From the Legislature: Marriage-equality passes State Senate

Mike February 1, 2012 (8:16 pm)

Yes!

Cyndilu February 1, 2012 (8:43 pm)

This took so long but I’m glad this day has finally arrived!

mookie February 1, 2012 (8:43 pm)

YESSSSSSS.Come on State House, do not be on the wrong side of history. Show that you respect your fellow citizens equally.

dm February 1, 2012 (8:50 pm)

I am so happy tonight for my gay friends, family, loved ones and neighbors! Thank you Washington State Senate for doing the right thing! I’m so proud of you and so thankful! Marriage equality: YES!

Block Watch February 1, 2012 (9:24 pm)

I’m not gay but very happy for my gay friends. I’m all for it.

LongTimer WS February 1, 2012 (9:30 pm)

Look what our hardworking representatives have been doing!!! :-( Are they working to create jobs? Save businesses? Help families?…. NO,…. They are ducking all the tough issues and spending time on stuff such as this…While important issues that can help our state get back to full employment and a vibrant economy sit on the back burner. What lame excuses for representatives!!!

Mike February 1, 2012 (9:36 pm)

Just checked, and no signs of world coming to an end. Moral fabric, at least in my neighborhood, seems to be holding up.

Yardvark February 1, 2012 (9:47 pm)

Excellent news!

Bonnie February 1, 2012 (9:52 pm)

So Happy!

kate February 1, 2012 (9:58 pm)

Same sex couples legally getting married does help families, LongTimerWS. It shows children of same sex couples (and hetro couples’ children) that their parents are equals in our society. Does that really need explaining?

Happy for the great news. I can not believe it’s taken so long, but I’ll sleep better at night knowing that my gay friends are getting closer to fair and proper treatment.

miws February 1, 2012 (10:06 pm)

Well, gee, LongTimer WS! Maybe if there weren’t a faction of our society that continues to fight against equal rights for the LGBT community, perhaps our Legislators would have more time to address the important issues you bring up!

.

Mike

Kgdlg February 1, 2012 (10:07 pm)

As a domesticly partnered person, I am extremely thankful for this. It will mean a lot to our toddler as well, to know she is secure legally in our relationship and won’t have to explain why it is any different from her straight friends’ married parents.

If you are cheering this on, please take the time to help fight the referendum that will be on the ballot this fall fighting this legislation. It is going to take a lot of work, as domestic partnership was challenged and only passed by 53/47 margin.

The best thing you can do is urge friends and family to vote in favor of gay marriage. When the campaign is up and running please consider volunteering it makes a difference!

K February 1, 2012 (10:32 pm)

LongTimerWS….I almost agree with you. It shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place. Equal rights should not have to be put up to a vote. However, I’m happy for our state and hope that others will follow.

Why Vodka February 1, 2012 (10:38 pm)

@LongTimer

Er, this IS important, vastly important stuff. Not to you. I understand that any law that doesn’t impact YOU doesn’t seem important, but that’s a selfish way of looking at this. And this isn’t the ONLY thing they’re doing (just a few hours of their actual time, the rest is just behind the scenes lobbying). If you’re not gay I get why this isn’t important to you. Because whether gay people are single, in civil unions, or married has 0% impact on your life. True. But I’d like my partner of 15 years to be able to inherit my property and eventually social security and such just like any other couple. This IS specific, important, financial to me and tens of thousands of Washington citizens. This isn’t like some b.s. thing where Congress passes a “resolution” supporting puppies or something meaningless. This has actual specific legal impact.

Amy February 1, 2012 (10:47 pm)

So my plan was to never comment again, after being called a pc junkie, (see travis hood thread), I am so excited to see this pass, yet I understand there are folks that view this as wrong, and I respect that. Why must we jump down the throats of those that don’t agree?

Nick February 1, 2012 (10:52 pm)

Its fair and i plan voting against any initiative that trys to take this basic right away

datamuse February 1, 2012 (10:56 pm)

I was in an overflow viewing room at the Capitol for this–when I got there at 4 the gallery was already full! When the secretary announced it had passed the room erupted in cheers. Long overdue.

Longtimer, I agree–this legislation should’ve passed without fuss ages ago so our lawmakers could concentrate on other things.

Kjdlg can count on my support fighting the referendum. How about you?

Amy February 1, 2012 (11:50 pm)

Why vodka,

Asking this out of 100% curiosity. I thought that the “everything marriage act afforded you those rights?”. Is that not correct/not the case? Please share for my knowledge. Much appreciated!

NotMe February 1, 2012 (11:54 pm)

I can’t believe there is any “voting” for equal rights in this day and age, and I REALLY can’t believe someone that has supposedly lived in WS for a long time thinks the legislatures in Olympia are somehow able to do anything to fix the economy or create jobs that are not temporary and can provide a decent living. Good luck living under that rock!

datamuse February 2, 2012 (12:06 am)

Amy, it does in theory, but in practice, not so much. I have a friend who was denied disability because his partner was his primary caregiver, and the state thought he should be paying him. They had to go to court over it. The court found in their favor, but if they’d been married instead of everything-but, it wouldn’t even have been an issue.

datamuse February 2, 2012 (12:07 am)

…besides, some people just wanna get married, you know.

Susan Dodson February 2, 2012 (6:52 am)

I’m really proud that Washington State will soon be legalizing same-sex marriage! For those of you who may be thinking that civil unions are enough, here’s a link to a great pamphlet that lays out the facts: http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Foundation_Answers_to_Questions_About_Marriage_Equality_2009.pdf Please take the time to read this information and see how important it is to legalize gay marriage and provide full legal and moral equality to your gay friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family members.

Lura Ercolano February 2, 2012 (7:30 am)

Amy – our country has a long and painful history with “separate but equal”. We’ve already learned in other applications that it really doesn’t work out well over the long run.
.
In decades past, many well-meaning people believed that “separate-but-equal” could be made to work fairly, but our nation eventually decided that trying to impose “separate-but-equal” ultimately wasn’t fair.
.
In fact, as a nation, I’d say we even decided that “separate-but-equal” is downright un-American.
.
This is a great step forward, and of course it supports families.

Kgdlg February 2, 2012 (7:52 am)

@Amy
This is a good question. Some of the answer is that it just matters to not be ” separate but equal” why should my relationship be called anything different by the state than my straight peers? Related to this, most people look at me confused when I tell them I am “domestic partnered”. It is kind ofa stupid classification.

For me this is about creating a family. Not everyone wants to get married and have kids, but everyone should have the right to. We had to spend 5k for me to adopt my own baby, that my partner had, because I could not be listed as a parent on the birth certificate. We are just not viewed as equal in the states eyes, and this will help with that. Allowing us to be married also helps define and protect our children should anything ever happen to us. there should not be two versions of marriage out there for the courts to understand in these cases.

Lastly, the real fight now is at the federal level. I cannot access my partners social security should she die. We cannot file taxes together (in fact we have to file in this crazy regressive way now because of domestic partnership) and if she were in the military I would get none of her benefits. Having marriage in wash state helps us get closer to fairness on the federal level, where someday we will hopefully be treated equally too.

Ann February 2, 2012 (8:05 am)

Another step forward in human and civil rights in this state. Congratulations! And thank you!!

Spana February 2, 2012 (8:13 am)

So if this passes in the house then when can I get married? I think I read June somewhere, but the timeline isn’t clear to me.

WSB February 2, 2012 (8:38 am)

Spana – I can’t find the exact “timeline” story I saw at seattletimes.com (I think) the other day but a quick check says June *unless* there’s a referendum, which opponents vow to seek – if they gather enough signatures to put it to voters, then it would be on hold until the November election.

Ivan Weiss February 2, 2012 (8:24 am)

@ LongTimer WS:

#1, People’s civil rights and civil liberties never take a back seat, because they are always under attack.

#2, If you were to look more closely at the voting records, you would find that the people who have been trying to obstruct equal protection under the law to gay taxpaying citizens are the same people who have been obstructing our legislators’ attempts to get the state back to full employment and boost the economy.

#3, Those people are CONSERVATIVES and REPUBLICANS, and every day in every way, they have demonstrated that they are venal, incompetent, and unfit to govern at any level.

#4, West Seattle voters, in historically significant numbers — 85 percent turnout in the last two presidential elections — have shown that they get this, and have voted against conservative and Republican candidates and policies at consistently high rates.

#5, A Democratic president, a Democratic governor, and Democratic office holders in all the statewide and legislative elections, will get the economy back on track and people back to work, and a high Democratic turnout and performance in West Seattle could make the difference in several statewide elections.

#6, So that is how we will achieve what you say you want. All praise to our elected representatives from West Seattle, at the municipal, county, and state government level, who moved our state forward on this crucial civil rights issue.

S February 2, 2012 (8:30 am)

This is a SAD day; we can no longer say that there is a separation of Church and State. The way this Law is written it will make it a crime for a Church or Pastor to say no to having to perform a gay marriage. Which goes against the religious beliefs of the Church and Pastor.

Kgdlg February 2, 2012 (8:38 am)

@s there is actually a provision that makes it ok for churches to deny religious marriage to gays. Churches are not thereatened here.

kirsten February 2, 2012 (9:08 am)

I am so proud to live in a (soon-to-be) free state! We must give what we can (time, money, positive thoughts) to defeat the ballot measure.

Moose2 February 2, 2012 (9:14 am)

Good news. This is a hugely positive step. I don’t understand why anyone would oppose this.

.
I see “S” is spreading misinformation. How can you with any degree of honesty say that “the way this law is written…” when it is very clear:
.

“No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination is required to solemnize any marriage. A refusal to solemnize any marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of action.”

.
You clearly have not read the bill, and are trying to spread misinformation (i.e. lies).

.
-Moose

WSB February 2, 2012 (9:17 am)

P.S. Direct link to bill info on Legislature website, including past votes, full text, etc.: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6239&year=2011

A February 2, 2012 (9:29 am)

@S: That is Simply. Not. True.

This is a separation of church and state issue, that will allow the state to recognize all marriages. Churches can decide on their own whether or not to perform or accept those marriages.

If you don’t believe me, read the actual documents instead of listening to what Fox News tells you.

Lura Ercolano February 2, 2012 (9:32 am)

Churches and ministers can set their own rules for religious marriage, and will still have the right to say no to marrying a couple.
.
The only area where so-called “religious” rights get threatened is that you have groups such as “Catholic Charities” that do non-religious social work in partnership with government agencies. For example, In some locations where governments have recognized gay marriages, some social agencies have chosen to go out of business rather than place a homeless orphan with an otherwise-qualified loving, married couple.
.
When a private non-profit is working in partnership with government agencies, using public money (tax dollars), there can often be conflicts between the policies of the private non-profit and the policies of the government agencies.
.
Some people think of those conflicts as threatening freedom-of-religion. Other people view those conflicts as “He who is paying for the work gets to decide what is being paid for”.
.
And some of us can’t begin to imagine how anyone would justify putting a child through an endless series of temporary foster homes when there is a loving, stable, married couple willing to be that child’s permanent, loving parents, and that if that is a problem for a social services group, then, yes, they probably shouldn’t be contracting with the government to do that sort of work.

Ash February 2, 2012 (9:41 am)

Oh, LongTimer, you’re not seeing the economic impact this legislation will have! Think of all the weddings that will be possible! Weddings that will rent venues, hire caterers, florists, and seamstresses/tailors from the local area, stimulate the traveling economy (both guests coming in for the wedding and going out for the honeymoons), assorted gift-buying occaisions…the list goes on! Isn’t it great that all these things will emerge just to celebrate the love between two people?!

datamuse February 2, 2012 (10:20 am)

S: no, it will not. I was there for the debate and vote last night. There are specific religious exemptions written into the bill. No pastor will be penalized for going against his/her beliefs and refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. Please read the bill yourself before claiming that it says something it does not.
.
One thing that did annoy me during the debates was how opponents kept citing my employer as an institution that would suffer if certain religious exemptions were not granted. Yes, I work for a Christian university–whose denomination has ordained gay clergy since 2009. Somehow, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue.

jno February 2, 2012 (10:33 am)

Spana – here is a link to the article which I think WSB was referring to: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017372664_marriage30m.html
.
Amy – in addition to the reasons others have mentioned (separate but equal, etc.) a practical difference between domestic partnership and marriage is that couples will be able to obtain a marriage license from the county recorder (or whatever county office issues them). Right now, to get a domestic partnership you have to apply by mail or in person to the Department of Corporations in Olympia. (Just the fact that they’re administered by the Department of Corporations should tell you why marriage is important to gay couples.) Couples would also be eligible for a courthouse ceremony, which is not a part of the domestic partnership “experience.” That said, the final piece of the puzzle is gaining access to the 1100+ federal benefits.

S February 2, 2012 (11:41 am)

Consistent with the law against discrimination [RCW 49.60], no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of these accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

They want us to tolerate them but they don’t want to tolerate us. They want to use the power of the state and civil rights laws to force the church into accepting homosexuality. They give lip service to religious freedom while at the same time setting up the legal system to empower homosexual coercion of the church. This is not marriage equality. It is the setup for a knockdown. They already have equality but that is not what they actually want. They want to force the church to accept homosexuality.

Some churches might be able to decline to host gay weddings under some limited circumstances but would be forced to allow gay weddings in their sanctuary under most circumstances.

What churches could be forced to allow gay weddings?

• Does the public ever use your facilities? If you ever allow non-members to use your sanctuary for a wedding you could NOT deny a gay couple from using your sanctuary.

• Do you have a pop machine or sell coffee?

• Do you sometimes have fundraisers where you sell cookies or popcorn for consumption at the church?

• Have you ever allowed your church to be used by another Christian organization for which they paid you a fee?

All of those actions would open the door to a civil rights lawsuit and severe penalties if you failed to allow a gay couple to use your facility to have their wedding.

jno February 2, 2012 (12:15 pm)

S, “they” want to force no such thing on churches; we want full equality under the law – not “everything but.”
.
You misunderstand the definition of the word “public” – it means open/accessible to all. Selling coffee, pop, cookies or popcorn to parishioners is not the same as doing so to the general public. (Also, what sort of cheap church charges for coffee?!)
.
Churches have every right to refuse to let non-members use their sanctuary – but such a policy must be applied consistently. If they are renting out the sanctuary as a money-making venture to the general public, it is considered a public accommodation.
.
It seems your disagreement is not with civil marriage equality but with the state anti-discrimination statute, which forbids the sort of discrimination you wish to practice. That is already the law of the land and this new bill will have absolutely no effect on that.

datamuse February 2, 2012 (12:31 pm)

jno beat me to it.
.
I do not see where or how a church is forced to accept anything. Be open to the public, or don’t be. Your call.

kgdlg February 2, 2012 (12:40 pm)

Amen @jno. Thanks!

All I want is to have the same legal rights afforded to me and my family, in the same way, as straight married couples. I don’t think this has anything to do with churches and religion. It has to do with civil marriage, which is the business that the State is in for a variety of very important reasons.

-We pay taxes.
-We own a home and participate in making our community (go Morgan J!) better.
-My partner and I both work in the nonprofit field doing work that really helps disadvantaged members of our society.
-We raise our daughter to be a responsible, upstanding, moral citizen of this country – and to love and appreciate the freedoms she has been given by being born here.

But you are right, we don’t deserve a marriage license like everyone else. With full participation in society come great responsibility. We are living up to our end, we just want the State to do the same.

interrobang February 2, 2012 (12:41 pm)

@S
They/We/I tolerate you just fine — I don’t ever really think of it as an “Us versus them” situation”, and I’m sorry you’re so confused as to think that’s what is occurring here.

Your rhetoric is actually similar to that of those who are against interracial marriage which is actually still practiced in certain area’s. While it’s a very sad that there are still certain churches who refuse to marry interracial couples, generally the approach is “wow, that’s sort of dickish, I won’t go there for my awesome wedding”

I can pretty much guarantee that people who are looking for a joyous occasion such as marriage will likely not be strong arming those who disagree with it into marrying them — because anything else would be rather stupid.

jno summarizes the rest of the points quite well, so I’ll leave it at that.

LongTimer WS February 2, 2012 (2:54 pm)

Can anyone explain why the government needs to be involved with such a personal issue as marriage even though the government has been involved for a very long time. It is a personal matter. This is another example of government intrusion into our personal lives.

datamuse February 2, 2012 (3:12 pm)

Needs to be involved, LongTimerWS? It doesn’t. If you look at the history of marriage in Europe in particular, in fact, the government really only got involved in marriage when government itself was at stake (i.e., when royalty or aristocracy got married). Many proponents of “traditional” marriage don’t seem to realize that it’s often been a rather casual affair, and the only reason the church was involved was because the local priest was probably the only person around for miles who could write down that people had gotten married.
.
But, if you’re gonna take the state out of marriage, you’ve got to take marriage out of the state–which means getting rid of or finding some other way to grant a whole host of legal benefits (hospital visitation, Social Security, immigration, estate taxes, and on and on). There are over ONE THOUSAND legal benefits that accrue to married couples at the federal level.
.
The idea that marriage was based solely or mostly on personal relationships is actually very recent–another thing proponents of “traditional” marriage often don’t seem to realize is that historically, marriage has been primarily an economic arrangement. Those arguing that marriage equality campaigns seek to change the definition of marriage seem unaware that it happened about a century ago.

jno February 2, 2012 (3:41 pm)

LongTimer WS – for the same reasons that the government is involved with other contractual matters where civil benefits and/or obligations are involved, such as running a business, buying or selling a house or automobile, or childbirth, for example. It’s a matter of public record.
.
Is it unfortunate that there’s only a single word that describes both civil partnership commitments and religious rites? I would argue yes, and I would be fine with calling them all civil unions for civil purposes. But “marriage” is well-understood around the globe so I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
.
Last point: it’s not an intrusion if you weren’t forced to apply.

Jessie February 2, 2012 (4:38 pm)

So obviously the opposition will get enough signatures to get it on the ballot, which means this isn’t exciting news for my family at all. I don’t want to get excited in February about something that I might not be able to have for months, if at all. Having the public vote on whether or not I actually have civil rights is just a reminder that I’m a second-class citizen.

S February 2, 2012 (4:55 pm)

I have no problem with people having the same rights (civil union) in the eyes of the government, but when you start calling it Marriage which has been defined as Man and Women then I start having a problem with it.

datamuse February 2, 2012 (5:14 pm)

jno: one interesting thing that I learned at two of my cousins’ weddings is that church weddings aren’t legally binding in France or Hungary, which was where they respectively got married (their husbands are Hungarian in one case, French in the other). They did have church ceremonies, but first they had to go to city hall and get their marriage sanctioned.
.
Jessie: I know, and I wish that weren’t the case. This shouldn’t be up for referendum at all. Let the legislation pass and be done with it.

jno February 2, 2012 (6:14 pm)

datamuse, that is interesting – thanks for sharing! Clearly it’s one of the pitfalls of our system of allowing religious officials to represent the state by proxy.
.
So S, would you be willing to forfeit the right to call a marriage between a man and a woman a “marriage” in all conexts outside of the religious? Do you think the rest of the country would be willing? I don’t.

Kgdlg February 2, 2012 (6:14 pm)

@s

can you please start a referendum process to change all straight peoples’ marriages to “civil unions” then?

This is so often the excuse I hear as to why I shouldn’t be able to have a marriage. “the state shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the first place!” that is total BS. There are very good reasons that the state encourages and licenses marriages, and few of them have to do with the sex of the people involved. In fact in this day and age it is mostly about economics, property and outcomes for children.

Maybe S is scared that queers are gonna makes straights look bad with our downright traditional values these days. Maybe the divorce rate will go down once we are let in :) last I checked I couldn’t “accidentally get pregnant” so our lives are pretty thoughtfully planned out. Scary isn’t it!!!!

datamuse February 2, 2012 (7:41 pm)

As a follow-up to jno’s question, if marriage becomes a strictly religious ceremony, will that mean that atheists can’t get married?
.
Kgdlg, I was just thinking that today about the divorce rate. My gay friends have fought so long and hard for the right to be married—maybe y’all will take it a bit more seriously than a lot of we straight folk have!

Kgdlg February 2, 2012 (8:13 pm)

Sadly we will probably have similar divorce stats – I am not sure we have a lock on long-lasting relationships. But I will say that when it comes to kids, a lot of planning and thought has to be involved, which weeds out a lot of people that maybe shouldn’t be having kids. Just sayin’!

datamuse February 2, 2012 (9:44 pm)

Yeah, that was kind of a dumb speculation on my part, really. LTRs are tricky things, either way.
.
As someone who has no intention of having kids, I’m just glad there are people out there who want them!

interrobang February 2, 2012 (10:03 pm)

I’m going to stop troll feeding after this, honest!

@s
The definition of marriage has a very long history, and how you define it is only the most recent, and only according to certain states.
It would behoove you to do some research on the subject before “spouting off.” Of course, you don’t have to. Seems your mind is set against it and that’s how you’re choosing to feel about it, and that’s okay. I accept you, and your ignorance. I hope you grow and change and evolve and find that your sexual orientation does not give you special privledge to dicate over others of a different sexual orientation. Two people who love eachother is a fantastic thing, I hope you grow to understand that

Love is beautiful and it should be celebrated with any word or ceremony designed to glorify it.

interrobang February 2, 2012 (10:15 pm)

And for those who are boo-hooing about them not focusing on the economy? We would be the only state on the west coast to legalize gay marriage! People will travel here to get married!
Weddings make a lot of money. From florists, to venues, to catering companies, to boutiques, and cake companies, etc, these are all typically “small businesses” involved who could profit and help boost the economy.

Lura Ercolano February 2, 2012 (10:56 pm)

Speaking of small businesses, the local economy, etc, I wonder how many millions of out-of-state dollars will pour into the Washington economy between now and November as out-of-state forces try to persuade Washingtonians to oppose marriage equality?
.

S February 3, 2012 (8:32 am)

I accept you, and your ignorance also.

jno February 3, 2012 (9:29 am)

Lawlz. S has helpfully provided a glimpse of the disinformation campaign allies will almost certainly be up against until November.

S February 3, 2012 (11:00 am)

There was marriage equality (Civil Union), just not marriage. Like playing this game.

@interrobang: The last time I checked US government definition for marriage is as follows, “determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “In marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

jno February 3, 2012 (12:22 pm)

S hasn’t answered my question about forfeiting the word marriage.

kgdlg February 3, 2012 (1:43 pm)

@S

Thanks for the reminder that we are “separate but equal”. It is so comforting.

interrobang February 3, 2012 (1:56 pm)

@S yes. As I said — a current definition that people are seeking to change in order to meet the wants/needs of an evolving nation. It’s like you’re selectively reading… which actually totally makes sense for you. I’m going to take a tip from Jno — you must trolling.

Ash February 3, 2012 (2:43 pm)

I wonder if S knows any pre-1960’s black people, and knows how they feel about things being “separate but equal.” If it wasn’t almost a hundred years ago, and most of them passed away by now, I’d also like S to talk to pre-sufferage women about being considered second-class citizens, and how their husbands would make decisions for them, as if they were not capable of understanding such things themselves.
Piffle. People are people, and no one deserves to be denied “certain unalienable rights.” Those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and I quote, “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.” (from here: http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm“). It IS the right of gay people to have legal acknowledgement of their union, and since it has not been specifically granted or created by the government, it must come from the people to SPECIFY that coverage, much as black people and women in the recent century.
If S wants to start trotting out government definitions of things, how about one of the most defining statements in our history? Our own Declaration of Independence says “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So we have created and support a government and now we are telling the government want we want, and that is marriage equality for all.
It took from 1776 to 1920 for women to be recognized (144 years), and from the end of the Civil War and abolitionism in 1865 to the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (99 years) for those changes to take place. Things seem to be moving faster for gay people, and I hope it continues on this upwards trajectory!

S February 3, 2012 (3:41 pm)

Ash: Not all people want to tell our government that we want marriage equality for all. That is far from the truth. The majority of people will choose in the end (Nov) to tell the government that we dont want this.

ILoveWestSeattle February 3, 2012 (5:54 pm)

Wow! Great points made by several of you posters on the right side of this issue! Thanks for your articulate, intelligent, informative and civil discourse. Alas, as we have all learned over the years, those on the opposite side of this (and many other) issue(s) hate to be confused by FACTS.