MOBILE
Gay marriage now state law
Opponents say they will seek citizen repeal
Elizabeth Scallon, left, and Shena Lee listen Monday to a toast at the Wild Rose in Seattle as part of a statewide toast celebrating Washington allowing same-sex couples to marry.
February 14, 2012 - Updated: 1:30 a.m.
OLYMPIA – Within hours of Gov. Chris Gregoire signing a historic bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington, opponents filed a referendum that would give voters a chance to endorse or reject it in November.
A Republican presidential candidate visiting the Capitol said the nation should move forward with a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
“We need to have a national debate about this,” former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said in the House Republican Caucus Room, just down the corridor from the State Reception Room where a packed audience saw Gregoire sign the bill. “Different marriage laws in different states doesn’t work.”
In a sometimes tearful, sometimes raucous ceremony in the ornate reception room, Gregoire said Washington was “standing proudly for equality,” when its Legislature passed the bill over the past two weeks.
The bill provides “absolute” freedom for churches, religious organizations and religious-affiliated organizations to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, or to allow their facilities to be used for any ceremony consecrating or celebrating such a marriage, Gregoire said.
Opponents argue, however, it doesn’t go far enough to protect the rights of businesses that would want to refuse to provide services, supplies or facilities to a wedding if the business owner has deeply held beliefs against same-sex marriage.
Gregoire and the legislators who helped shepherd the bill through both chambers with healthy majorities received loud ovations in the packed room. As she began to put pen to paper and sign the bill, an opponent in the crowd shouted “Do not betray Christ.” He was escorted out by state troopers, who warned him about disturbing the peace but did not cite him, and he left, Lt. Mark Arras said.
Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill’s prime sponsor, thanked legislators of both parties who supported the bill “at great political risk to themselves.” He and others praised both legislators on both sides of the issue for conducting a civil debate in both chambers before the vote.
“Nothing will take this moment in history away from us,” he said.
The ink was barely dry on the official version of the bill when, four hours later, local members of the National Organization for Marriage filed for a referendum to give voters a chance to overturn the law. They’ll have to get more than 120,000 signatures from registered voters by June 6 to put the issue on the ballot. If so, the law can’t take effect unless it wins majority support in the general election; if not, it takes effect June 7.
Christopher Plante, regional coordinator for the organization, said he believes opponents will succeed with a message that same-sex couples already have all the legal rights and privileges as married couples, so changing a long-established law on marriage isn’t necessary. Although six other states have passed similar laws, Plante discounted any suggestion of a “domino effect.” Other states could pass laws this year banning same-sex marriage, he said.
“There isn’t a sense of inevitability,” he said. Referendum organizers haven’t decided whether to pay people to gather signatures, but expect the fall campaign to run as much as $6 million per side.
As the referendum was being filed, Santorum was one floor up in the Capitol, talking with Republican legislators. Those meetings were closed to the public, but in a later press conference, he insisted Gregoire’s signing of the bill was not “the final word.” He said he had met earlier with opponents of the bill and told them to stand up for their religious liberties and gave them some advice:
“Don’t make it personal, make it about what’s best for society,” he said. “I think it’s important to be respectful on both sides.”
Among the crowd at the signing ceremony were former Spokane City Councilman Dean Lynch and his partner, Michael Flannery. Although they made the trip across the state to witness the historic signing, Lynch said they have no plans to marry as soon as the bill becomes law.
The two recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of their commitment ceremony, and for now, that’s enough. “We’ll get married when it’s legal across the country,” Lynch said.
What’s next
Opponents who want to give voters a chance to repeal the law will have to get more than 120,000 signatures from registered voters by June 6 to put the issue on the ballot. If so, the law can’t take effect unless it wins majority support in the general election; if not, it takes effect June 7.
Mr. Santorum is quoted as saying: “We need to have a national debate about this,”
Isn’t he an ultraconservative states-rights candidate?
Does he want to have a national debate only if he disagrees with a particular state?
Those rules only apply to liberals.
“Plante discounted any suggestion of a “domino effect.” Other states could pass laws this year banning same-sex marriage, he said.”
I see elsewhere in this same edition of the Spokesman that New Jersey is currently working on an equal marriage rights law.
And by the way, I see Mr. Plante has also subscribed to the false characterization of the issue when he says that same sex couples have the same rights as opposite sex couples. This is not true. Same sex couples do not have the right to marry anyone they choose.
To say that domestic partnership laws grant the same status as marriage is exactly the same as once telling ‘colored folk’ they had exactly the same right to sit at the lunch counter or to ride the bus as white folk.
They just had to be careful where they sat.
The argument could be made (and I could very well agree with it, depending upon the details) that the State shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. But since it has decided to be in the marriage business, the Constitution (both Federal and State) require that the privledge of marriage be extended equally to every individual. There is simply no provision in either law for discrimination based upon gender preference.
Chris Christie of New Jersey last month said he’d veto the legislation if it passed. Christie said that such a fundamental change should be up to a vote of the people, and he has called for a referendum on the issue.
Gotta love Christie. Wish he would run for President.
Should rights be up to a vote of the people? Republicans say so for gay rights, but would they go along with a popular vote on gun control? Double the tax on wealth? No.
JBlim please support with facts or are you just speculating. Again.
Hmmmm…..
Interesting that there is no mention of the 31 states that allowed citizens to vote on this issue, and that those voters of those states all said ‘No’ - all 31 of them - to gay marriage.
Just like the Federal statute.
Of course this is bad law. If we’re going to allow “every individual” the right to marry whomever they want….why can’t I have the right to marry whomever I want, the same three women who “individually” want to marry me?
This simply is special interest, politically corrupt, pandering.
P.S. Interesting that Gregoire didn’t exhibit the integrity, and muster the courage, to support this legislation before she became a bona-fide lame-duck politician.
P.P.S. Washingtonians were’nt allowed the vote because Democrats in the legislature, and gays, knew that the Evergreen State would probably vote the same way the aforementioned 31 did….
JBlim,
Shh!! It’s impolite to point out that the Emperor has no clothes!
I wonder what’s going to happen if this matter is turned over to a popular vote and the law is affirmed - because it very well could be. (Bear in mind that opinion polls show equal marriage rights now hold a slim majority of support - with a clear tread showing that support is steadily growing over time.)
I predict that the hue and cry will then become, ‘A small majority of voters shouldn’t be able to dictate to all us God-fearing, right-thinking people how to live our lives!’
DECLINE TO SIGN. Spread the word. Tell your friends and family to respectfully avoid signing the Referendum 73. Individual rights should not be subject to a popular vote.
Individual rights should not be subject to a popular vote.
Long live the King!
I find it interesting that ‘xian’ businesses are clamoring to establish their right to refuse service, but if we (gays) comment on potential boycots of bigots’ businesses we are ‘making threats’…
Hypocritical much?
Local,
So do you or do you not think that gun control or increasing taxes on the wealthy should be the subject of a popular vote?
WillyPeter,
Jim Crow laws were once the norm in the South and were routinely approved by voters. Does that prove that they were right?
JBlim - The citizens of Washington State did vote on “gun control” a few years ago….and overwhelmingly defeated it. Even in King County! And, as a matter of fact, in every county.
So, consequently, really, you must be a “new guy” to our Evergreen State. I suspect you’re one of those California immigrants??……:-)
Washington is a blue state right? Let’s make being a conservative illegal, we will vote on it.
Remember, it is a Presidential election year, not some lame mid-term, more liberals vote.
Jeff_Grey - are you referring to WA voting for a income tax on high income people last year? Or the Senator wanting a capgains tax? Happens all the time.
The difference between this and gun control is also fairly easy to see - gun ownership is a right outlined in the 2nd amendment. No amendment grants the right to marry
They were called back by the governor to discuss the budget.
They get there and know they will not ballance the budget so instead they throw out this smoke screen to mask their total failure on their primary task.
Did they ballance the budget? If and only if 8 new tax laws are passed in November. Since that is highly unlikely the answer is No, they failed in their primary task.
Another legislative session goes down in flames, but cheering their ‘accomplishments’ as the state burns. They must take their cue from Nero.
Nice to see the typical bigoted haters out in force already this morning.
As I have said many times before, people like Local, WillyPeter, Dazzee and all the other haters on here…you are on the WRONG side of this issue as just a week ago or so I posted polls showing how much public support has changed on this issue and it keeps going up in favor of gay marriage and how in this state it also has a majority support (albeit narrowly right now).
You bigoted haters against equal rights for everyone were also the same type of people against interracial marriage…and in 10-15 years you bigots will be looked upon with the same disgust and hate that we look at the racists and bigots who were against interracial marriage. You will all have a special place in this countries history standing along side other people who fought hard to restrict rights of people in this country and you will, just like they are, considered the worst people EVER to live in this country.
Couple of other things…maybe all these bigoted haters should put in half the time trying to fix straight marriage and the over 50% divorce rate or drive thru marriages or marriages that last 48 hours or marriages that happen on TV for reality TV purposes to make people money. Seems you straight people have done a good job destroying or own marriage institution without gay people.
And Finally……THOSE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE THEN DON’T HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE, THAT WAY THIS LAW WILL NEVER AFFECT YOU!!!
dataxman,
The constitutional question here is not the right to marry - never has been because as has been repeatedly observed, the constitution doesn’t address marriage one way or the other. Rather, the constitutional issue here revolves around the mandate of equal protection under the law.
As I said in an earlier post, I could support the argument that the State shouldn’t be in the marriage business in the first place. But it is. As a result, that triggers the constitutional issue. So in fact the question with regard to voting on gun control is appropriate. In both that case and the case of marriage rights, the voters would be voting to support or over-rule the constitution (state and federal.)
Do you believe they should have that power?
As to the taxation question - I don’t remember either JBlim or myself specifying, so how about answering the question actually asked: Should raising taxes on the wealthy be the subject of a popular vote - versus a question routinely left up to the legislature?
“What we see is an intolerance of different points of view, those who do not want the other side to have a voice,” Santorum said at the Seattle rally.
As protesters continued to disrupt his speech, police dragged two of them away.
Sounds a lot like our friend Liberal.
Time, energy, and legislative debate of gay marriage while the State is sinking in red ink = rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, state rock, use of recycled eye glasses, or whatever, the Legislature deserves a big fat F on their report card. The governor called a special session to deal with the budget. $600M was cut. According to Sen. Zarelli, the lag of dealing with the budget deficits cost the state some $200M in lost time cost of money due to ongoing expenses while the budget wasn’t managed during the failed session so the net cut is really only $400M.
Now in regular session, the budget isn’t getting the headlines, social issues are; sleight-of-hand political smokescreens to deter the view of the public while the state continues to sink. DEAL WITH THE DAMN BUDGET!! The entire State elected body is an epic fail. In spite of what they think, the Legislature apparently really can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. DO YOUR JOBS AND DEAL WITH PRIORITIES!!
As to the taxation question - raising taxes on the wealthy only has been voted on and will be voted on again. Unequal treatment under the tax code is the foundation of a progressive tax system. Are you now supporting a flat tax - where everyone is treated the same? Welcome to the dark side Jeff!
Equal protection under the law was achieved under the prior marriage scheme. The law stated a man and a woman can marry. It didn’t say a black man may not marry a white woman - that would be a violation of the equal protection clause. As a gay man, you can marry any woman you want. There is no arbitrary restriction placed on your right to marry (such as race).
Seriously Local? You sound like an intolerant hateful bigot. How does gays getting married affect your small bigoted world?
When gay people start attacking and beating up and killing straight people just because they are straight…then you can have the right to talk about gay people being disruptive and intolerant.
Jeffrey_Grey -
“As I said in an earlier post, I could support the argument that the State shouldn’t be in the marriage business in the first place. But it is.”
And that is where the debate should have gone. Marriage is a religious institution. If the constitutional debate were made, the State being involved in marriage of any gender should have been discussed as a ‘separation of church and state’ point. The State’s only value in marriage revolves around the dissolution of a marriage; divorce.
Effectively, the issue surrounding marriage and the State only pertains as it would in contract law. The State can set laws and hear cases involving the dissolution of a marriage the same as the dissolution of a contract. They really bring no other value to the issue. In the case of gay marriage, it should be the same as for all couples. If a couple wants to get married, find a church that will marry them and register the marriage as a civil union contract. The same should be held for heterosexual couples with the State recognizing essentially the same civil union contract registration. That takes the State out of intermingling with church issues and takes the morals debate out of the State discussion while protecting all in accordance with the 14th amendment.
Liberal what do hate crimes have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.
Santorum’s point was the gay community is so intolerant (bigoted) they won’t tolerate the other side discussing their views.
Much like what you are doing on this board.
I’m re-posting a comment I made on a previous thread:
As I say below: I am not trying to be a smar@ss this time — obviously I disagree with the anti-gay-marriage point of view, but I’d like to understand it (finally) (if I can) instead of just dismissing it.
*********************
“Thanks for making the term “Marriage” meaningless and violating the rights of others.”
=============
Could someone explain this to me? (Or try, at least?) I have never been able to understand how the term “marriage” would lose its meaning, or how any of anybody’s rights would be violated.
I’m not trying to be a smart@ss this time – I honestly don’t get it.
* * * * * * *
The above was from last week. The only [partial] answer I got was that marriage was for procreation, and that because two people of the same sex could not procreate together, their marriages should not be valid. The poster held the same view of people who chose not to procreate, chose to be sterilized, or got married when they were too old to have children. I asked about couples who chose not to have children but chose to adopt, but got no response to that question.
The issue of other people’s rights being violated was not addressed.
Since the ability (of heterosexuals) to marry without being able, or intending, to produce children is already the law of the land, I would be interested to know how the term “marriage” would be made meaningless by the inclusion of same-sex couples under the law.
Again, I don’t expect to have my mind changed, but I really would be interested in knowing what the arguments are.
Thank you.
Bruce - I thought that was a fairly weak argument the Supreme Court issued as well and honestly, I don’t think you will get a answer to your question -
Won’t have to pay me to gather signitures, in fact I might pay them for the opportunity.
Local says,
Actually, that is describing you and your ilk who not only doesn’t tolerate the side of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, most on your side HATES GAY PEOPLE PERIOD (not saying you hate gay people, but with some of your comments you do sound like it sometimes).
Also, I don’t tolerate your views because your views are WRONG and you are fighting for restricting rights for EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Anti gay marriage people don’t have a reasonable excuse to be against gay marriage, and religion is NOT an excuse.
So, if me being against people that are fighting to restrict equal rights for everyone makes me intolerant to you, I WILL GLADLY ACCEPT THAT.
The sentence in my 8:53 AM post,
“Since the ability (of heterosexuals) to marry without being able, or intending, to produce children is already the law of the land…”
should have included “or without even intending to stay married.” Because that happens.
dataxman,
I guess it must be a more complicated question than I originally thought. I just perceived it as a simple ‘yes/no’ issue. Let me try one more time and see if I can get that simple ‘yes/no.’
Do you think that raising taxes on the wealthy should be a matter for popular vote versus an issue left to the legislature? Yes or no.
(Purely as an aside, I can’t for the life of me remember voting to pass the Bush Tax Cuts. Nor can I remember voting recently to extend them. I sure would have liked a vote on that question, too.)
“Equal protection under the law was achieved under the prior marriage scheme.”
You can repeat the error as many times as you like, but it won’t make it any less erroneous through repetition.
Please show me where in the Constitution - either federal or state - it says that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. (For that matter, please show me where the right to marry is granted in either document.) Please show me in the Constitution - either federal or state - where it says that the grant of rights (or ‘privileges’ or ‘benefits’ or whatever other redefinition of terms you can think of - to forestall the inevitable distraction of arguing semantics) can be segregated by gender.
I can show you in both constitutions where it says that if rights/privileges/benefits/whatever are granted to the individual they must be granted equally to all.
As I pointed out earlier - by your logic the old Jim Crow laws were perfectly acceptable. If you were ‘colored’ you could still eat at the lunch counter or ride the bus, just the same as anyone else. The only difference was the color of your skin determined where you got to sit. The ‘equality’ you assert is that if you’re gay, you can get married just like everyone else. But your gender and the gender of your prospective partner determine who you can marry.
“Anti gay marriage people don’t have a reasonable excuse to be against gay marriage, and religion is NOT an excuse”
Reasonable “excuse”? “Religion is not an excuse”?
Stop trying to control others and their reasons for their opinions. People can vote how ever they want for what ever reason they want. You need to be a little more tolerent of people’s opinions, of other religions, other races, and sexual orientation.
Bruce,
Remember that both partners in a female couple can reproduce through artifical means. So the discrimination based on reproduction could apply only to male couples. (And as I stated elsewhere, good luck getting that past even the most conservative of Supreme Courts.)
Liberal_in _Right…….For being so against “typical bigoted haters,” you sure do have a sharp tongue of your own. I don’t care what you do in your own time and with whom you choose to do it. I know many gay people and do not hate any of them. One of the best bosses I ever had was gay and I was very good friends with her. Marriage is a religious institution set up by God and as such has it’s own definition as a union between a man and a woman. Civil Union is a term set up by Government to define a union of another kind. We have all agreed that you have the right to a union, just don’t steal the name Marriage because it has been the definition ascribed to a union between a man and a woman only! When people go outside of those parameters we use different names, i.e., if a man forms a union with a woman in addition to his wife we call it “Adultery”. If a man wishes to form a union with several women we call it “Polygamy”. If a woman wishes to form a union with her dog we would call that “Bestiality”. If a man or woman wish to form a union with their child, we call that “Incest”. I’m not trying to be crude here but honestly trying to make the point. Just because you have, or want to form a union, does not give you the right to use the name Marriage. We will all be happy if you form your unions and come up with a unique name of your own.
^ Jeffrey: that’s why I made sure to use the word “together.”
@liberal: “Nice to see the typical bigoted haters out in force already this morning.”
I’m so proud of you for once again cheapening the argument here by referring to anyone and everyone who disagrees with this as a bigot and a hater. This is the tactic of those on the left who want to prevent a real debate from taking place. You disagree, we’ll call you a name that makes anything you say, no matter how relevant, unimportant because we’ve called you a racist, or a bigot, or a hater, or a misogynist, or a bagger….
Please learn how to have a respectful disagreement and present your arguments without stooping to calling those of us who disagree names. You really do cheapen yourself when you degrade others who feel they have a legitimate argument as well.
@Jeffrey: “Do you think that raising taxes on the wealthy should be a matter for popular vote versus an issue left to the legislature? Yes or no.”
This was already put up to a vote last year… Oh yeah… It failed miserably here in WA.
Stop using red herrings to try and prove your point.
As another poster so eloquently stated earlier, you can’t vote on gun rights because they are protected by the 2nd Amendment. You can vote on taxes because that is a privilege granted in our state constitution. Show me where we do not have the “right” to vote on social issues such as gay marriage? You were fine with the citizen initiative to grant “everything but marriage” rights to gays. How is that any different than the people saying “thanks but no thanks” to gay marriage? How is this any different than the people of the state voting on medical marijuana? Any time you seek to create new rights or new classes of rights for any group, this should be left in two domains: The people’s vote and the courts of law. PERIOD.
Jeff - on the taxation issue - no, I do not believe we should be able to vote on a tax increase that applies to just one group of people. I do not believe you should be able to vote on any tax that wouldn’t apply to you - representation without taxation is (in my view) a serious threat to a democratic society.
On the other issue - I will get back to you.
tny – when two people of different races married, it used to be a crime called “miscegenation.” When two people of different religions married, it used to be a crime called “apostasy.” Just sayin.
Liberal, for someone who rails against “hatred and bigotry and intolerance” you are doing an excellent job exhibiting those very same behaviors. Do you really not see this?
tnygenie, maybe you should tell the government to stop issuing marriage licenses. Last time I checked churches do not issue those, is the government. To be legally married in this country you have to go through the government. So yeah, marriage is strictly a government issues and our government in the United States of America is set up to not restrict the rights of any of its citizens.
valleyman, sorry, people who are out to restrict freedoms and rights of a person based on race or sexual preference is a racist and a bigot and a hater. Deal with it or stop fighting to restrict the rights or me and millions of other people.
The people who scream the loudest about this are usually the closet pedophiles.
Just sayin’
OGNIR!
“I do not believe we should be able to vote on a tax increase that applies to just one group of people.”
But you do believe we should get to vote when that ‘just one group’ of people happen to be gay.
“I do not believe you should be able to vote on any tax that wouldn’t apply to you…”
But you do believe that you should get to vote on an issue that doesn’t affect you when that issue is whether or not gays should be allowed the same right to marry as straights.
“…representation without taxation is (in my view) a serious threat to a democratic society.”
But discrimination isn’t.
Do I need to point out how flawed your reasoning is? Or is it as painfully obvious to you as it is to me?
liberal_ Because the Government decided to begin to issue marriage licenses after the Civil War, does not take away from the fact that it is a religious institution, originated and defined by God, between a woman and a man. The state licenses many things that ALL have fees attached to them. Conservatives call those fees, TAXES. So there is the motive for becoming the one who issues a license. The Government also issues licenses for dogs and cats. That doesn’t make them the ones to decide the definition of a dog or a cat. This might interest you liberal…….Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”
I do not remember being asked to vote on this issue. It was made by decree as so many laws are these days. Every state which has voted on this issue, has voted against it, then 1 Federal unelected judge overturns the will and votes of millions. Just remember that a government can also swing violently against a classified segment of the population and start passing decrees in their direction. Violence against gays is really not very common in this “enlightened” society and that lifestyle is tolerated. Most of the violence is gay against gay, check the stats.
Bottom line is YHWH who created the universe also created male and female and instituted marriage between them. Our lawmakers have repealed many of the Laws of YHWH and replaced it with their own laws. They along with society will suffer the consequences and answer to Him for their actions.
Unfortunately for us believers, the scriptures prophesy that the believers will come under great persecution in the final days of this age for standing on the word of YHWH and they will be scattered, overcome, destroyed and worn out. That is His plan to give the world every chance to turn away from their sin and to come to him for forgiveness and eternal life. Once the world has rejected Him and his earthly ambassadors who carry and speak His word, then He will judge men and women according to His judgement which will be fair. Read Roman chapter 1 while it is still legal to do it. It has been banned in many countries already. YHWH help us.
Valleyman,
Stop using red herrings yourself. The question was generic. Do you or do you not think that raising taxes on the wealthy should be a matter for public vote?
But okay - you insist on making it specific so let’s make it specific. And let me choose the specific vote: Do you think extending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy should be a matter for public vote? (As I say, I don’t remember voting on that the last time it came up for a decision.) Or another specific: Do you think we should have a national public vote on corporations’ tax rates? Should the public get to decide that?
Yes or no.
“…you can’t vote on gun rights because they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.”
And as I replied and you seem to be choosing to ignore - you are claiming that you can vote to over-rule the equal protection clause of the Constitution. So it’s okay when it suits your agenda, but not when it doesn’t?
“You were fine with the citizen initiative to grant “everything but marriage” rights to gays.”
I was? Interesting assumption. In fact, I wasn’t. I don’t go much for ‘separate but equal.’
“How is that any different than the people saying “thanks but no thanks” to gay marriage?”
How is it any different from folks saying, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ to the civil rights movement?
” Any time you seek to create new rights or new classes of rights for any group…”
What new right is being created, beyond the right to marry whomever you choose? And that’s not a new right.
“…this should be left in two domains: The people’s vote and the courts of law. PERIOD.”
So that settles at least one of the squawking points that’s circling this issue. That means you’re okay with the 9th Circuit’s decision regarding the unconstitutionality of California’s Prop 8. Right?
tnygenie,
You might want to read that Universal Declaration a little more closely, starting with Article I.
Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (emphasis mine)
Rick Santorum, a surging GOP hopeful for POTUS, believes gay marriage deserves a national hearing and shouldn’t be left for states to settle on their own?
Rick Santorum supports Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation that is winding its way to the SCOTUS.
He supported the overturning of Florida courts to move the Bush V. Gore case to the SCOTUS.
He’s all over the place regarding state rights, shifting with the wind to please capricious constituencies.
He’s right though, don’t you think? We should be having a national debate about this rather than worrying about the economy, unemployment, housing, hunger, 40% unemployment/underemployment for men under 25…
All hail the culture warrior, Rick Santorum. We need these distractions to grow as a nation, where prejudice wears the new costume of principle.
I have an idea for a Santorum campaign slogan: “Nothing is allowed, but that which is allowed is compulsory.”
Jeffrey,
Ummm, maybe you should reread these Articles. “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms SET FORTH IN THIS DECLARATION”. So that would mean that in the context of the rest of the Articles, you can’t pick and choose who to apply them to. It doesn’t nullify the rest of the Articles.
Also, to say that we should not be able to vote on this because it does not affect us is silly. When you want to take the name that has been ascribed to a union between a man and a woman for centuries, and was defined by God in that way, and use it however you choose, that absolutely affects everyone who uses the name “Marriage”. So let’s be even handed. Anyone who currently uses or wants to use the name “Marriage” can vote on this issue. In addition, anyone who pays income or corporate taxes can vote on taxes. That will leave out a lot of Americans since over %47 of Americans pay NO income taxes after deductions and credits. Good argument for a flat tax for ALL! Those “Bush tax breaks for the wealthy,” do you even know the whole of those laws and who they affected? Maybe a good idea to read the actual Acts involved in the famously quoted “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”.
Liberal: “I don’t tolerate your views because your views are WRONG…”
Well there you go!
tnygenie: How do you know what God wants? How do you know a God even exists? You can’t use superstition as a basis for social ordering. It’s been done for “centuries” and resulted mainly in persecution, discrimination, and dominion of one group of people over another group of people.
The reason 47% of U.S. citizens don’t pay federal taxes was brought about by the Bush tax breaks that mainly favored the wealthy but also cut rates on lower earners to the point of reaching zero when combined with new tax credits. The Earned Income Credit cap was raised to nearly 50 grand and a “Child Tax Credit” was instituted. This shifted the tax burden to single people without children, who are a minority among earners.
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/04/15/off-the-rolls/
There is a simple way to deal with LIB, refuse to have a battle of wits with him, for he is unarmed!
The Seer,
Once again, great argument for the flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage. Also, forgive for being a little confused by your message, “Bush tax breaks that mainly favored the wealthy but also cut rates on lower earners to the point of reaching zero when combined with new tax credits.” Did it mainly favor the wealthy or cut the rates on low earners to zero? If I had to choose between paying zero taxes and having my taxes cut, I’d say that zero taxes would be the favored way.
Also, since you don’t want to use God and His rules for social ordering, what would you propose instead?
Since when did Gay marriage become a “right” ?
It seems like such a matter of semantics if not for the underlying bigotry. Religious groups want to maintain that marriage is just a religious ceremony uniting a man and a woman. The problem comes in when the government began issuing licenses for “marriage”. The government also regulates divorce. For many years there were differences in what might be allowed in religious marriages and what was allowed by the governing body. One of my aunts had to get special permission from the church to marry her 5th cousin even though it was allowed by the government. There are rules set up by some churches regarding marriages between different religions and I am sure that in the past there were no marriages allowed between different races. Since we have been using the term “marriage” for so long in our society to portray two people joining together their lives, assets, parental responsibility and gave them rights based on this “marriage” I understand why there is confusion between what rights are allowed under civil union and what are allowed under “marriage”. I wasn’t married in a church, but by a justice of the peace. Doesn’t that make my union a civil union and not a marriage? I think this bill makes it clear that religions and people with religious beliefs that they feel strongly about don’t have to be involved in these marriages. Why should they care about what it’s called? Maybe if Romney is elected, we can bring back prohibition too! You know those Mormons don’t like booze!
Couple things, the only folks being very vocal about this seem to come from the Catholic church. First, the Catholic church likes hiding and shuffling pedophiles through it’s system, and turning a blind eye to the victims of abuse. That alone should tell anyone to take whatever these people say with a grain of salt.
Secondly, the anti-gay marriage crowd might have more support if heterosexual marriages had a 0% divorce rate, and people got married for all the right reasons all the time, alas, that isn’t what happens. Fact is, “God” should not be in the discussion at all. For every person who thumps their Bible, I can show you just as many people who are atheist, agnostic, or even better, zealots of different faiths that would argue you point for point and hold their own belief system as infallible dogma. If you feel gay marriage is an affront to your religion, don’t have a gay marriage, don’t attend a gay marriage, seclude yourself from everything “gay” if you must. The easier solution however, is just to mind your own business and stop worrying about what other consenting adults want to do. Because two men can marry each other it doesn’t mean they are doing anything that affects you, besides upsetting your intolerant side.
I think the funniest argument brought about though, by those who oppose gay marriage is essentially: “You are being intolerant by not being accepting of my intolerance.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGmgqW6ES8
This is all that needs to be said about this…
Mr N…. after watching that video a light bulb went off. If gay marriage proponents want to make this stick, they need to go infect at least one of the children of a conservative republican with the gay virus!
Detroitdude you’re rambling.
1) You GUESS most people that object to gay marriage are from the Catholic church. You have no support and are just throwing out crap. I think gays are all 5’ tall.
2) Then you ramble on about pedophiles and divorce. What does all that have to do with Gay Marriage? Nothing.
3) The funniest part is you tell people they shouldn’t use their religion as a reason to vote against it. It’s THEIR religion. It’s their vote. Stop being a control freak.
This should have been put up to a public vote from the beginning. A change this big, and lets not pretend it isn’t a big change from what has been accepted as normal in the past, should be decided by a vote of the people. Our government is made up at its base level by the voters. The government is supposed to represent the will of the voters. I don’t know what would represent the will of the people more than a vote. A vote should put the issue to bed.
This is clearly a heated issue.
It is wrong of State Government to try to backdoor this decision. It show’s that those in favor of Gay Marriage are scared of a public vote. They likely should be. Out of the three generalized groups of voters, Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. Liberals are the smallest group. Followed by Conservatives, and the Largest group of people are the Moderates. Moderates traditionally vote more conservative, that’s not to say that they will on this issue,but that is was scares Liberals.
Mark Twain once said: “Never get into an argument with an idiot, they will just drag you dowm to their level and you will lose”. Would someone please tell me book, chapter, and verse where it says anything in the bible about marriage.
There are way too many homophobes around here!!
Jeff - Governments pass laws all the time that allow one person do do something another person cannot for failing to meet the definitions outlined in the law - drive, drink, vote, etc. The right to marry is not a Constitutionally protected right - it is a privileged granted by the government and as such, they may restrict that right as long as it is not arbitrary and discriminatory. Even in the determination by the 9th Circuit nothing stated that having marriage defined as one man/one woman was discriminatory. Their decision was based on marriage being allowed and then taken away by an amendment.
“So that would mean that in the context of the rest of the Articles, you can’t pick and choose who to apply them to. It doesn’t nullify the rest of the Articles.”
Huh? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. What nullification? Of what Article?
“…that absolutely affects everyone who uses the name ‘Marriage’.”
How? Specifically.
“The right to marry is not a Constitutionally protected right…”
Boy, it just doesn’t sink in, does it? Who has claimed it is? Marriage is no more a constitutionally protected right than is the right to drive a car or make a living as a barber.
What is constitutionally protected is an equal access by every individual to rights and privileges once the State gets into regulating them. And the State has gotten into regulating marriage. Now as you say, rights and privileges can be withheld by the state for cause.
What’s the ‘cause’ here? As you ponder your reply, remember that rights can NOT be denied based solely on race, religion, gender or gender preference. Remember also that neither is ‘because it offends my sensibilities’ a valid ‘cause.’
Local said: “1) You GUESS most people that object to gay marriage are from the Catholic church.”
OK, you got me, but is the opposition to gay marriage not coming mostly from conservative Christian circles?
“2) Then you ramble on about pedophiles and divorce. What does all that have to do with Gay Marriage? Nothing.”
The topic of divorce and marriage go hand in hand. How can you dictate to people that they should not be allowed to have a same sex marriage when at the very same time heterosexuals have done a fine job of tarnishing it? Is this a do as I say not as I do argument? Which again leads into my initial point…
“3) The funniest part is you tell people they shouldn’t use their religion as a reason to vote against it. It’s THEIR religion. It’s their vote. Stop being a control freak.”
Look who’s talking lol. I honestly don’t care if two men get married, or two women, or a combination of a man and several wives or the reverse of that, or if they want to marry bacon for that matter. It’s not MY business, nor is it YOUR business what consenting adults wish to do, and if they want to have a gay marriage, they should be able to have one without people who won’t be affected by said marriage whining about everything that is wrong with gay marriage. It’s not me who is being a control freak, it is you and your ilk. Like I said, go marry a tree, I don’t care, it’s not my business. You can’t make an argument that someone opposite of your opinion is being a control freak when you are the one who can’t seem to mind your own business.
Since I have been a registered voter some 20 years now, I have always signed the petitions.
This will mark the first (and I hope last) time I will not sign it. Too bad 120,000 is all they need as they will likely get it.
Better get started on showing support…I will be taking to FB this week.
Tea-baggers are for states rights unless it comes to gay marrage and using federal courts to out their boy in the whitehouse
Jeff - It is not being denied - it is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Two people meeting that definition are free to be married. Just like there are certain requirements before the government issues a driver’s license it has requirements before it issues a marriage license.
“It’s not MY business, nor is it YOUR business what consenting adults wish to do,…”
“You can’t make an argument that someone opposite of your opinion is being a control freak when you are the one who can’t seem to mind your own business.”
It is business when I am asked for my opinion (vote).
“It is business when I am asked for my opinion (vote).”
This is a civil rights issue, and one that should never have been put to a vote in the first place. Just because you think it is wrong, it does not give you the right to deny others their happiness. Seriously, stop worrying about what the homos are doing and let your caricature of God sort it all out when we die.
Good for Idaho! Here in Washington, in danger of becoming the ever gay state, we are seeing our marriage licenses tainted by association with state approved sodomy. I’m trying to talk my wife into our moving to Idaho, where normalcy is still normal.
“Just because you think it is wrong, it does not give you the right..”
Then why will there be a vote if I don’t have the right?
“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). Same-sex-marriage makes war on both.
astarlives.blogspot.com
A blog post on why gay marriage should be legal
@Ripperbob
To answer your citation question:
Mark 10:6-9
1 Corinthians 7:1-16
Hebrews 13:3
@detroitdude: my question to you would be to flip your last comment around on you.
Just because you think this is right, does that give you the right to deny others their moral right to oppose it through all legal means?
It’s a BLACK day for Washington state.
“Just because you think this is right, does that give you the right to deny others their moral right to oppose it through all legal means?”
@valleyman: I never said that I thought it was “right”, I simply have said over and over that it isn’t my business if two people are gay and want to be married, I don’t feel the need to stand in their way about it.
I noticed again you said “moral”, I’d like for anyone to explain to me what is “immoral” about two people of the same sex getting married. They are not hurting anyone, they are not asking you to be involved with it, so where is the “moral” issue coming in?
Jeffrey_ Grey The Articles you pointed out (#1 and #2) do not get rid of (nullify) Article #16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe if you just read Article #2 (“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms SET FORTH IN THIS DECLARATION”) over and over again you can understand what it is saying. I know you are smart enough by your other posts to understand this. Now…could you please stop answering questions with questions and answer the two questions I posed to you.
I think the title to the article should be “a step closer to Gay Marriage” or something similar. Even w/o opposition of an initiative it would not be law until mid year.
I guess this reporting is as accurate as reporting that the family murdered over the weekend was shot….I’m reading other articles that say otherwise…way to go Spokesman.
nslopeofw on February 14 at 2:48 p.m.
“I am a fiscal conservative who votes both republican and democrat, and i want all you liberal hunks of trash to know I am happy for our gay friends, and am throwing this in your faces
Time for you to show the same tolerance for others’ political beliefs as you demand for yours.”
That’s right you hunks of trash ! Be tolerant !
Hahahahahahahaha !
So, LIRWL, you gonna get married now? If so, I want to be invited. You could point me out to all your liberal friends as “my token conservative friend”. Heck, i’ll even give you away. Just dont ask me to kiss the “bride”. Which begs to be asked, would you be the bride or groom?
Congrats my liberal, light in the loafers, bud.
I am just messing with ya, but really, congrats to all the people out there who are now equal to the rest of us! Its about time!
DraconianMyopia
The Hebrews passage had nothing to do with marriage but the other two did, so I stand corrected….I always like to learn something new. However, the Bible isn’t the U.S constitution.
I like dataxman’s equal rights for taxpayers.
A flat rate of say 15% would be equal tax rights for all.
I like it.
C’mon all you liberals, do you believe in tax rights for all as well? Or, is it just for the stuff you think is right? Do you believe in equal rights for everyone? Or, are you all against equal rights for some, while demanding equality for others?
Dataxman for prez!!
Funny that I am being called intolerant for fighting against discrimination.
@ripperbob
You are welcome. I am well aware that the two documents are not the same, yet one was used (in part) to help create the other.
As for Hebrews 13:4 (New Century version) - Marriage should be honored by everyone. Husband and wife should keep their marriage pure.
It is very unfortunate that there are lots of persons who profess to adhere to the Bible, “preach” to others about the guidlelines/rules/laws contained there in and yet their daily lives reflect something else. I think they often forget that a) take care of the plank in your own eye 1st, 2) only God is the judge, and 3) love the “sinner” (that’d be all of us) but destest the sin.
3) love the “sinner” (that’d be all of us) but destest the sin.
So should we encourage/help others to sin?
If we are going to go back to the old testament for our definitions, then I guess that means that wives will be the property of their husbands again. Oh good!
Geez nslope, get a grip before you get 86’d.. Or would that be againt the 1st amendment.. Best check with gmorton on this issue before I open my big mouth..
nslope: Your rant against shademuse was 100% unacceptable.. Am glad it was removed.. Take a few days off.. Go to a Pre-School 101 class, and learn what it takes to play well with others..
Local says: “police dragged two of them away.
Sounds a lot like our friend Liberal.”
Free speech is for conservatives only? Do only Teabaggers get to disrupt town hall meetings or do we all get free speech?
Does anyone else find the term Teabagger derogatory? Would calling them Teapartiers hurt because then the opposition would have to view them has human?
If you are unaware of the derogatory meaning of Tea Bag or Tea Bagging or Tea Bagger, then Google it.
I noticed we are talking about Gay or Homosexual people. Even the opposition is not resorting to derogatory names, which there are many.
I have no respect for the people using the term Teabagger.
tnygenie,
Article XVI says: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”
Nowhere does that say ‘Marriage is between a man and a woman only.’ It just says that men have the right to marry and women have the right to marry. (Cows, trees and cups of coffee don’t.) If you think it does say that marriage is between one man and one woman, you’re reading in something that isn’t there. It isn’t there because that limitation - restricting marriage on the basis of gender - would violate Article II which says that, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind…” Distinctions such as gender or gender preference.
See how that works?
Now, I’m sorry but I must have missed your two questions. Could you please repeat them?
stitch-
Perhaps you should hang out and see what that @#$%^& shaded says most of the time. (S)he is a complete azzwad about the TEA party, of which is apparently acceptable by the SR hall monitors, as they allow shaded to rant using offensive speak all the time, but when i call shaded on it, i get my post removed.
I have no use for shadedmuse. (S)he is a bigot and much worse. Again, that is OK, cause (S)he is a liberal, and liberals can say whatever they like on SR. As a fiscal conservative, i’m not allowed that same privilege. I guess you think that as well, eh?
JBlim (another liberal) says:
“Free speech is for conservatives only? Do only Teabaggers get to disrupt town hall meetings or do we all get free speech?”
See stitch? SR didnt remove that laughable insult,
Notice how blim is allowed to insult the TEA party? But, as a liberal, its OK. That is why his comment is soooooo ridiculous. Still think I’m over the line, Stitch? If you do, then you are a hypocrite.
No, Blim. Only us “teabaggers” (a party all about paying less taxes, hence the “TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY” name) get censored. You and your insulting ilk like shaded are allowed free speech here on SR. Please dont cry, because all you are doing is crying wolf. Or, was your post censored as well?
I am so pleased that my governor can separate church from state. I am a heterosexual person who has had gay friends before who left the bigoted Spokane for Capital Hill in Seattle years ago. Now all same sex couples in Washington can feel equal to straights in their desire to love and commit. What’s wrong with love?
By the way, the petition-signers website is now up & running:
http://whosigned.org/
I have found two colleagues from work already… I do not intend to have awkward conversations with them, however, since all conversations with them were already awkward :-)
hey bruce…. thanks for the link… a couple of thoughts…first it seems really likely to me that the large number of folks signing these petitions so very very quickly leads me to believe that they were garnered in the lobbies/Narthex’s of conservative churches..( which is absolutely against the law and could result in their tax freedoms being taken right away from them)
The other is there is a large preponderance of folks with the very same last names that are scattered all over the state and makes me wonder if they are “real”…so i hope they check a lot of these signatures. I myself will sign the petition if it is presented, just to get it on the ballot…. and i am on the Pro Marriage side… I’d love to have a vote… and work hard to get folks to vote against it…no problem for me with it being on the ballot….
The new “outiing” of a 20 service military man who has served his country well, and who served as an apparently very fine Sheriff…in Arizona of all places…. who had led an non-authentic life.. may make the rank and file R’s think a bit about who their friends “really are”…. we all have closeted folks or partially “out” folks in our lives whether we choose to recognize that or not…best john