Washington Votes Forum

 It seems to me that there are a lot of things that are more important to a greater number of people that this states legislature should be dealing with at this time.  These domestic partnership things, it seems to me, are of importance to only a few or some people vs all of the people of this state.

 It is one of the State's top priority to incrementally redefine and then destroy the institution of marriage.

 Certain legislators seem to be constantly wooing the favor of fringe votes or what they see as politically correct in order to popularize themselves for the next election. This bill is typical of those legislators who won't do real work in the legislature just that which puts themselves in the limelight.

 The reason its important to the Democrats to give homosexuals the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals is they have their votes and the radical homosexual activist's are very wealthy.

Additionally, adding rights and privileges to new groups of people puts money in the state coffer and ensures more government employees.

So for Democrats, its a win-win situation.

They don't care that by endorsing and promoting a lifestyle that is unhealthy and life-threatening they add to the cost of health care, social programs, the courts, and fail in the first responsibility of government-to promote the health and welfare and the common good.

Thank goodness that we keep moving towards equality.  While the religious zealots are loud, they should not be able to define the rights of others.  Marriage is two things: a religious institution and a legal institution.  Zealots can keep their religious marriages all to themselves, but legal marriage should not discriminate against a minority of couples, just because some people choose to believe a bigoted religion.  That is their choice.

 Some people want equality , which is clearly already delineated in the Constitution, and others want special rights. They need to be put ahead of others because of their special needs, special agenda's and special sexual choices. Unfortunately history shows that a people set apart and above with more rights generally abuse those rights to the detriment of the rest. What will happen to the so called "bigoted religious" when the homosexual zealots gain their hammer ?

 This isn't about civil rights or about equality. It is about a very wealthy and powerful group of people who special rights and privileges solely based upon who they sleep with.

Please refer me to the U.S. Constitution where rights are granted solely on one's sexual preferences.

Additionally, incrementally granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexual couples codifies into law societal acceptance of just a few years ago was considered a mental disorder and practice that was illegal. What has changed since then? NOTHING. Homosexual acts are still unnatural. They produce nothing. The Bible calls them an abomination before God. Sodomy still causes STD's, HIV and AIDS.

Why should all of us be subject to laws that are against our right to practice our religion, are against centuries of common sense, and force our children to accept something that has not been proven to be anything other than a choice, and which is designed to destroy the NATURAL and traditional roles of men and women? Why would a SANE society purposefully implement laws that HARM people and teach was is NOT TRUE about human sexuality and human nature?

What new group will arise demanding special rights and privileges once homosexuals have gained complete acceptance? Those who practice incest? Pedophiles? Man/boy love proponents? Polygamists? Prostitutes? Pornographers? You can bet one or more of these groups will be the next "discriminated" group to come out of the closet asking for legalizing their perverted and harmful practices.

Realize that until your last sentence I assumed you were talking about heterosexual couples exercising their special right of licensing the civil contract of marriage.

Blame the Supreme Court, they approved 'separate but equal' rationalizations - if its ok for the legislature to have the special right of marriage, then its just automatically ok to also have the special right of domestic partnership.  The court said that the legislature can limit access to a particular contract but not to the rights that contract confers.

Solution - let all married couples license the same civil contract, that's the only solution that doesn't end up with someone having special rights.

Lets talk about what is the right thing to do.  You are taking what you have for granted.  Put yourself in their shoes... how would you like your property to get taken away and given off to your partners family if your partner died, how about to be denied basic medical care because you lost your job and your parnters company wont provide family benefits or how about not getting many tax breaks and insurance discounts and paying much more money than your straight neighbors.  This is wrong.  Same on you for saying that.  We should all take care of each other.  I'll pray for you!

 Yes let's talk about what is right. Is it discriminatory to deny heterosexual's who are unmarried but live together and take care of each other the same rights and privileges as married couples? Are these groups of people demanding the same rights and privileges of married couples as homosexuals are? Of course not. Why? Because the institution of marriage is special and particular and serves a function of the common good. It is a benefit to society and that is why marriage has been favored for centuries. Homosexual partnership's serve nothing but the individual's within those partnerships.

You and your partner can sign powers of attorney, wills, health care directives and other contracts to protect your individual interests and desires.

But you have nothing to worry about. The legislature will pass this bill and we are one step away from destroying the cornerstone of a healthy and normal society, the institution of marriage. Is that the right thing to do? Of course not but our government is no longer in the business of doing what is right but rather what will influence the next vote, the next election, and the next play for power.

Rather obviously that opposite gender couple can marry and get the rights and responsibilities - the contract is for people who want the features it has, if they don't they need not license it.  Are you saying they shouldn't have to pay the licensing fee?

But what does this have to do with the civil contract of marriage?  Is is a domestic partnership bill, the civil contract of marriage is still limited to just some citizens and their spouses.

And as you should know, most of the features of the civil contract of marriage are agreements between the cosignees and the state and you can not duplicate these features with a private contract.

But you are right, it will pass and thankfully the legislature IS doing what's right - giving all citizens equal protection under the law regardless of the gender of their spouse.   Marriage is good for the individuals, their families, their communities and their government and with the passage of these bills they all will be nurtured just under two differently named contracts with identical features.

*** Ah just realized what you are talking about - two SAME GENDER heterosexuals, i.e. roommates. There is no sexual orientation requirement in this bill just as there is none with the civil contract of marriage - opposite gender gay couples or straight platonic friends license the marriage contract on occasion - I've known a couple. The thing that would give same gender or opposite gender roommates pause in doing this is all the burdens that both contracts have, many of them financial. I know some talk like the marriage and domestic partnership contracts are all benefits but that's not true - everything from your debt to your credit rating merges, you can't make any real property decisions without the spouse's consent and the fact this is a community property state when you might want to dissolve the contract - how many would seriously so intimately legally merge themselves with someone they don't intent to stay with indefinitely?

Laine - you are predicating your argument on the premise that heterosexual relationships are superior to gay and les bian relationships.  This is your personal sense of what's right and it is not shared by all.  There is no logic behind your belief, it is just your personal belief.  Why should your belief, without any empirical evidence supporting it, allow a minority group to be marginalized?  Any time a minority is irrationally considered "inferior" to a majority, all of society suffers.  You might try reading the Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman - not great literature, but a very good example of how certain people convince themselves they are superior to an oppressed minority based only on circular reasoning or faulty "logic."  I'm sure you have your bases for your beliefs - maybe religion, a "gut feeling" or your perception of how the world is.  But that is not everybody's reality and you should not be able to dictate your beliefs to the detriment of a minority.

 You are telling Laine she should not be able to dictate her beliefs to others....based on what you believe? If belief is your basis where is its empirical evidence ? Reality is that heterosexuality has proven to be the ONLY condition that promotes the advancement of the species whereas the rise of homosexuality (or heterophobia) has always preceeded the demise of society. Wake up from your homosexual bias and try not to justify perversion by declaring it the norm through legislation. 

 Workindad now you are dictating your beliefs on all of us.  Knock it off and get a clue!! You're not the only person in
America nor do you have the right to force your views!  Back off and stop judging people!  What's wrong with you!  How dare you think that you are better than someone esle.  You seriously need to be judged! I'll pray for you

No, what american's believe - that everyone has the right to pursuit their happiness regardless of how others pursuit theirs.  Laine wants to tell other people what they can and can't do, as opposed to letting each person decide for themselves what's best for them as much as possible especially regarding something as fundamental in that pursuit as their spouse.

As to the fiction of 'homosexuality preceding the demise' that is just a fiction.  There is no indication that the % of people who are homosexual changes no matter if the society is accepting or condemning any more than the % of people who are left-handed does (another natural variant that used to also be considered 'evil' by the way.)

Now what does show up at the demise of a culture is religious fundamentalism that loudly complains about the already existing homosexuality, like at the end of the Romans and before the rise of Hitler.

Religious fundamentalism iis the bellwether of a culture in crisis.

 What the discussion is devolving into is straw men and counter beliefs (religious fundamentalism vs homosexual lifestyle) I state that no one is precluding anyone from pursuit of happiness ( a right based on belief its existence is endowed by our creator by the way) Only that the arguments attempting to promote legislation for homosexual "equality" are merely thinly disguised efforts to push aside any societal roadblocks to an ever more perverse society. You may put me in the "religious fundamentalist " box , I may respond the same ....where did we get to? Homosexuality is just like Religious Fundamentalism in that whatever gets crammed down the throat will certainly be regurgitated.....Homosexuals like heterosexuals have the ability to live together quite well, however there is a vitriolic movement to get in the face of society and crush " family values" where you are meeting resistance which you in turn resent.....Do you think what legislators give you will help?

workindad:

a right based on belief its existence is endowed by our creator by the way

Right the Deist Creator of Thomas Jefferson who's holy books are the ones on biology, math and physics.  "Nature's God" as it referred to elsewhere.  He is saying our rights come from our own biological natures, and adults marrying other adult men or women is totally natural, biologically explainable, beneficial to the individuals and society at large.   Being married is a good thing for a citizen regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Allowing the state to recognize all married citizens equally regardless of the gender of their spouse IS supporting 'family values' and supporting our American ideals of equal treatment under the law.  That some think the state should ignore some married couples and their families is the real tragedy.

The same could be said for the homosexual zealots. While they are loud and just because they choose to believe an unnatural, life-threatening sexual provocation deserves to be on par with a natural one and are bigoted against those whose religion or use of common sense, logic and reason don't believe it is so, they should not be able to define civil marriage as they choose and thus discriminate against those who believe in the traditional and normal definition of the legal institution of marriage.

 Natural is superior to unnatural.

Personal opinion doesn't change nature.

If there is no logic behind my belief why has it been the belief of the majority of societies for centuries?

I don't consider homosexuals inferior as you suggest. I consider granting rights, privileges and benefits under color of the law to people based upon who they choose to sleep with makes a mockery of the law.

Good government promotes and protects the common good and general welfare of the people. Laws that promote and advocate homosexuality as a good does violence to human nature and to the people practicing that lifestyle.

 There is no use arguing over this as it is a done deal.

The majority of Americans are happy to codify perversions of all kinds into law in order to validate what they do themselves.

Killing the unborn, experimenting on human embryos, viewing pornography, prostituting oneself, adults preying sexually on children, ingesting drugs, promiscuity, cohabitation, illegimate births, easy divorce, and homosexuality are all wonderful for humanity and serve to advance the common good.

And its just such rants that make laws protecting citizens from you and your necessary.

Its is 100% natural for adults to be attracted to and marry other adult men and women.  The mechanisms that allow this to happen are biological and can happen with either gender regardless of the citizen's own.  That some people are attracted to their own gender is as natural as some people have a dominant left hand.

So you are right - personal opinion doesn't change nature and same gender attractions are perfectly natural, its just common sense - men have every gene of a women and women have over 95% of a man's.  The genetic mechanisms for either gender to be attracted to either gender are in everyone - that some are is again only what's natural.

"Good government promotes and protects the common good and general welfare of the people."

Fully agree, and it is good for the citizens and the general welfare for as many adults to be married as possible, no matter what gender their spouse is.   That has always been a humorous side of this obsession to have special rights for some - you are really putting forward the ridiculous thesis that its BETTER for the citizens and society that a whole segment of them NOT be encouraged to marry?  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite face.

"…they should not be able to define civil marriage as they choose and thus discriminate against those who believe in the traditional and normal definition of the legal institution of marriage"

Ah so you are saying the state should offer a discriminatory contract that gives special rights to just some married citizens?  And you can believe anything you choose but that shouldn't prevent citizens who don't believe as you do from licensing their marriages as you are allowed to do so.   You only get to believe for yourself, not everyone else.

 No what I'm saying is the state has an obligation to promote what is true, healthy, and promotes the common good and general welfare. Promoting and legalizing an unnatural sexual relationship harms the common good and general welfare. 

I don't believe just for myself. There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is nothing more than a choice. The special rights to married couples that you seem to despise has served for centuries to recognize that marriage is a benefit to society in that it affords a legal outlet for normal sexual relations between a man and a woman and creates a special bond and stable environment to raise children who need the complimentary attributes of male and female to develop normally.

The state does not discriminate against homosexuals. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I believe what various cultures have believed for centuries. I believe what nature tells us is fact.

 Your ignorance of Thomas Jefferson and "natures God" is astounding....try researching the" commentaries on the laws of England" by Blackstone which inspired the use of the term and the constitutions language....(1)  vol1 the rights of persons pg 38 "Man considered as a creature, must necessarrily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependant being......this will of his maker is is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility , established certain rules for the personal direction of that motion:"  

Ah so you can't refute Jefferson so you call up someone else, not even a clever red herring.  Yes there were many superstitious beliefs of the time, but Jefferson was a Deist, he believed that a Creator made a perfect universe and has not interfered in it since the moment of its creation - no magic books, no magical people, no miracles contrary to the laws of biology, physics, math or common sense.  Our rights are from our biological natures that derive from the Creator's creation.  Let's share a few relevant Jefferson quotes:

"I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all founded on fables and mythology. Christianity has made one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

and more topical:

"May it [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

The document's sole author did NOT intend its mentioned "Creator"  to be Jehovah or Jesus but something far more reasonable. Your rationalizations for denying equal rights to others have no refuge there.

 Your left turn away from the discussion of what the law is and its purpose to attack religion shows your true colors. You hate religion. Again I state " Domestic partnership rights " are merely another thinly disguised attack against traditional families, religion, morals, George Bush etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum......

Ha! You are the one that brought 'the creator' into the discussion.  You have every right to your religion, just as Thomas Jefferson believed.  What you don't have is the right to pretend anyone else shares your religion or think that the government must reflect your religious views at the expense of others.

You brought religion into the discussion if you want to drop it that's fine, as I have shown that even in the 18th century it didn't take any particular religious belief to think there are 'innate inalienable rights' of which the biological need to marry is one of the fundamental ones.  Some marry men, some marry women, and those 'some' of are no particular gender.

Equal treatment of fundamental rights, that's all that's being asked.

Domestic partnership rights do not attack my family, my religion or my morals, nor that of a great number other people.  I should not have to live by your religion any more than you should not have to live by mine.

I disagree with your perspective of what is "natural."  Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true. What is "natural" is different for each person.

And the marriage laws that are limited to opposite sex couples are the laws granting "rights, privileges and benefits under color of the law to people based upon who they choose to sleep with."  How can you not see that?

 Granting rights to homosexuals attacks my family, my religion and my morals.

It tells my children and grandchildren the state believes homosexuality is normal and should be a state-protected lifestyle.

It attacks my religion which teaches homosexual acts are an abomination to God. I believe what God has revealed over and above the opinions of men.

It attacks my morals because common sense tells me when a state sanctions a practice that is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people and mocks, derides and degnigrates the human body and human person, the state has utterly failed in its first responsibility to its citizens.

It tells my children and grandchildren the state believes homosexuality is normal and should be a state-protected lifestyle.

That ship sailed long ago - it is normal and an attribute of many law abiding tax paying citizens.  They can't avoid that lesson and denying law abiding tax paying citizens access to a civil contract to try is petty and unproductive and unconstitutional.

It attacks my religion which teaches homosexual acts are an abomination to God. I believe what God has revealed over and above the opinions of men.

An opinion you are still free hold just as Catholics think many of the people licensed the civil contract of marriage aren't 'really' married.  You have a right to your religion, but the state can't kowtow to your beliefs and ignore the beliefs of those that think someone having a same gender spouse is totally natural and godly.

t attacks my morals because common sense tells me when a state sanctions a practice that is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people and mocks, derides and degnigrates the human body and human person, the state has utterly failed in its first responsibility to its citizens.

And the state kowtowing to lies like that an attack on common sense and innocent law abiding citizens who have a right to equal treatment under the law.   American morals are centered around everyone having the same basic human rights, that you can't give your fellow citizens their rights is the real immorality.

 When I spoke of what is natural I was referring to Nature. Biology. The human body. Male and female. Different bodies designed for difference purposes. Having sex with someone of the same sex is not natural because the bodies are the same. Going against Nature always results in disaster. One can't fool Mother Nature as an old television ad used to say.

This not an opinion. It is the truth of Nature. You can pretend that homosexuality is natural but Nature proves otherwise.

Whether one believes man was created by God or not the truth remains that male and female are distinctly different and for a reason. Male and female are needed to procreate. Societies sanctioned and privileged the institution of marriage to legitimize the normal sexual relations between a man and a woman who would commit themselves to each other to have and raise children. Therefore, marriage is a good to society because parents would raise and protect and provide for their children.

 BobVB: Show me unbiased proof that someone is born with a propensity to be sexually atracted to someone of the same sex. Until then, it's a choice.

"Innocent law abiding citizens"? Who has claimed that homosexuals are not law abiding citizens? What exactly does that have to do with granting them rights?

I think you are confused about "American morals", whatever that means. Homosexuals already have the same basic human rights as everyone. Are you pretending that homosexuals don't? What BASIC human rights are denied to homosexuals?

 BobVB: You can write what you want but my comments are being censored. So much for freedom of speech.

hmmmm I doubt they are being 'censored' other than maybe a 'forbidden word' screener (which can be fooled by words that contain subsets that are on its 'bad word' filter database.  This forum instantly sends out copies of messages via email - there is no time for them to be censored on an individual basis by a real human and obviously your account is active as you left the last message.

Try again.

 The messages that have been censored are those that defend normal sexual relations and defend the institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

 I don't use "forbidden" words unless you consider forbidden words in defense of truth, reality and biological truths as forbidden.