Washington state blocks same-sex "marriage" (voters, conservative, activist)

[bigskydude]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

And....your point?

You might do well to draw your own conclusions from the stats relating to this issue in countries that have allowed same-sex circumstances for much longer periods of time.

[yayoi]

I'll say it again, the government needs to get out of the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions. All civil unions should be treated equally under the law whether it's between a same-sex couple or not. If folks want to get married, they need to go to a church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

You crazy people who get so uptight over a word. A word is just an arbitrary symbol. If it takes calling a gay marriage something else in order to get people to vote in favor of CIVIL RIGHTS, so be it.

Washington state DID vote in favor of civil rights, and gave the gay advocates everything they wanted, except changing the definition of marriage.

And the gay advocates hated it.

They are the ones who are revealing themselves as "uptight over a word".

Nice try......

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

In the state of Washington, the Governor had signed a law months ago, saying that same-sex unions had all the rights of heterosexual marriages EXCEPT they couldn't call it a "marriage".

Yesterday that state had a similar ballot proposition to Maine's, asking if the people wanted to reject that ruling. The issue was voted down by a very slim margin, and the law was permitted to stand.

It's another nail in the coffin of gay "marriages". Nobody objects to a same-sex partner having hospital visitation rights, unwilled inheritance rights, etc. But there has been a lot of objection to gay advocates changing the fundamental definition of marriage.

Gay advocates have been trying for years to force people to accept their new definition of "marriage". At the same time, they have been insisting that all they wanted was the same rights as heterosexuals had in real marriages.

This Washington law reveals the gay advocates' longstanding lie: it GAVE them all the rights they were demanding. But they screamed and protested that it wasn't good enough. It's easy to see why: The law as it stands, blocks them from calling their unions "marriages", the way a law might block calling a table a chair.

Clearly, equal rights was NOT what they wanted. They wanted to force everyone to change the definition of marriage. And now the lid has been nailed a little tighter on the coffin of that lie.

Problem is it is not the same, can they get their partners SS, nope, that is why we need this descided at the Federal Level.
Casper

[marmac]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

And....your point?

read okccowboy's post and you wouldn't have to ask !

[marmac]

Originally Posted by yayoi

I'll say it again, the government needs to get out of the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions. All civil unions should be treated equally under the law whether it's between a same-sex couple or not. If folks want to get married, they need to go to a church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc.

why change laws and definitions just to please the gays?

Next it will be the polygamists and people wanting to marry their relatives that will be asking for the law changed just for them.

[okccowboy]

Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka

We're talking fundamental definitions. Like male, female, book, pencil... let's not tamper with the definitions.

Divorce is off-topic

Heterosexual divorce is off topic on a thread about gay marriage? Well how convenient!

[Peggy Anne]

I would tell the establishment to stick their old rules, and simply set up a legal trust fund for my partner, male or female. A trust fund that can be revoked, at any time. Separate bank accounts, funeral director rights, etc. Marriage is a man made thing, anyway. Dogs and cats don't get married, and they get by.

[yayoi]

Originally Posted by marmac

why change laws and definitions just to please the gays?

Next it will be the polygamists and people wanting to marry their relatives that will be asking for the law changed just for them.

Because marriage is largely a religious institution and I think we should follow that whole separation of church and state thingy.

[okccowboy]

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

I'm sorry, but I have to say this. You went out of your way to point out the similarities, but neglected to mention what that very small difference is. But it's not that small a difference at all. One couple can create a child through sexual relations, the other couples can not, atleast not together. Other than that, you are right. The relationships are the same. And as far as the divorce rate goes, you have to understand that since there are far, far more hetero couples out there, the rate of separation would be higher. I mean come on, there are hardly any "married" couples of the homosexual orientation to compare any stats with because we still haven't managed to grant them the rights they deserve. Once we do, I gaurantee you they will have instances of divorce just as everyone else does. My good friends right next door are lesbians, and have been "married" for 8 years. And guess what, they separated last Friday when one called from work and said she was leaving the other. For all intents and purposes, they are getting a divorce. There is just no paperwork to go through, because their marriage wasn't recognized by the state. Gay people get divorced too, they just don't have to worry about all the red tape.

So using your logic, if heterosexual people are unable or unwilling to have children through natural procreation they should not be allowed to marry? Gay people are no less inclined to commit to each other than a heterosexual. Most of the people who oppose gay rights do so based upon their own "morality" which is usually based in their religion. Which is fine just don't force your "morality" on people who do not share your views.