Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 17, 2012

Click here to view bill details.

State sanctioned sodomy. Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah!

No!!  NO!!  A thousand times NO!   What will you want next?  A way for two men to concieve a child.  Provide one with a womb?

Don't let government redefine traditional marriage and continue to destroy the moral fabric of our great country. It is God ordained that marriage should be one man and one woman. Get the word out to all to write or call their state reps to protest this bill...I already have done so, but my reps are all against this bill anyway!!! Don't let it happen!!!

I know exactly how you feel.  Our representatives are not the people I voted for.  Their look on life is very liberal.  However we must keep trying.

Ok, so lets say you are willing to single out same-sex marriages on the sole basis of "God" having ordained marriage between one man and one woman. So then tell me why do you not condemn the MULTIPLE heterosexuals who have been married over and over and over again? How do YOU see how these blasphemers, how do they not defile the sanctity of marriage? Or the men and women who cheat on their lawfully wed spouses? where is their persecution? why not deny them marriage based on their preference? How can you make such a statement without having looked at the heterosexuals who make a mockery of the establishment of marriage you so profoundly protect?

God hates all sin, including what you wrote about...that doesn't change what He says about marriage. I won't go into what He says about this bill, but I was addressing those who are opposed to this bill. You have every right to post your angry comment. Sorry you are so angry about my post, but I am expressing my beliefs, and you will never change them no matter how you rant.

If you think that what I wrote is a rant , you need more help than anyone here on earth can provide.  You might also try to develop a thicker skin.  Everyone who has different ideas from yours is not evil.

Never called you evil. You are entitled to any opinion you want, and I am entitled to mine. You don't need to try to change my opinion or tell me what I need. I posted for anyone opposed to this bill, like I previously said, and that obviously is not you. I have no desire to continue dialoguing with you, so you can stop the insults because I won't read them or respond.

 Why does the state which lately seems like they are not only marginalzing but also eradicating everything Christian want to sanction same-sex marriage?  Marriage is a covenant between the two people and their God.  Not long ago, When two people got married in the courthouse it was a civil-union.  Carried the same weight as being married, people who were joined together in that way called it marriage, in fact you even had to get a marriage license (nothing is free in government), but it was still a civil union, and marriages were only done in church.

That being said.  Keep the marriages a part of the religious dogma, the civil union to those being performed in the courthouse.  Allow the churches to decide if they will or if they won't subscribe to the same-marriage ferver that is now the rage, and allow the state to collect any fees associated with the civil union.  In other words, give to Cesar what is do Cesar....  And allow both to have the same rights...

Again, I don't know why there is such stirring, seems like it is simple enough to me.  Yet, the state is run by those that want to tear-down religion...  Which means I guess I answered my own question from above. 

What state are you from? Washington has always had marriages, never civil unions.  And many Christians bless married same-sex couples.

The civil marriage contract has been a secular once since its inception in pagan Rome and through its Anglo-Saxon refinements that are the basis of our laws.

Don't want to license with a same sex individual than don't. But your sect's views on it are only of interest to your sect's members.  The state must remain neutral on religious reasons particularly when there are large religions on both sides of the issue.

BobVB:

What state are you from? Washington has always had marriages, never civil unions.  And many Christians bless married same-sex couples.

The civil marriage contract has been a secular once since its inception in pagan Rome and through its Anglo-Saxon refinements that are the basis of our laws.

Don't want to license with a same sex individual than don't. But your sect's views on it are only of interest to your sect's members.  The state must remain neutral on religious reasons particularly when there are large religions on both sides of the issue.

I completely agree with you. The country was founded on the idea of a separation of church and state. There should be no overlap and there is a reason for the need for a separation. The chruch became too powerful in Europe and thus sanctioned people who were not "devout". This included the merciless murder of men, women and children (if you doubt this fact look up the Childrens war). Marriage in a church is something different than marriage by the state. If the church has a moral quell with allowing same sex marraige than they cannot be married under that religion. However, the church should have no say in terms of the legality of marriage within the state.

BobVB:

What state are you from?

 

Washington

BobVB:

Washington has always had marriages, never civil unions.

But other states have, and this is pertinent to this argument

BobVB:

And many Christians bless married same-sex couples

And many more do not....  What's you point?

BobVB:

The state must remain neutral on religious reasons particularly when there are large religions on both sides of the issue.

 Hence the civil union, as many parts of pagan Rome laws are including the equality of women... 

BobVB:

The state must remain neutral on religious reasons particularly when there are large religions on both sides of the issue.

Where in my posting did I disagree with this other than to call it a civil union, rather than a marriage?  Both are equal under the eyes of the law, and nobody will throw you in jail if you call yourself married....   Why be upset with semantics if gay-unions are accepted?  Seems like a non-argument to me...  Or just some child throwing a hissy-fit. 

But if you must, then I believe that cutting state spending, shrinking the role of government and balancing the budget without raising taxes is a much more pressing issue then gay-unions...  And don't forget that if you legalize gay-unions than you also have to legalize gay divorces.... 

The end of not only the sanctity but the reality of the good of marriage for the whole of society began long ago when divorce and contraception were made legal and both sanctioned by all churches except the Catholic Church which predicted exactly what the consequences of them would be and was ridiculed, mocked, scorned and hated for doing so. What are those consequences? Widespread promiscuity with attendant transmission of sexual diseases; abortion; an increase in illegitimate births; treating others as merely sexual partners to discard as one tires of the person; increased spousal and child abuse; the added burden on the taxpayer as the state has to deal with the psychological, economic, health and criminal behavior associated with the breakdown of the family unit; and the coarsening of relationships between men and women. And on and on and on. The social engineers and transformers of societal acceptance of all kinds of vice must have a copy of the Communist Manifesto on their desks as two of the goals of ushering in Communism is to rid society of any religious sentiment and reject the notion there are any moral standards with absolutely no lines drawn when it comes to sex. We are already close to the second part of this statement. Our society has become immune to any reasonable argument that limits the sexual gratification of people and has placed the value of sex above the value of anything, particularly a stable, two-parent home where both parents are responsible for themselves and their children. In fact, our society no longer believes in the institution of marriage as a societal good but merely an acknowledgment on paper that allows a couple to enjoy preferential economic benefits over those who are single. Thus, it should be no surprise that the state is ready to embrace an aberration as normal, particularly when that aberration is well-funded by a very vocal group of people who are part of the social engineering/societal transformers who have been working for decades to emulate the goals of Communism, whether they are aware of it or not. And it should be no surprise that since the institution of marriage has already been made insignificant, at least according to the common understanding of it for centuries, in the name of "progress", it will one day be merely another construct of society placed in the dust heap of common sense.

 I suggest you study real history and not revisionist history. The seperation of church and state was to keep the STATE out of the Church and not vice versa. The founding fathers did not want a state sponsored church such as the Church of England. The church was and is supposed to be involved in government. If marriage crumbles our whole society will go right along with it. Not too many years ago homosexuality was recognized by the Psychiatric association as the highest form of sexual addiction. That was before they gave into all the P.C. crap that is so rampant in our society now.

 What?

Look, you don't know me, you don't konw my politics, and I certainly know that the constituiton is to keep the government out of religon. But I will tell you that since the bill passed, I'm looking foreward to polygamy passing. 

I'm also waiting for a bill that will basically state that WA will honor Sharia(sp) Law for the Muslems who live in WA.

 

 But I will tell you that since the bill passed, I'm looking foreward to polygamy passing. 

Passing?  You do realize that polygamy is 100% legal in Washington (as it is in Nevada, Oregon, California, and Hawaii) they just can't license more than one spouse at a time AND no polygamists are asking for that since allowing multiple spouses would mean that their spouses could have multiple husbands...  AND in a community property state they would go 100% broke after just 2 divorces.

I'm also waiting for a bill that will basically state that WA will honor Sharia(sp) Law for the Muslems who live in WA.

And you must be aware that Jewish communities in some eastern states have contracts that obligate them to follow traditional traditional Torah law and have for hundreds of years with in the confines of secular law and that Sharia Law could be implemented in the same manner with the same constraints?

Most aspects of both are completely legal to make a contractual obligation to follow and there would be no way to prevent it under current jurisprudence.

If marriage crumbles our whole society will go right along with it.

How can holding marriage up to all people as the gold standard, making it the universal standard, make it crumble?

Not too many years ago homosexuality was recognized by the Psychiatric association as the highest form of sexual addiction

And now we know they were mistaken.  What we know biologically and by neuronanatomy is that the terms heterosexual and homosexual are 'observation' that's what outsiders see - but the biological situation is that people are androphilc (attracted to men) or gynophilic (attracted to women).  Same attraction mechanisms at play regardless of the attractee's sex.  At no time do these mechanisms 'check in their genes' as it were, before activating.

As such if one citizen has a right to license their husband with the state they all should, ditto with wives.

Again, the idea of 'same' and 'opposite' gender attraction has no basis in biology -we are all just attracted to men or women in and of itself.

Sorry I was confused as to what you were saying since we have no civil unions.

If you are suggesting that eveyrone have civil unions like in Europe - nice idea but unlikely that Washington would be the first state to be without marriage contracts.  Our referendum procedures is too simple and its unlikely doing away with marriage would survive a popular vote.

Oh and state Domestic Partnerships already have to go through a 'gay divorce' so nothing new there.

Tragically, the institution of marriage has suffered irreppable damage in both its religious meaning and societal importance in the last half century. The religious meaning given to marriage was a reflection of the family according to God's interpretation. God, the head of the family united with male and female joined together as one to perpetuate the human species through their unified love reflecting the love of God for man. The societal importance of this union was the creation of a defense against the whims and passions of state control over the family and to give the unified man and woman incentives to provide the necessary economic, emotional, educational and civic-minded means and training of their children which benefited the whole of society since the parents were the primary caregivers and the primary source of education, discipline, and support rather than the state. The basic meaning of the institution has been corrupted and now those who believe it should be completely dismantled demand its complete demise by proposing its definition should include two people of the same sex making it an institution that merely rewards the passions. It is now to be considered an institution whose primary purpose is to appease human emotions and passions, thus making it entirely meaningless as a good for the whole of society. With both the demise of its religious and social importance, marriage is merely a contract to be broken at a whim and the responsibilities of parents have been transferred over to bureaucrats of the state. Granting homosexuals the right to marry will be the last nail in the coffin of the institution and it might as well be eliminated altogether since it no longer serves the religious or social purposes of a society bent on transforming itself into a society of slaves to the whims and passions of state bureaucrats.

 the gov wanted to leave a legacy and bypass voters everyone who voted for this should be voted out of office.I cant believe how fast they pushed this through Obummer style.The one so-called conservative was the final vote needed.His statement was I believe in man +woman however I cant let my personal beliefs keep me from doing the right thing.Jeez people voted for that rep because of his belief system WHAT A MORON

What rep was that?

I believe this bill violates the Washington State Constitution: Article 1, SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

No since religions marry couples regardless of their sex the state must accommodate them too if this is a religious issue. Denying citizen the right to license their marriage because of someone else's religious belief is the violation of our constitution.

 This bill and all its trappings is put forth due to the inability of the Democrat controlled legislature to constructively perform any legislation that would really benefit the economy and people of this state. We are one of nine states to forbid charter schools. We are in a huge defecit and in the middle of a housing crisis and we're talking about Gay marriage? Step back and see how your all distracted by redfining the term marriage. You can call a horse a unicorn but the fence is still down.

Not only is your belief non-factual, but passing this bill is necessary to honor that article of the constitution.  Today, Religous Denominations who want to solemnize marriages between couples of the same-sex in accordance with their religious principles are not permitted to do so.  That is a violation of their Religious Freedom.  This bill erases that violation and reiterates that no religious denominations will be required to solemnize any marriage that doesn't align with their religious principles.

You don't state why you believe the bill is unconstitutional or cite any section of the bill.  That being the case, I think this quote applies: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” 

 Brian you must not have read the reference to Constitution Sec. 1 art 11. So your argument is null. People please realize the "State" may call a pig a pearl or anything it wants but that doesn't mean it real does it? Under the guise of wanting "equal rights" sexual perversion demands to be condoned. even glorified. Still the emperor has no clothes no matter how grand the parade.

This isn't about equality, rights or fairness. It is about codifying into law the practitioner's of an abnormal attraction a legitimate reason for this abnormality while claiming an institution implemented prior to the creation of government, i.e., the "state", ought to be redefined according to the whims and desires of those currently in the position of power. There is no article in the U.S. or State Constitutions that grants a legislative body or a court any authority to grant rights. Good government grants privileges that help to enhance the common good, the whole of society. Bad government, coercive government, operates on the notion that it's primary purpose is to follow the desires of groups of people with loud voices and money to spend. But our society is not interested in good government but only in satisfying individual pleasure at any cost, even to the point of suicide.

 Great Point and well said!

You didn't even reply to his note. And being gay is 100% legal, the 'perversion' is denying all citizens the right to license with their husbands and wives.

You don't want to license your marriage with a spouse of the same sex, don't! But don't deny other tax-paying, law abiding citizens there right to license their marriage with their spouse.

The state can not hold one religion above another as per the state constitution.  Don't like it - change it, move, or stew.

Your choice.

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.

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.

 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."