Washington state blocks same-sex "marriage" (votes, Republicans, government)

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

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......

What are you talking about?

The "gay advocates" here in Washington state are very happy that R-71 is apparently going to pass...where do you get this "hated it" stuff from?

[okccowboy]

The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government in 1997, in a 75 page brief prepared for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee enumerated some 1,049 laws giving rights to married heterosexual couples. http://www.marriageequality.com/facts/index.htm These rights are denied to gay couples. In an Editorial from March of 2000, the New Jersey Law Journal gives some examples of rights denied to committed same-sex couples(1). “Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” and many others. These instances of discrimination based on the preference for legally married couples effect many people negatively when they least expect it. Unmarried heterosexual couples, however, have the option of being legally married. Same-sex couples have no such recourse.

http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

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......

Nice try to you, buddy. If the referendum said it would be called a marriage, it wouldn't have passed, because anti-gay marriage people are so uptight over the word. That was my point.

Once civil rights are established, it becomes a semantics game, based on "the principle of the thing" rather than the actual situation. To lose the semantics battle but win the battle for civil rights is good enough for me (Yes I battle for these civil rights even though I'm not gay), and good enough for the many gay families that need rights too.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

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.

Huh? What a strange interpretation (and wrong). R-71 was an expansion of the domestic partnership law. Why would you try to spin it into an anti-gay law?

[Under The Clouds]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

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.

The point you're trying to make is very opaque. The reason this controversy was on the ballot was because religious conservatives collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot. It was the conservative community that wanted this on the ballot, not the gay rights community. Of course gay rights supporters organized, but that was only to defend what the state legislature had already enacted, not expand the definition of marriage.

[boiseguy]

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.

if the definition of marriage entails benefits and perks on the STATE OR FEDERAL levels.. it has to be open to everyone...
Nobody owns the term "marriage" it has evolved over the ages without a vote of the people...
It is not something that should be determined by a vote, because marriage only impacts the people entering into it....
Joe and bill's marriage does not impact bob and susan's nor will bob and susan's impact kathy and sally's...
You're wrong.. illogical... and ridiculous...and scared..
and in your scared state you make excuses for turning the constitution into a sword against a segment of the population... what you advocate and others like you have done is unamerican and wrong... it won't stand.. I'm sorry..
you people will need to do some soul searching if someone else's marriage upsets you so much...

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Upton

The passage of R 71, should it come about, is a victory for gay rights supporters.

Maybe you ought to read a little bit about it before starting a thread..

Gay rights supporters hope R-71 lead holds | KOMO News - Seattle, Washington | News

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state voters on Tuesday were narrowly approving the state's new "everything but marriage" law that marks a significant expansion of rights for gay couples.

What most people have been saying AND voting. Same benefits married couples enjoy, forget the word "marriage".

Still not good enough for the radical gay activists.

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by sanrene

What most people have been saying AND voting. Same benefits married couples enjoy, forget the word "marriage".

Still not good enough for the radical gay activists.

it's not the same because their domestic partnerships do not enjoy the same FEDERAL benefits your straight marriage affords you.. so of course it's not good enough..

I begin to wonder if this issue is too hard for your little head to wrap around.. you're up in such a fuss about nonesense that each time you post it amounts to you throwing your brains out on the ground and kickin it around...

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by sanrene

What most people have been saying AND voting. Same benefits married couples enjoy, forget the word "marriage".

Still not good enough for the radical gay activists.

It's good enough for me, actually.

I'm glad you support it. Unfortunately, as you can see by the results, it barely passed. The opponents said that it's "too much like marriage".

Hopefully you're also in favor of equal federal benefits for civil unions.

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

It's good enough for me, actually.

I'm glad you support it. Unfortunately, as you can see by the results, it barely passed. The opponents said that it's "too much like marriage".

Hopefully you're also in favor of equal federal benefits for civil unions.

thats exactly it.. give them equality at the federal level.. and fine.. I would be fine with that..
I'll still tell people I'm married.. because essentially I would be then.. even if it isn't on the top of the contract..
see that's what they're trying to block is the social aspect of it.. they don't give a crap about the benefits.. and well you give em the benefits and they got marriage...
the social change has already happened with gay people being in relationships.. you can't stop that with legislation.. formalizing their relationship into a contract socially will be called a marriage...

"hi nice to meet you.. this is John my domestic partner" LOL
no.. this is john my husband..
that is what makes them fire mad..