Washington Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Evergreen State.
Welcome to Washington Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post Thu, May 3 2012 12:18 PM by prematureejaculation. 15 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (16 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Wed, Jan 25 2012 11:03 PM

    • admin
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Nov 19 2008

    2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    Introduced in the Senate on January 16, 2012

    Click here to view bill details.
  • Wed, Jan 25 2012 11:33 PM In reply to

    • bjw6
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jan 24 2012

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

     If God doesn't judge us and the whole U.S. for Sodomy then He will have to go back and appologize to Sodom and Gommorah. God is not fooled and won't be mocked. Maybe these storms are a warning.

    In nature two uncastrated male horses will fight until one is either chased off from the herd or one is dead. Two male rabbits that aren't castrated and put in the same cage will get you the same result, death of one. anatomy tells us that we were designed man and woman to compliment each other. Marriage was for procreation and the protection of the family. Now since homosexuals can in no way procreate they will turn to leagal means to indoctrinate the next generation into homosexual behavior.  The costs regarding health care costs since insurance companies will now have to give health insurance benefits to people who practice medically risky behavior. We thought the state budget deficit was bad before it will be worse now. All the state workers who are homosexual will get benefits for their partner. 

  • Fri, Jan 27 2012 1:19 AM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    This is the end of our civilization as we know it. The previous post was absolutely right, sodomy is a curse and those who protect it and destroy the sanctity of marriage will pay a high price. Hopefully they will all be voted out of office, but sadly the consequences will be far reaching. Healthcare, schools, religious organizations etc will have enormous problems. This is unbelievable and it was Christine that introduced it, I heard her little speech :( The woman who was the deciding vote said she was a religious woman and had a difficult time deciding on this issue but wanted to end discrimination in marriage. WHAT? Man you are one mixed up lady. There is no discrimination against homosexuals our lawmakers have seen to that in the other discrimination laws. If you look at one cross eyed they can sue you. They already have domestic rights isn't that enough? Our state is on the brink of disaster!
  • Tue, Jan 31 2012 1:20 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    It's about time. Marriage has always been defined in some pretty weird ways. Some people think that it gives one gender dominance over another. It has been used as a right to abuse and incest. If you read the other comments made, you wonder when we'll lose our right to participate in elective government because some religions don't believe in it. You might wonder when we will all, by law, have to become vegetarian, because some religions don't believe in eating meat. You might wonder why we are still allowed to cut our hair or how women got the right to wear jeans. You might even wonder about multiple wives, when the right religion holds the power, will that be made legal? Who needs facebook with confession? What about eating pork? Let's all hope that none of the many diverse and complex religions with all of their customs and beliefs never gain dominance over our political system. Marriage is many things to many people but above all in this country it is a contract that provides certain responsibilities and benefits to families. No matter what gender, religion, creed, race, height, weight, or day you were born, you should have equal benefit under the law. Marriage is a legal obligation and right between two people, in this country, not a religious one. If you have religious practices that regulate your marriages, follow those, don't expect the rest of society to fall under your customs, practices, beliefs, or rule. Thank you Washington for attempting to get beyond this issue that has been used so long to keep us off the real issues that are taking this country down.
  • Tue, Jan 31 2012 1:48 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

     The saving grace here is the bill quantifies itself as civil-marriage, not religious marriages.  As long as the state does not force churches into performing gay marriages then it is what it is...

    I just taught 1Samaul in seminary today, about not taking part in the current fads of society and to hold firm to the teachings of God.  As long as this lesson is followed in the churches I see no problem... 

    As long as state does not intervene and not follow what Obama has done in with birth-control and the Catholic hospitals.  However, I fear the seperationg of church and state is falling rapidly...  And this is not a good thing.

     

    I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
    - John Wayne in the Shootist.

  • Fri, Feb 3 2012 6:40 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    The argument is well thought out and has many good points. However, as long as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are sustained, then there is no problem or fear of having any particular religion gaining dominance over our political system. But it must work both ways. Those of us with religious beliefs have been threatened and abused over this issue as well. I realize there are some who use their religion as a "license" to judge others, we do not, and yet, we are labeled as many things negative if we do not personally believe in same gender marriages. We have no problem with people choosing their own course in life and we do not spout out hate against anyone with contrary beliefs to our own. We would appreciate the same consideration. If we can be guaranteed that our various religious organizations are not going to be forced to perform or recognize same sex marriages within the bounds of our religious culture. Fine. If we can be guaranteed that our children will not be slandered or treated with disdain in school if they do not embrace same sex marriages (with the idea here that our children do not show prejudice against those of contrary beliefs) - in other words, if we are not discriminated against for our beliefs. Fine. If we can be guaranteed that we will not become objects of persecution legally or socially if we do not agree with same sex marriage. Fine. Supposedly, this is about equal rights. Fine. As long as we all may participate in lawful equality. So far, this has not been the case. In California, in the aftermath of Proposition 8, those who supported the initiative, where ever their names could be revealed were vandalized. In Massachusetts, homosexual intimacy was to be discussed in an elementary school class. Parents who kept their children home that day were jailed (if they had objected to a standard 'sex education' course, there would have been no problem). As long as we can be assured that this is about equal rights, and not special rights. Fine.
  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 4:42 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    You are right, billyncaroline and the one before you. And God does not discriminate...He just calls sin what it is: sin! The legislators and senators who are Christian, or pretend to be, will have to give an account when they stand before God as to why they didn't honor Him with their votes! God calls homosexuality an abomination and doing what is unnatural. I don't care what the those weird churches say who do approve of homosexuals and will be performing their marriage ceremonies, God does not wink at homosexuals and say it's okay with Him!!!
  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 7:25 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    M_DragonKnight: The fallacy that there is a separation of church and state has done more damage to our rights than almost anything else. The Constitution states there will be no established state religion. The most tragic thing is how ignorant most people are of how the original colonies all implemented Christian principles and values into their Constitution's, some even requiring a religious test to hold public office! And the fact that so many people emigrated here because of religious persecution in other countries proves how important religion was in our beginnings. The ugly reality is the minority who are atheist's and the Christian's who have been hoodwinked by this fallacy have incrementally codified into law and public policies all kinds of attacks on the religious. And the uglier reality is there is coming the day when the state will force all religious people to either deny their principles and values and participate in those things they find immoral and/or objectionable, or will face fines and/or jail time. The example you mentioned of what Obama has done with the issue of birth control and abortion in relation to Catholic hospitals is what I am talking about. When the state is as coercive in social-engineering as it is now, I will guarantee you the day isn't far off when any and all religious objections to any public policy or law will not be heard or tolerated. By the way, I believe there really is a state sponsored religion and it could be called the religion of self. Our governments support acts that harm people's minds, bodies, and souls and endorse, promote, advocate and fund programs, policies and laws that fundamentally have transformed this nation into a nation of dependent adolescents who believe the government owes them everything they demand while discouraging self-control and responsibility.
  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 7:38 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    You say marriage is many things to many people but above all in this country it is a contract that provides certain responsibilities and benefits to families. This is completely absurd. Marriage is this country, and for centuries, has always been a religious and civil contract between one man and one woman established to benefit the man and woman by creating a unified front against the incursion of the state into their personal rights, to benefit the raising of children born of their union, and to benefit the whole of society by helping not to divert to others, i.e., the state (taxpayers) the responsibility of caring for, providing for, and raising them. To claim marriage can be redefined according to an extreme minority's desire to gain acceptance of an abnormal attraction to others of their same sex is incredible. And there has never been "equal benefit under the law", civil law that is, between singles and the married. So that argument is flawed as well. Should singles demand they ought to be able to establish contracts that provide certain responsibilities and benefits for them? That would be equitable!
  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 7:50 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

     Lainie, per usual there is nothing I disagree with in your posting. 

     

     

    I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
    - John Wayne in the Shootist.

  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 10:43 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    M-DragonKnight: Thanks. But it is tragic that laws affecting humanity is so detrimental a way are passed on emotions rather than reason and reality.
  • Mon, Feb 6 2012 10:54 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    Here is something to think about. If the state gives itself the authority to redefine murder to exclude from the human family the unborn, as it did by legalizing abortion and now redefines marriage to include homosexuals, why wouldn't it give itself the authority to redefine everything? For example, why not redefine rights, or equality, or democracy, or even humanity to exclude and include only those people whom the current lawmaker's determine meet their particular definition? What use is it to even have definitions of words if they change their meaning with the whim of a few people unhappy with their current definition? If the state has been designated the almighty, and it seems it has taken that designation for itself, it can decide to do whatever makes sense at the moment without any consideration for anything that means something to most people. When public laws that affect the whole of society are implemented primarily based upon emotions and ignoring the benefits of a practice that has existed for centuries, what good future can there be for any of us?
  • Tue, Feb 7 2012 3:03 AM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    Thank you for that post, M_DragonKnight!! Absolutely!
  • Tue, Feb 7 2012 10:51 AM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    Even if the state does not force churches into performing homosexual marriages, the damage to society remains. As I said in another post, once the state gives itself the authority to redefine the essence of things, the state becomes the arbitor of how society interacts. Do you honestly believe the legalizing of homosexual marriage is the end of the road? Once the state has codified into law the embracing of all types of sins and vices, the people become immune to wanting that which is good, healthy, and true and will demand an end to any concessions the state may make regarding the rights of the religious.
  • Mon, Feb 13 2012 2:13 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    Bet that the hootels and motels love this ammendment.  We should be overrun on day one!

  • Thu, May 3 2012 12:18 PM In reply to

    Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)

    In my own opinion, I am not on the side of same sex marriage. YES, we know that we cannot avoid those same sex relationship but ending up their relationship into marriage is not quite in favor in the Roman Catholic side. Marriage is the union of man and woman, so if both sex will be united that is possibly not marriage. But that was all my opinion and I just want to share it out to everyone here. Good day! Thanks =)
Page 1 of 1 (16 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems