Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Jamie Pedersen, (Seattle) (D) on January 17, 2012, redefines marriage as a union between two persons, and prohibits discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Requires the secretary of state to notify certain same sex domestic partners that the state law on the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners will change in relation to certain same-sex registered domestic partners. (Companion Bill: SB 6239).
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on January 17, 2012.
- Substitute offered in the House on January 30, 2012, the original bill provided an exemption for religious organizations unless the organization offered admission, occupancy, or accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offered advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale. The original bill did not define "religious organization".
- Referred to the House Rules Committee on January 31, 2012.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on January 17, 2012.
Comments
1) Re: 2012 House Bill 2516 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages) by M_DragonKnight on February 2, 2012With 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."
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.
This just needs to go away. Government has no right interfering with the church. The church instituted marriage and now the government has attempted to take it over. Marriage is a covenant between one man, one woman, and the one true God. If you don't have all 3 parts, then you cannot have a marriage. I have no problem with non-christians entering into a civil commitment that is recognized by the government, and if we need to change the tax laws to recognize civil commitments to make it equal financially with marriage, then so be it. Just dont change the church or an institution of the church by laws of the government to suit the whims of the non-churched. Changing the definition of marriage is not the way to solve this problem, changing the government tax code to equate civil unions with marriage. If someone and their "partner" want to negotiate benefits with their employer, they have the freedom to do that.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.