Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 28, 2009

The vote was 30 in favor, 18 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 Well I guess thousands of years of tradition and western civilization values that promote a method of preparing the next generation to take over equiped for the job was just unimportant to the democrats here .  But ya think their would have been better coverage of the debates and such to the citizenery of the state . 

Are you being Serious?  "thousands of years of tradition and western civilization values that promote a method of preparing the next generation to take over equiped for the job"  Seriously? That is laughable! The equal rights that this country touts while on their "moral" high horse looking down at the rest of the world, is for EVERYBODY! Not just the people the church deems worthy! We have had nothing more than a repeat of the shameful Reconstruction era doctrine of "Separate but Equal" that deemed African Americans less worthy to be educated, fed, entertained and betrothed to their "superior" white peers. Clearly not as extreme but still the intent to limit the rights of homosexuals, who pay the same taxes as every other American, is still there.

This country was politically organized by men that recognized the need for tolerance and the Separation of Church and State. If you're not convinced look at the countries that are church run now and throughout history. This great nation is great because we continue to learn from our mistakes and failures! THAT is our "thousands of years of tradition"! Ending and healing from slavery, oppression and subjugation, segregation and unjust laws restricting particular groups from the full breadth of what this great country has to offer.  THAT is why our Constitution is set up to allow Amendments.

I imagine it lacked coverage intentionally so that more evidence of our ignorance and prejudice- should the bill not pass- isn't made too public. Our country needs to stop giving the rest of the world reasons to consider us a nation of hypocrites!

Thank you to my legislators for finally taking steps to living up to our claims of tolerance and equality! 

 I never mentioned religion , you did .  Interestingly you chose to leave people out of civil matters though based on religion  , not I  . Gays , straights , blacks, whites , atheists , religious people , Asians , etc are all are benefitted by a system that promotes and supports a Mom and Dad taking care of their children . And we all have a right to share our civic responsibility speaking to those issues . Regardless of those who believe some of us should be not allowed or ridiculed as to make us uninvolved . I know homosexuals who are against this bill .

I have seen attempts to limit partipation in my lifetime by gays , secularist, and religious people, . Interestingly in the areas that make such a verbal outcry of tolerance , it always appears to be an increase attempt to limit civic debate . 

Furthermore gays in this country have a better standard of life , are afforded more tolerance and opportunity then most of the other  countries on this planet , in fact  some gays would even argue this country provides the most opportunity for gays then any other country .

But if you hate this country , and assume this debate should be hidden I totally understand your view point . I as my President also , believe that Marriage is  for a man and a Woman.

Its an American tradition and value that the government treat its citizens equally, especially in regards to our basic human rights.   Fortunately being good Americans is a strong Democrat quality though a number of Republicans feel that way too.

But then 'equal treatment under the law' is such an annoying concept to to some, fortunately that group is getting smaller every day.

  "being good Americans is a strong Democrat quality "

 

Maybe I should become a democrat  because being a good American is something I aspire to . I am not a republican , but can an Evangelical , Union member , person who believes in protecting life and treating others with dignity and respect be a democrat ?

 Alays thought being a good American  had more to do with voting , treating my neigbor well , being honest at work , volunteering to help ?And  I always thought being an American was something to unite us , not make one person better then another . 

 

Those of us who fall below your moral superiority normally wouldit would  be said to need your prayers . But under another blog on this site you are ridiculing religion as supertitious .  No problemo . Hopefully it was because someone ticked you off , because it does cement a stereotype I see with such bills as this . We are just replacing one prejudice for another .

<b>But under another blog on this site you are ridiculing religion as supertitious</b>

Ridicule?  Many religions are by definition superstitions, that's just a statement of fact not a judgement.  And this is America, you have a right to believe anything you want no matter how psychologically harmful to yourself - its just when you demand that others pretend they share your beliefs that you run into issues because they have a right to their own beliefs, however outrageous to you, and have a right to have the government treat them equally regardless.

 

I guess that makes sense to you Bob . But I would never call another person's religious belief superstitious .  I nor would my *** sister , but we were brought up that way . We would consider that rude .  Just like I woud not bring up Marx, Stalin , or try to bring those people into a debate with athesists  dealing with the last time we had laws based in non supertitious doctirne .  Just seems like a cheap shot. ;0)

 

  But you appear to be talking to your own socio group here  and /or AT me . I have not stopped anyone from doing anything . Interesting No other group of people who are being dened what you believe are civil rights. are brought up into this conversation. from your opinion , or possibly yo ur just not concerned about civil rights unless it is a gay person ?   What about other catgeories , bi sexual , polygamous, just two freinds who want the fiancial rewards and benefits from marriage laws our soicety gives in insurance , lower taxes etc ?    Whats wrong with just two good friends from getting married  regardles the sex ?   ,

 

Often the extra categories I understand are brought up to denigrate  not really make a poiht .  The point I make is I know too many gays who i respect , who would make good parents , are good people . Better then I and worse in some cases . Consttituional law and civil right shave nothing to do with nice people you do realize ,  two mean spirited hetrosexuals can get married now . i do not see it as a civil rights issue at all ,  as not allowing a blind person to have a driving liscense . if you included groups that were not just gay perhaps you might have some kind of lofgical constitutional thought  I could understand . Sounds like to me this bill only speaks to gay partners , leaving out other categories as i mentioned , they may not seem up to your lack of supertitious mind , but regardless they are people also . There is even people who think multi people in marriage is a good thing , religious and culturally supported .  The kids seem to function in those homes , I don't get it , and would say it is not a good thing from basically the same points I make on this issue .  That children are better off in kost cases with their natural mom and dad . Marriage is a government supported institution that encourgaes and supports kids having that natural beautiful miracle or to most athesist a pretty cool thing .  That we as a people should tolerant and support all avenues that help kids when that does not happen .

 

I amy be wrong , and I am sure not going to denigrate gays  if I loose the debate or to win the debate . too often i see that from both sides, perhaps i am just superstitious but I think that is bad luck for our culture in general when so much hatred dis used to promote selective civil rights .

 

  However you don't even speak to those people or those kinds of issues ,  may i ask a personal question ?  Are you gay ? It seems like to me you only want your rights expanded and not everyone .   While I am pretty consistent in beliieving marriage should remain the same , for some reaon only the gay political avovates are the only folks I know who really get into other peoples faces about this , also the religious right .

 Regardless  have just as much right to our Consitutional rights as you , me or anyone else in this country . I just don't get this poor gay person having a right to marry , an this campaign to make out like gays are kust everyday people with feelings and hopes . Of course they are , gays are relatives , loved ones , sometimes our mates , and take care of children just as well as another .  To me marriage is more important then that , its a basis for society to make one relationship above the rest and for us all to realize that relationship is vital to our future , present , and allows us to make our past something that can be improved upon .  Except for selective civil rights and speaking about religion as supertititious , I don't see any valid points .

If your trying to make any that is ? Hard to tell on a blog .

 

 

 

Except for selective civil rights and speaking about religion as supertititious , I don't see any valid points .

Of course Mick, you don't see anything you don't want to see. You are confusing marriage equality, i.e. everyone having the ability to access the state contract, with 'marriage anything goes'. As to all your people who's rights are being denied, they aren't - all combinations of genders can now license a relationship with the state.  No one is being excluded that's what marriage equality is all about.  Of course there are two contracts but that's pure politics as they will soon be identical, now all citizens can marry women instead of just half of them, and ditto with men.  Who doesn't have license to an identical civil contract now?  Bisexuals?  No different that monosexuals who like more than one person - they still get to pick one just like everyone else.  Those that want to be polygamist?  They have equal access to an existing civil contract already, contracts that wouldn't work with more than two participants or with a participant being in more than one. Accommodating that isn't about equal access, its about additional access and a separate issue.

Sexual orientation?  There is no requirement for sexual orientation in either contract - if two platonic roommates want to marry they can and do do it already - knew many opposite gender couples that married just so they could get married housing and benefits in college and the military. Of course the contracts aren't all benefits, they have rather important responsibilities too, and they are not trivial to break so its something that should be considered carefully but nothing prevents it now.

All this legislation does is allow equal access to the existing contract with the state, albeit under two names, for every citizen regardless of the gender of their spouse, it merely fills in a gap in the current licensing, it doesn't really create anything new.

 

 

 

I could say gays have the same access now  using your same logic .

Again with the sexual orientation - no you can't - there are about 50% of citizens that can license their marriage with men with the existing contract and 50% that can't.  That's unequal licensing criteria for the same contract and the issue is marriage equality.

The only difference is in your mind two people have some kind of golden number ?????

Not the point, its the existing number the current contract is built around and it will not function with more than 2.  Again, this isn't about changing the existing contract, this is about merely changing the licensing criteria for the existing contract so all citizens can license it with another citizen.

Legalize submachine guns because we legalize automatic weapons .  That is how I see that point anyway .

Well, yeah and if you tolerate one there is no reason you shouldn't tolerate the other, especially when oer 30% of current marriages are to couples who will not be raising children at any time in the future and the proposed change will only change that number by 1% or so - to be upset by the later while tolerating the former is hypocritical.

Recently released was a 40 percent out of wedlock birth rate . The same people who argue your view seem to think that is not important .  I don't understand that logic .

Well quite a bit of that is more an artifact of how groups have forced our census to be done.  Canada's is clearer since they count licensed marriages, common law, and single parents, separately but clearly.  Between 1981 and 2006 their single parent rate went from 11% to 16%.  Their rate of common law married couples however increased 3 times.   Many of those 40% out-of-wedlock US births are likewise to married couples who aren't licensed and are disproportionately poor.  The marriage contract of most states is costly rather than beneficial to the married couple and so they don't license it.  The largest increase in single parents in the last census were middle income women who choose to be a single parent - they don't want to be married in any sense of the word.

All social scientists say lack of the natural mom and dad in a household  encourgage higher rates of children living in poverty , drop out rates , drug use , molestation , etc . Which only supports the view that you are not looking at this in totalisty . From my experience anyway . I would prefer a celebration of moms and dads taking care of kids in this country .

Actually that's not true - they say its best to have two parents, there are no studies that show the gender combination of the parents has any significant effect on the child rearing outcome in and of itself, 'Social scientists' say the order of priority is:

Stable home environment > wealth > two parents >>> everything else.

What has happened is those with an agenda have pointed to studies that only included mom-pop families in their 2 parent studies in comparison with single parents and then act as if that means that it HAS to be a mom-pop couple.  Other studies that compare same gender and opposite gender parented families can find no significant difference between their child rearing outcomes.

 could say gays have the same access now  using your same logic .

Again with the sexual orientation - no you can't -

I just did . You included sexual orientation as you excluded threesomes or relatives at random in your strawman arguement .

Not the point, its the existing number the current contract is built around and it will not function with more than 2.  

The current numebr includes one female and one male . That is different then two of one sex .  So its exactly the point . Your changing the contract , you have to be open to other changes and realizing you are making future changes easier. . Otherwise your are being discriminatory /disingenious or both. As i said I happen to agree with being discriminatory and keeping the number at two . Just as I am discriminatory  when I taught my kids to cross at crosswalks only .

 to be upset by the later while tolerating the former is hypocritical.

I am not like you , I am hypcritical . But I am not upset ,  what gets me upset in this issue is the hostility and hatred shown to traditional beliefs and basic religious faiths by those who spouse separation of church and state to the point they can;t discuss an issue without saying it .  Aloso because of friends and relatives whne I hear hatred to gays . But I do tend to undertsand the reasoning for both sides feeling attacked somewhat .  The reason we have separation of church in state was so as not to promote one religion over another .  So the ignorance of those supporting gay marriage while attacking traditional religious beliefs  is redundant ,  mocking the specfic religious belief or tenet shows me thay lack the understanding of why we have separation of church and state . It was to stop such a thing from happening by the government .  Good book I read is Blinded By Might , a good book about the religious right and their attempt to control by politics , which is shared by many .  However your logic says if a gay person attacks a church or calls name , a response should be to call all gays or stereotype them to be hatefull .  Actually ONLY the ones who attacked the church or calls people names are hatefull .

 

agree about the agenda of people causing certain studies to come out the way they want them to .   ;0)

But if you honestly think their is not a different between the natural mom and dad and any other combination , well then your perspective and discernment I find unable to be able to understand or is willing the other side of the arguement . Also proves the point I was making . Those is the majority of gay marriage do not see the difference between a mom and dad and other people being the standard of the family with kids . You proved my point , you just don't agree with it .  I wish you would make that point more vocally by the way . More people need to hear that a mom and dad is equal with say two gays , two step parents , foster parents , or two of whatever .

Would you say that is an opinion shared by the majority in the gay marriage pro side ? 

 And in deed I understand the gay desire to have a person care about them and they him or her in a committed relationship with the protections of a civil contract . It makes aperson I believe a better person in most cases , However at the cost of kids , NOPE.

 

"The marriage contract of most states is costly rather than beneficial to the married couple and so they don't license it.  "

Its more costly for a married couple then two single people living together ? Had not hear that , I understand perhaps costlier to separate if the relationship fails . What is the reasoning of the extra cost ?

.

.

"

 

You included sexual orientation

No I didn't - I don't you know what that term means - allowing cosigners of the same gender is no more 'sexual orientation' than allowing opposite gender ones - two opposite gender citizens, no matter what their sexual orientation, now now license the marriage contract.

The reason we have separation of church in state was so as not to promote one religion over another . 

Right and some beliefs think it is just fine for same gender couples to marry so 'traditional' or otherwise its an irrelevant issue.

 However your logic

How can 'my logic' involve subjects I haven't even talked about?

I find unable to be able to understand or is willing the other side of the arguement .

If you are right you can prove it, right?  You can't just assume it, right?  Are there are studies that show a large difference between same gender parents child rearing results and opposite gender ones?  None that I know of and I've looked.  On what are you basing any opinion to the contrary?

Would you say that is an opinion shared by the majority in the gay marriage pro side ? 

I'd say its the opinion of anyone who bases their opinions on empirical evidence - no matter what side of that issue they are on.  Again, if you think your opinion is right then simply prove it.  If you can't then its merely another baseless beleif which you have a right to but everyone else has a right to be free of.

What is the reasoning of the extra cost ?

Because when you are single you are responsible for yourself, then then the state is responsible for you.  Many health benefits, welfare programs, and low income state benefits are only accessible below certain income and asset levels.  One of the responsibilities of the civil marriage contract is that between you and the state comes your spouse - they are responsible for you before the state is.  So for example, while as a single you might qualify for low cost Basic Health™, as a married citizen you won't because your spouse makes just enough money to disqualify you both.  Or if you get into debt you can declare bankruptcy, but if your spouse has any money they will be required to pay your debt if they can. Your income might qualify for food stamps but not two, or even if you do you don't get twice the food stamps you could have gotten by filing separately.  Yes, 2 living as a couple can live more cheaply than 2 separately but 2 living as singles can live more cheaply (or qualify for more state assets) than two living with the civil contract of marriage.

 

known as the what the definition of is is defence.

No its knowing that there is no sexual orientation requirement for either the civil marriage or domestic partnership contracts. Just the facts Jack.

Did not know we had to obey your rules.

Yes one of the primary rules of discussion is you don't lie about what someone else said - please don't put words in my mouth for me - its rude.

If you are right  you are the one who should prove it .

Well actually no, there is a presumption of equality of all citizens until proven otherwise in this wonderful nation of ours - you are the one saying there is a difference that justifies discrimination.  Prove it.  But to get you started and show you what you are up against:

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way, In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

- Ellen C. Perrin, MD

professor of pediatrics

Tufts University School of Medicine

 Whatever happened to Honesty and Integrity?

Why can we not find Politicians who Say What They Mean and Mean What They Say!

 From a President who said he was going to have open government and then signs stimulus packages with into law without giving us, or the Congress a chance to read them!

 To a Governor who said she was not going to support the Homosexual and agenda and then said it was the happiest day of her life as she signed Washington Sates ‘Domestic Partnership’ law.

 To Senator Ed Murray who was infuriated that I accused him trying to pass Homosexual Marriage legislation and then stating ‘It’s all about Marriage, and always has been.’ And when their petition before the Courts to Validate Homosexual Marriage was refused because they did not have all the rights of Marriage; what do you think they did?

 That same Senator Ed Murray of King County introduced a new Bill, SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” to correct His oversight. Once SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” is signed by Our Governor Christine Gregoire it into law and most likely Before the Ink is even dry; The Homosexual and lobby will be requesting a new date on the Court’s docket. And this time they will most likely be rewarded for their labors while The “Marriage Covenant” will be buried in the graveyard of acceptance without knowledge or action by those it affects most.

 Once "Marriage" is no longer confined to a Man and a Woman and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "Love" and "Mutual Commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "Relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that homosexuals and lesbians' marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" was totally unacceptable.

 What are homosexuals and lesbians' looking for? Validation of their life style?

At what cost? Marriage? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will degrade and destroy the "Marriage Covenant." A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to birth the next generation of mankind. A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to love, cares for, protect, raise, and instill knowledge and wisdom in a new born child.

 At what cost? The Family? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will tear apart the "Family" that is the backbone of our society and a life style that cannot birth new generations that ensure the continuation of the "Family."

 AT what cost? The continuation of mankind on the earth? Homosexuals and lesbians' cannot reproduce. The can only recruit.

 The destructive effects of redefine the institution of marriage may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

Hear This: You Get What You Pay For! If you do not DEMAND HONESTY and INTEGRITY of your leaders, You will not receive it. So what right do you have to expect it…

The "Marriage Covenant" must survive and take the MORAL HIGH GROUND it so justly deserves.

 I am so impressed with out state, and our legislature! I just wish that we would take it the next step, learn that marriage is all about love, and love is what we need in our life! If two people love eachother, than why should they not be granted the same God given rights as every other citizen in our great state! We must be a people united, not divided! Just as we faught against those of African decent, now it is homosexuals that are ridiculed, why is this, are we not happy unless we are hating someone? I hope that is not the case, we need to have understanding and love for every other person! my thanks to our leaders.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Have you ever had to walk through a locker room and be mocked and made fun of because of a choice that your parent(s) made (kids are cruel)? Have you ever had to be one who has to be seen in public and receive stares from everyone? Your books and studies are wrong. I know because I've lived through it. So until you’ve lived through it, you can keep your studies and books.