With the Bill passed, it is what it is.
There is a saving grace here, it does not redefine religous marriages and punish the church's for not participating if their doctrine is that of non-gay unions... What is disturbing is that like the Obama admin (yes you can call this nation the Obamanation...) is remember what they did to the Catholic church. Make them pay for birth control when they expressively forbid it in their doctrine. The seperation of church and state is becoming narrower, and soon will become non-existent. I think even my erstwhile opponent Bob will agree with me that once the barn door is open... And one wonders how long it will be before the state will require the religous institutions (aka churchs) to perform this type of marriage even when against their Doctrine.
Oh and Bob, polygamy is not legal until the state will isue me a liscens and I can get an income tax deduction for every wife...
And Sharia law is in direct violation between the church and state, since Sharia law is a relgious law, and the state is not suppose to support a religion. Once it does, as you answered me, then, that is a direct violation between church and state. I hope you are not going to tell me that you are also in favor of supporting "honor killings" as directed under Sharia law also... Open the barn door...
And now to upset everyone...
I do not know whther homosexuality is a learned behavior or a mutation that peope were born with (I have seen studeis on both), but I am glad that this passed but I'd rather it was a different version. Everyone needs to have a companion and their human companion of choice (had to throw that in there for those who thought I was going to promote beastiality.. perhaps I should throw-in consenting adult companion also?) and they should be treated with equality under the law.
Now why did I say mutation? It is because nature does not lend itself to non-propogation of a species... If it is not a mutation there would be more homosexuals and less people in the world. But nature vs nurture is a different argument altogether.
It is just a sad commentary on societal beauracracy and mores that make this a needed law whereas it should "just a have been already."
2) Re: 2012 House Bill 2516 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages) by BobVB on February 1, 2012
No, the pagan Romans were the authors of our civil marriage contracts and that was modified by the pagan Anglo-Saxons. For most of the history of Christendom only the few bothered with a civil marriage contract at all, being a necessity only for the wealthy.
The civil marriage contract is a 100% secular legal instrument - that's why it's so amazing some religious people are so concerned about.
And going 'European' with secular civil unions and religious marriages (gays would still be getting married though) is the state's referendum process. It's unlikely Washington voters would want to be the first state without marriage licensing. Even if the legislature passed it, it would never stand against a subsequent referendum.
3) Re: 2012 House Bill 2516 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages) by kelder539 on February 1, 2012
View pre-2013 Comments.