! What I mean is would Josh Powell killed himself and his kids knowing he could have gotten married in his state to another male. What difference does it make. If it is going to happen it will. If you want to be gay you will. If you want to be married you will. Straight or gay. That is YOUR problem. NOT MINE!!!!!

Its a sick world we live in, always has been, its just gotten a little sicker. its all about $$$ and Washington is 29% under budget as is, now they will fall farther when the gay benefits kick in. The State is going broke and they just keep doing stupid things. its like paying John to get a BJ from Billy. the thing is Tom and Marry and the kids will be paying for it in the long run. Washington needs a Governor for its Governor. Where did you people find this woman?

What this Bill ACTUALLY says in the text is that ALL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS who charge a FEE for MARRIAGE CEREMONY, MUST Marry Gay Couples or be fined and/or prosecuted under GOVT LEGISLATION. All those ORGANIZATIONS who perform mariage for FREE will still be able to refuse (For Now).
1] A lot of Churches, Synagogues and Mosques rely on income made via performing Ceremonies to survive, and paritioners of those churches give freely in order to support their Church/Synagogue/Mosque in surviving. All facilties used for Ceremonies incur costs/expenses to operate. This Law says you can now only survive if your minister is also willing to affront his own beliefs and the majority of his congregation so that 1 out of 30+ marriages doesn't lead to law suit or the shut down of that organizaion/church.
2] So a minister has to now forfeit fees on 30+ marriages just in case 1 Gay couple wants to force him to marry them in his Church in violation of his own beliefs, his congregation, and 3500yrs of Mosaic law which was sacrisanct at the threshold of the Church doors. Even the Romans respected the sanctity of a 'temple' when people would take refuge from pesecution on religious backgrounds.
3] All those who have written here that it is a Civil Rights Issue are totally correct in that this destroys a majority prevailing protection of Civil Rights for that which most world leaders would not even DREAM of violating; religious freedom and right to operate a religious organization in check with a religious document held sacred without an outside 3rd party dictating how it operates.
4] Gay people are being used as a political pawn to impose Govt control on the one organization which has been able to escape Govt corruption and meddling. 3500yrs of Civil Rights at the highest level have just been attacked and people here are applauding a victory in Civil Rights? This article doesn't even mention why this Bill is different from those that have preceeded it. People don't read laws, evedently they just read articles that omit crucial information deceptively and then people react based on Popular Culture, much like the last Presidential Election, its all Hollywood and Fireworks and no knowledge and intelligence any more.
5] Gay people should have the right to operate their own churches and MARRY their own couples under their own definition of marriage, also existing churches sould allow their own ministers and congregations to make this decison, but thats not what this Bill does. This bill is imposing the will of the Minority on an independent Majority body seperate from Govt from the inception of the US (Even the Magna Carta; pre 1776) which in fact is the definition of FASCISM. All Religious Organizations have to comply in WA without compunction on order of Govt.
6] The people in the photo above are acting all hyped and happy NOT because they have helped Gay Couples (You are being used as a political tool), they are celebrating because they just made a statement that FASCISM is fair game in the US now and that now the last stronghold of actual Civil Rights has been pushed aside. Brown Shirts all round, I can hear the Armies of the Secular Church marching and the Screams of Christians running from a Secuar Inquisition which will crush Christian Churches, Islamic Mosques, and Jewish Synagogues under foot or force them to comply with Political Correctness which actually has no end until there is one imposed Univeral One World Church.
7] Are Freemasons going to be forced to admit Women into Male Only Lodges? Are Jews going to be forced to allow the sacrifice of a Sow to Apollo on the sacred Alter if someone requests it of the Rabbi in a synagogue? Are Christian Churches next going to be made to perfrm Polygamous marriages on request? ...will they have to allow a marriage between a Man/Woman and an Animal on request? How minor does a minority have to be in order to impose its will via the Govt over ALL PEOPLES?
Congrats people, you are all Cheering Fascism and proclaiming a victory for Human Rights. Lord Come Quickly!!!

Marriage is unconstitutional why does anyone want to get married the divorce rate is startling because it does not work yet all these idiots are scrambling to get married....you all deserve whatever you get!

You should have said the stupid, not the hatemongers. Their hate is based on ignorance which could be based on a genetic predisposition OR just an inability to think for themselves. Conservatives Republicans are useful idiots for the rich and powerful!

no one wants to know you are an athiest yo-yo

.

Jimee J... "Their hate is based on ignorance which could be based on a genetic predisposition OR just an inability to think for themselves"???...

Please stop talking about how stupid people are, when judging by that statement, you are one of the dumbest people here. Quit embarrassing yourself.

I am a liberal Christian. Your point is invalid.

Here for goodness sake.....................!!! Read BEFORE you use the term BIGOT again??

1. intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views.

Got it?????? I sure hope so since it cuts BOTH ways!!!

Randy

The hatemongers (ie: repubs and x-tians)

Now this is hatemongering.

I notice all the liberal homosexuals collapse quite a few of the comments they don't agree with. I imagine we will be voting on the right for gays to get married in the near future , and I really couldn't give two sh1ts anymore if they can or can't get married . in a few years we will get to laugh at them while they are loosing all their belongings in divorce proceedings .

Hey, TXHorseman, thank you for a clear, concise definition of a liberal!

Its not hate its just that this makes no common sense and it opens more doors, next thing you know any one who had a room mate will be able to collect money on their demise, its socialism run amok! Marriage is in fact ( holly matrimony) Define that and you have your answer it is a Religious thing, not a issue that is mandated by the state. it is a religious state between a man and a woman anything else is a abomination cant you understand that its about Religion. why would any one that has no affiliation to religion have a need for its sanctions, unless the intent is to attack it. what is the big picture here. how is it that you can make something unholly holly?

DB Akron

Randy

The hatemongers (ie: repubs and x-tians)

Now this is hatemongering.

DB Akron you are absolutely correct. It is certainly hatemongering to call all Christians and Republicans bigoted. After all, the decision is Washington was bipartisan, with Republican legislators speaking passionately in favor of the bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CbmbdWK6338).

Ido has stopped making any sense whatsoever.

Ido
Either stay on topic, go post over on the budget thread, or, even better, just go.

Ido is a well known troll and likes to stretch the truth to buttress his/ her unsubstantiated squawking points

@IDO,

Explain to me how the budget has anything to do with gay marriage. If you want to have a discussion on the budget, I'd be glad to give it to you. But on another Vine, if you will.

On the other hand, Go Washington state! Equal rights for all! If this happened down here in Texas, Emperor Perry would probably rent out a stadium and pray the gay away.

Prayer would be an appropriate first step in this matter. I think if the homosexual proponents had an open mind to consider that a different worldview could actually have insights into this matter perhaps their current agenda would naturally come to a halt.

The governor has overstepped bounds in this matter, and a vote by the people is the appropriate answer to this situation.

Why are these religious people so invested in what other people do with their personal lives? I have never found anything in the bible that says go forth and snoop into others private lives and then sit back and judge them right or wrong. I did find He who is without sin can cast the first stone. I'm pretty certain that most of these people demanding that this new law be reseversed ought to get back into their own glass house and straighten up their own lives before thinking they have any business telling anybody else what they can/can't do behind their own closed doors. What a bunch of hypocrites!!!!!! Being gay is an abomination??? So if that is true don't you think that God is the one and only entity (if your a believer) that has any business judging this when each persons life on earth is over????? The are plenty more important things to spend time on than messing with gays and lesbians!! Volunteer at a shelter, go to your kids/grandkids school and help kids learn to read etc.. Go to a prison and preach religion to those willing to listen, adopt a road, park or highway and help keep the earth clean. There are thousands upoin thousands of better things to occupy your time with. Stop being such a bunch of hypocrites and get out and do something productive becasue Gods judging you too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are these religious people so invested in what other people do with their personal lives? I have never found anything in the bible that says go forth and snoop into others private lives and then sit back and judge them right or wrong. I did find He who is without sin can cast the first stone. I'm pretty certain that most of these people demanding that this new law be reseversed ought to get back into their own glass house and straighten up their own lives before thinking they have any business telling anybody else what they can/can't do behind their own closed doors. What a bunch of hypocrites!!!!!! Being gay is an abomination??? So if that is true don't you think that God is the one and only entity (if your a believer) that has any business judging this when each persons life on earth is over????? The are plenty more important things to spend time on than messing with gays and lesbians!! Volunteer at a shelter, go to your kids/grandkids school and help kids learn to read etc.. Go to a prison and preach religion to those willing to listen, adopt a road, park or highway and help keep the earth clean. There are thousands upoin thousands of better things to occupy your time with. Stop being such a bunch of hypocrites and get out and do something productive becasue Gods judging you too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John: Your post says everything about your lack of knowledge about the laws of this country. The governor has most certainly NOT overstepped bounds and if civil rights had to come from referendums of majority will, women and blacks would still not be voting or hold property. (This is why your side is losing and losing badly...when you are reduced to hitting people over the head with bibles, it's time to recognize just how unlikely you are to win people over by imitating the Taliban).

AP : Truth is no state will allow the people to vote on this. The reason, I think there will be an overwhelmingly majority is favor of no gay unions. This is just another way the govt. is trying to control people's lives. If anything we learned from this is that our politicians can be bought, or frightened by any minority willing to push against them rather than listening to the will of all the people.

If you disagree with my religion then you have the right to stay out of it, that is your right. but don't pile your garbage in my yard, Marriage is a religious issue and considered sacred. and don't fill me with all the other issues that come up from everyone else that use it but don't believe.

Skrewdworld You are right I can't argue that god is watching, and God is the one that labeled it a abomination not me.

John1234 - Sorry I'm one of the vote of the people living in Washington State and I approve of this legislation

And as to marriage being a religious state my husband and I were married in Italy in a civil service - so I guess we're not married?

And as far as animals go - I've had male horses that wanted to copulate with each other, also dogs - any port in a storm as they say

If you are against gay marriage don't marry your boyfriend, girlfriend or your pet guppy but leave the rest of the human race alone - same with abortion don't have one!

Live your life as you want to but don't intrude on other people's lives - you have no right to do so

Divorce is actually sanctioned on grounds of Adutery in the Bible that Churches operate on. Also, a third party is not the one forcing churches to allow/disallow divorces. All Churches get the freedom to do as they want and lose/gain paritioners based on their positions and actions. If Aethiests/Whatever want to use other issues (Divorce) to back themselves up (Gay Marriage Issue) it helps if they use parallels that are logical and equal to the issue at hand, otherwise it just exposes the fact that such people don't care about the Institution they are criticizing and don't care for their customs and that they support their right to destroy the rights of said institution....even though they don't care to be correct or respectful in what they are saying.

1] What a Church decides to do in its own doors (Sanction A Divorce) is an issue for their Minister/Heierarchy/Paritioners and not the Govt unless the physical safety of that person is being violated. That person can always leave the Church and then move for Divorce, also they then get the right to join a Church who sanctions their particular grounds for Divorce.

2] What a 3rd Party (Govt) Imposes on a Church (All Religious Organizations in Washington in this Case) becuase of apparent support for a minority group (Gay Community Who WANT To Be Married In A Christian Church) is obvioulsy not the same as a Church itself choosing to sanction a divorce.

The imposition of a law by Govt on All Religious Organizations based on a minority complaint is the definition of imposing a FASCIST law on that organization. Christian Churches will next be forced to allow Polygamous Mariages against their will? Or marry a Man/Woman to an Animal on request (Don't laugh, it's a real issue)? Or Marry a couple who present Satanic self written vows to a Christian Priest in check with the official Church Of Satan and in violation to ALL the beliefs of that Christian Priest and the sanctity of his Church and Congregtion? Where will it end.......just because the Govt just recruited Gay Rights groups to use as a wedge to get its authority into the Abrahamic Religious Organizations (Churches/Mosques/Synagogues) and force Religions under Govt Authority in breach of a 3500 year un-broken tradition to do what they say, is no cause for celebration, and if you are celebrating then I would suggest you read a little bit of German history from the Weimar Republic up until around 1945 to see what effect Fascism has on a nation which allows its Govt to step into all areas of its public and private institutions and impose its will.

Of course the Church in the past has imposed interference with governments, this is true, but is it a good idea to put out fire with petrol? will society ever be able to respect the rights of those who want to collect in groups and have the right to practice beliefs that don't physically breach any one elses rights to personal security without interference? Perhaps Christians were right to stomp the rights of people who didn't agree with them so that those same people didn't then come and try and do the same thing to them once they gained power? Personally I don't sanction violence/oppression by Christianity on the practices of others because it is a hypocrisy of the teachings of Jesus, but others have to understand that it takes two to tango; the perpetual swing to and from fascism has to end or humanity is going to end up as another shipwreck time and time again, and Govts and Oligarchs will manipulate and gain from the demise of peaceful society time and again.

the constitution is dead and everyone is trampling all over it shouting VICTORY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

This is a constitutional issue and people need to read the actual detail of the Bill.

The Christian Church, Mosques and Synagogues are the victims here and the minority is screaming VICTORY........Give em all a Brown Shirt!

The gay community is not demanding to be married in Christian churches -- they are demanding equality as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country, including the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, and federal recognition of those marriages -- with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, just as heterosexuals currently enjoy.

And we are not a country of majority rule, so the minority deserves ALL of the same rights as the majority.

Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years.

ErinNJ - You'd better read the Bill thats being signed then because it says the following;

ALL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT CHARGE A FEE FOR A MARRIAGE CEREMONY WILL HAVE TO PERFORM ALL THEIR CEREMONIES FOR FREE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT TO REJECT VIOLATING THEIR OWN BELIEFS. IF THEY CONTINUE TO CHARGE A FEE THEN THEY MUST MARRY GAY COUPLES OR BE FINED/PROSECUTED.

You said >>> The gay community is not demanding to be married in Christian churches -- they are demanding equality as taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country, including the right to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, and federal recognition of those marriages -- with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, just as heterosexuals currently enjoy.

That's all well and good but you aren't talking about what YOU or the rest of the GAY COMMUNITY wants. What you are supporting here is the Bill which as summarized above in CAPITAL LETTERS ,is what has been signed into law.

In Washington now All SYNAGOGUES, CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, and ISLAMIC MOSQUES will be forced to perform all of their Heterosexual Marriages at NO CHARGE even though they incur costs by performing them just in order to retain their right to refuse the marriage ceremony of a potetial Gay Couple Who WANTS To Be Married in a Christian Church/Mosque/Synagogue. So no more much needed income from 30+ Heterosexual Marriages anymore just in case a Gay Couple wants to force a Christian Church/Mosque/Synagogue to marry them in their institution. So what YOU and the GAY COMMUNITY want is not what this is about, this is about the Govt entering the institution of a Church and running them out of business/practice by actually being DISCRIMINATORY towards the religious.

1] Newage Churches and those Christian Churches willing to even violate the majority opinion of their paritioners in order to remain with the DOORS OPEN and not become un-viable will be OK as they don't have a problem wih Marrying Gay Couples.

2] Churches/Synagogues and Mosques who do not want to violate what they believe to be their sacred right will be enforced by Govt to perform ALL Mariages for FREE and become unsustainable, or refuse to peform marriaes of even Heterosexual couples in order that they don't run their expenses up with no offset and have to close their doors. Basically it is the oppression of a majority in order to protect a minority......just like the BANKER BAILOUT BILL of which was mosly used to pay big bonuses and didn't prevent a downturn etc........Basically Govt announce one thing, write a Bill that is twisted, get on side media assets to report it with serious omissions and FOOL LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS WHILST MANIPULATING OTHER SMALLER GROUPS.

It is a sickening manipulation by politicians of those not willing to read the Legalese. It is disgusting and even Gay people should be incensed by this Bill. They're all calling people opposing this Bill as HATERS on this site!!! Can you believe it? Build a damn CHURCH OF GAY and get marriages performed there and the bill re-written to allow Gay people to marry Gay people under your own definition, but DON'T force everyone else to comply with sanctioning it. I hope this Bill fails and then the ACTUAL RIGHTS ISSUE is restarted without discriminating against the Church. Its sickening how ignorant the public is to manipulation at a time when we are supposed to be smarter than ever before; not too smart if you ask me, we're going backwards; FAST!

WAKE UP PEOPLE! This IS Fascism!!!

The fee that is charged is probably a fee paid to the state, and the state is telling religious organizations that, if they collect the state fee, they must abide by state law. That does not mean that gays are "demanding to be married in Christian churches".

There are actually many Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist denominations who will perform gay marriages, and welcome gay worshipers.

She sounds a lot more sane and normal than you do scott.

Seriously, what sort of sick and twisted person supports ending bigotry and discrimination...?

Let me get this straight - when you get your own way that ends bigotry? Seems to me there are around 7 Billion "my own ways".

I suppose a better way of putting it would be "ending state-sponsored discrimination." There will always be bigotry, as disgusting and sad as that may be.

DB: that's why civil rights aren't left up to popular vote...bigotry will always be popular...until it isn't. (Harry Truman knew that...he didn't ask for a "vote" to see how popular integrating the armed forces would be, or wait for bigots to stop arguing it would be "unnatural". He just did it because it was the decent, the right thing to do.)

well AP-1414066 , I'll bet there will be a vote on this civil right ...... what about the rights of everyone else ? we are spending alot of time and effort worrying about the rights of a chosen few . when you give someone ( or group ) a certain "right " it appears to me to be at everyone elses expense .

Name one expense this right would bring upon you, Cross. Just one.

Go on.

@ Toasty,Trust in the facts there are monetary gains they will get that will cost you, not to mention morel values that are decomposing, or should I use the term moral degradation of society.

So basically... "Sorry Toasty, I don't actually have a real answer."

And not a single person in Washington was helped by this vote. Washington already gave homosexual couples all of the rights of married straight couples with their domestic partnership laws. All this bill does is allow homosexual couples to change the phrase "domestic partnership" to the word "marriage", they did not gain a single right from this law.

This bill is a political smoke screen to distract attention from the NASTY budget fight that is coming to the legislature.

@ Falcon
That is hardly the point. It is a symbolic moment.

To..falcon"""

When the term civil unions for gays was being discussed some time ago ..it was the preachers who screamed from every pulpit that civil unions = gay marriage ..and that's when all hell broke loose...

The right that homosexual couples gained from this is the RIGHT to have our relationships recognized the same way heterosexual couples recognize theirs. I would say that is a big right. Equality is always better than second class status.

If you agree that all the rights and benefits already exist then it shouldn't matter to you that it is called a marriage any more than an arranged marriage is called a marriage. Homosexuals just want equal recognition. Nothing more.

And neither "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" meets the constitutional muster for equality.....the SCOTUS has already ruled unconstitutional the "separate but equal" concept from the civil rights era. This is another case of "separate but equal" BS. Neither term grants all of the same rights and benefits as the term "marriage" and the "marriage license."

falcon642 - And not a single person in Washington was helped by this vote. Washington already gave homosexual couples all of the rights of married straight couples with their domestic partnership laws.

Except that domestic partnerships aren't recognized under federal law, between states or internationally - only marriage is. And in the very near future when DOMA is struck down, married gays and married straights in Washington will have the same legal rights under federal law.

Falcon, you sound like the kind of guy who thinks whites-only drinking fountains were a good idea.

Your intolerance of religious beliefs is phemominally callous. Jews and Christians believe that Marriage was an institution established by God between a man and a woman. You can't find the respect and decency to come up with something other than "marriage".

BTW 57% of the people in Washington were against this Strange how you twist things.

DB Akron - Your intolerance of religious beliefs is phemominally callous. Jews and Christians believe that Marriage was an institution established by God between a man and a woman. You can't find the respect and decency to come up with something other than "marriage".

Many Christian and Jewish sects today recognize gay marriage and perform religious weddings for gays. Even 71% of US Catholics support marriage equality.

But DB Akron thinks the government should instead adopt the views of bigoted cults like the SBC and Mormons, rather than simply treating marriage as the secular legal contract it already is.

You can't find the respect and decency to come up with something other than "marriage".

You want "respect" and "decency" when you show none to homosexuals? What a hypocrite!

And you don't own the word "marriage".

DB: That's an illogical argument you're making. No one is required in this country to be a member of any religion to marry. Marriage is a civil contract. If you want to be married in a church or synagogue, that's your choice, but it is completely separate from the civil, legal contract.

You would not believe the bitching going on. I hear it as far away as Montana, but I only hear the west side of the state. Some of it might be coming from Idaho.

Falcon - Actually there are more rights bestowed on a married couple - the right to visit your spouse in a hospital - the right to take your adopted children to school and sit in on parent's nights - the right to file a joint tax return and on and on

But most of all the right to be equal as citizens

Another state bit the big one.

I'm sure that will be next!

I agree absolutely ... This country's moral compass is spinning like a tornado ... It's really hard to see the true purpose of this exercise! What does it really prove in the end? As a species ... humans have some serious issues to overcome! May God have mercy on America!

Umm, no god. Still.

Matt never married Miss Kitty...

Did you ever wonder why Chester had that limp ?

It's really hard to see the true purpose of this exercise! What does it really prove in the end

That everyone deserves equal rights!

Heaveto Not too long ago a gal in Seattle married a building that was going to be torn down. More power to her. I think you should be able to do ANYTHING you want. Let all laws be illegal.

you just hit the nail on the head, no stoping it now just open the gates and let them all out. they can say but I lova that goat or I was borne that way. Im from washington move over its my turn. its endless.

@the boss.. Amazing, truly an eloquent response, i applaud your thoughtfulness.

What would the world (and yes, the USA) be like if everyone spent their energy trying to help build up our world and country - instead of trying to tear them down?

What would it be like if hate and close-mindedness were marginalized? The greatest capacity of humankind is its capacity to love.

#meanpeoplesuque @thetroll-4100356

Thanks Sally!

Your funny...reichwing, just trying to figure out where in the Constitution it says being gay gives you any special rights. I suppose we'll have to adjust our thinking about child molestation, beastiality, rapist's next because they were "born" that way and there is nothing wrong with them......personally I could care less about the Homosexuals, maybe they'll shut up for awhile now, I am more concerned with seeing the state and federal government start focusing on important stuff....like our debt to China, and growing un-sustainable national debt.

But lets not talk about the important issues. Call me a reichwing teabagger, and I'll call you a leftwing fudge packer....how's that.

@ Oilman :name-calling and stereotyping is a form of hate/profiling.Whose spewing it,really!

Let's see... Oilman is right, not-so-truthieman. You can read masses of vitriol coming from the people Oilman mentioned. I am sorry you hate seeing the truth but you can't escape it no matter how hard you try.

That is pure B.S Sandy!!! I comes from BOTH sides on here daily!!!! Maybe you should read a little farther. And neither can you!!

Oh and I agree that gays should be allowed to marry!

'all the same xenophobic, homophobic and bigoted bible thumping bloggers start foaming at the mouth again.' I implore you Sandy, to enlighten me as to how that is not a perfect example of hypocrisy. You're defense of such ignorance is baffling... 'how dare you throw a rock at me because I threw a rock at you'... that's what your comment sounded like, to me

Some body has to be on the losing side. Can you think of a better candidate for that footnote in history citation than Rick Santorum or Chris Christie?

As someone who's (technically) from the Evergreen State...I'm proud, too. :D

Sadly, the state I live in (Alabama) would be one of the last to follow this example.

I feel your pain Caitlan. Came from Iowa... live in Tennessee... *sigh* the south

OOoo....so Chicken Little WAS right...the sky is falling and The Rapture can't be all that far behind! This MUST be an "Endtimes" signal if there ever was one. Pack your bags! Our days in Eden are numbered!

What a crock

The end times? Does that mean Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are the Four Horsemen?

I'd take Romney off the list and put Michele Bachmann in his place. In any apocalyptic scenario, there isn't a doubt in my mind that that moron has to be a part of it.

Maryland and Illinois.

Hopefully we won't have to keep guessing for much longer. The Defense Of Marriage Act is going to be struck down within the next four years. MAYBE five. And after that's done, it won't matter which states officially give equal marriage rights, because they'll be forced to recognize all marriages regardless. I mean, I know it'd be better if all 50 allowed them, but in the end once they're forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, it'll certainly be good enough.

New Jersey may not be far behind. Christie said he would oppose laws, but he would openly support an ammendment revision.

I think Greece would be a natural at it. Too bad it is not a state.

Heaveto--ABSOLUTELY. And please note that all the 'great' religions of the world were founded by MEN, seemingly to insure that like minded men such as themselves had all the power, and KEPT it.

Very few women, slaves, etc ever were allowed to succeed. Much less have equal rights. :(

cliff you are 1000 percent on the spot - i live in wa state , i left sewer ca 20 years ago - wa is becoming another sewer because of people with no morals

@scott - feel free to jump in your canoe and paddle off into the sunset. We don't want you here either.

Cliff and Scott, I agree with both of you. It is sad that this country suffers from a lack of good moral values. I am sure glad I do not live in WA. We have a constitutional amendment coming up for a vote in May in NC to define marriage as one man and one woman. I sure hope it passes.

thanks raleigh dolly - hope nc stays normal my freind

How does restoring constitutionality to a state send it "down the sewer?"

I'm glad he left CA.

The U.S. will never support legislating morality. Rights equality trumps just get over it. We don't force it down your throat, you just force hatred toward us when you break up bonded families and steal adopted children who would have been homeless otherwise when one partner is on his/her deathbed. Do not even TRY to claim you are the moral authorities of this country. You are deluded beyond all possible measure.

Toasty McGrath - The wording of this Bill enforces ALL Synagogues/Christian Churches & Mosques who charge a FEE for the Ceremony Of Marriage to marry Gay Couples or do ALL their Ceremonies for FREE! Heterosexual or otherwise. It will drive conservative churches into non existence in WA

This bill is descriminatory against the religious, it does the opposite to what you think it does and this article has omitted to mention this. In the Bil wording it actually attacks the rights of the religious. America is becoming Fascist and everyone is cheering whilst not reading the actual wording of Bills being signed and passed without a Referendum which allows time for SCRUTINY. So in short; this is how the Constituion is being trashed; through the laziness of the genberal public to give a damn about reading into the legislation.

WAKE UP AMERICA, POLITICIANS ARE SETTING GROUPS AGAINST GROUPS, THIS BILL IS A MANIPULATION OF GAY PEOPLE IN ORDER TO ATTACK THE RELIGIOUS. READ THE DAMN BILLS BEFORE YOU COMMENT???

The wording of this Bill enforces ALL Synagogues/Christian Churches & Mosques who charge a FEE for the Ceremony Of Marriage to marry Gay Couples or do ALL their Ceremonies for FREE!

Really? What section of the law contains that alleged "wording"? Here's an excerpt from Section 1 of the law that seems to indicate your assertion...in it's entirety...is demonstrably false:

7 (4) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam,

8 rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to

9 solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained

10 minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious

11 organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action

12 based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this

13 section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to

14 penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any

15 religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such

16 religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this

17 section.

18 (5) No religious organization is required to provide

19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods

20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

21 (6) A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim

22 or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW,

23 based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages,

24 privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or

America is becoming Fascist and everyone is cheering whilst not reading the actual wording of Bills being signed and passed without a Referendum which allows time for SCRUTINY.

Comments like this demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge regarding the legislative process...and serve to diminish the credibility of all your opinions.

And yelling at people in ALL CAPS...doesn't help obsufcate that fact.

No response, IARB?

@I Actually Read Bills?

Where'd you go?

The legislation is only a few pages long...and it's conveniently broken into 17 bite-sized little sections. Surely you're done "Actually Reading" it by now...and can show where churches are required to "marry Gay Couples or do ALL their Ceremonies for FREE"?

In the absence of a substantive response...it's reasonable to conclude you were just pimping jealously, homophobia and lies.

Who's on top in your bed?

I thought you did..