- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 3, 2012 at 5:18 pm #602072
Peg MorganMemberWith the WA State Senate passing the marriage equality legislation, we are anticipating the Governor to have the law on her desk very soon. We appreciate elected officials in our State Legislature and on the King County Council who have taken a stand on the side of love, equality, and justice. This is an exciting time in Washington State, and in the life of our vibrant congregation. We are proud to be a congregation which has unanimously endorsed marriage equality.
Marriage equality is a long overdue civil right. It eliminates another form of second-class citizenship. We look forward to offering our church as a venue to spiritually and legally officiate weddings for ALL couples who commit their love to one another. And we welcome a full diversity of families.
When confronted with an ethical or moral dilemma, many ask: âWhat would Jesus do?â On the issue of marriage equality, the majority of our representatives have done what we believe Jesus would have done. For that we are proud and grateful. We hope that the citizens of WA State refrain from signing the referendum signature form, which would require us to vote on the civil rights of a minorityâŠnever a good idea.
In the meantime, our faith community remains steadfast in our stance on the side of love and justice.
Jill Fleming, President, Board of Trustees
Michael Armstrong, Cliff Houlihan, Melissa Lang, Candace Sullivan, Board Members
Rev. Peg Morgan, Minister
Rev. Mark Newton, Chaplain
Kari Kopnick, Director of Religious Exploration for Children and Youth
WESTSIDE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION
February 3, 2012 at 5:51 pm #747239
SeekingEurosParticipantIts about time that states passed this as no one should be denied basic civil rights. From the media, it sounds like the religious right will oppose it and seek the usual WA delay tactic – referrendum. However, in this case, I think they will be surprised that many straight people like me fully support equal rights for all.
February 3, 2012 at 5:57 pm #747240
dbseaMemberI agree that this is past due. Religious organizations shouldn’t have to recognize marriages that run counter to their beliefs but city/state/federal should. Without this right someone is not equal to others.
February 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm #747241
kootchmanMemberIt is a perfect idea to use the vote. Nothing else gives the credible imprint of the endorsement of society than a majority stating its’ intent to rectify discrimination. Have a greater faith in your fellow citizens. Let’s be candid, we are creating a civil right heretofore denied other couples. I have no problem with that. A non Christian church trying to devine from nothing the Christian traditions is offensive. Jesus as far as we know, was observant of Jewish law, and was mum on the issue. We can expand civil rights without a “Jesus” construct woven from thin air.
February 3, 2012 at 6:22 pm #747242
dbseaMemberThis doesn’t seem to be a voting issue to me. Who am I to decide this issue for someone else?
The legislature needs to make the call. The Supreme Court can determine it’s legality, or constitutionality, which they would likely do if popular vote shot this down.
February 3, 2012 at 6:46 pm #747243
kgdlgParticipantThank you for posting this Peg, it means a lot to me and my family to know that your church is so vocal in support of our unions.
Whether we like it or not, WA State has a referendum system, and when domestic partnership was last on the ballot in 09 it only passed 53/47. So we need everyone who posts here in favor to work to defeat this initiative, as it will be funded by national interests against gays and lesbians. Talk to your family, neighbors, etc. about why this law should be upheld. It is about fairness and freedom, first and foremost. And yes, about the kids. Being married sends a message to our child that we have a family just as much supported by the State as other families. We work hard to create a stable environment for her, and all we want is for that to be recognized in the same way as it is for straight married couples.
February 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm #747244
kootchmanMemberYou are a citizen. The basic governing body of any civilization. It’s our job to do these things. It’s a more powerful statement. Nanny states giveth… and taketh… I do so much more respect the “will of the people”…. it has credibility.
February 3, 2012 at 6:58 pm #747245
KBearParticipantKootch, new laws don’t “create” civil rights. They recognize them.
February 3, 2012 at 8:55 pm #747246
skeeterParticipantI prefer to have the legislature settle this. Voters are often uninformed and unaware of the consequences of their actions. There is a reason why most states don’t have the initiative/referendum process. Legislators, on the other hand, generally spend the time to understand the issue and make an intelligent choice.
February 3, 2012 at 9:01 pm #747247
JanSParticipantI listened to a minister the other day stating that if this passes it will harm the church. WTF? How would it harm them? As long as there are people voting that way, I’d rather see this settled by the legislature. People vote for various reasons, and on something like this, their religious beliefs should have nothing to do with it. I certainly wouldn’t want someone else’s religious beliefs deciding something like this for my life, or anything for that matter. I don’t think anyone else would, either.(including Kman)
February 3, 2012 at 10:18 pm #747248
SmittyParticipant@seekingeuros – what “basic civil rights” were being denied?
I haven’t read a ton on this, but it sounds like civil unions had every right that married people did.
Is the term “marriage” a civil right?
My view is that goverment should call them ALL civil rights – make everyon equal – and if you want to go to a church and get “married” then that is your choice.
February 3, 2012 at 11:29 pm #747249
WorldCitizenParticipantNo one is asking for the consent of the church.
February 3, 2012 at 11:57 pm #747250
dhgParticipantI think Smitty means: “My view is that government should call them ALL domestic partnerships” I’ve heard that one before and I could get behind that. The idea is that equality means the government doesn’t distinguish a difference.
But Kootchman: It is great to have faith in the will of the people but they have failed so many times. Some people are easy to sway and if the Mormons come in with big money like they did in California, they will wage a war of lies on the air. They will scare people near to death with lies about how this means their children will be forced into same sex relationships in the school to carry forward the gay agenda. They did it in CA, they’ll try to do it here.
February 4, 2012 at 12:53 am #747251
kgdlgParticipantwith all due respect guys, this argument that “everyone should just have civil marriage” is so tiring. and honestly, not practical in the least. i am willing to wager way more money on the majority “letting me in” to a social construct, rather than totally changing the name of it and effectively “taking it away” from the majority. folks in power really love it when you argue to take something away from them, even if just a name.
seriously, when african-americans weren’t allowed at the counter was there ever a cry that all counters should be removed? or that “we should just get rid of the back of the bus”. maybe it is just semantics to you, but it is way more than that to us. it is the chance to be recognized as EQUALS to all you straights that have this thing called marriage, that by the way, does mean a ton of stuff beyond our state’s domestic partnership label. the federal government does not recognize us or domestic partnership and as a result I cannot:
-access my partner’s social security if she dies.
-obtain my partner’s military benefits.
-file taxes together.
this is fundamentally unfair and unAmerican. the march of each state towards marriage equality (yes, calling it marriage and nothing else) will eventually turn the tide so that the federal government will have to recognize us and our relationships and families. we are tax paying citizens that deserve all the same benefits of marriage that you have. simple as that.
February 4, 2012 at 1:02 am #747252
mpentoParticipantA group of alumni, all highly established in their respective careers, got together for a visit with their old university professor. The conversation soon turned to complaints about the endless stress of work and life in general. Offering his guests coffee, the professor went into the kitchen and soon returned with a large pot of coffee and an eclectic assortment of cups: porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal â some plain, some expensive, some quite exquisite. Quietly he told them to help themselves to some fresh coffee.
When each of his former students had a cup of coffee in hand, the old professor quietly cleared his throat and began to patiently address the small gathering. âYou may have noticed that all of the nicer looking cups
were taken up first, leaving behind the plainer and cheaper ones. While it is only natural for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is actually the source of much of your stress-related problems.â
He continued, âBe assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In fact, the cup merely disguises or dresses up what we drink. What each of you really wanted was coffee, not a cup, but you instinctively went for the best cups. Then you began eyeing each otherâs cups. Now consider this:
âLife is coffee. Jobs, money, and position in society are merely cups . They are just tools to shape and contain Life, and the type of cup we have does not truly define nor change the quality of the Life we live. Often, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee that has been provided us. Enjoy your coffee!â
February 4, 2012 at 1:15 am #747253
kgdlgParticipantMPento,
thanks for the advice. if i ever die prematurely, and my partner is denied my social security income despite our longstanding committed relationship, can you call her and just remind her that she should be more focused on the “coffee” rather than the “cup”?
February 4, 2012 at 1:45 am #747254
dobroParticipantI don’t see what is so difficult about this. As far as the state is concerned, “marriage” is a contract between two people. They sell you a license for it and they don’t care what kind of ceremony you have. To the state, once you’ve paid your fees,you’re married. Who cares what the genders of the two people are?
Equality under the law is what we’re talking about. No religion is forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. No hetero marriages are affected. If any one thinks they are, I’d be curious to see any kind of stats from Massachusetts to support that view. they’ve had same-sex marriage for several years now and the world has not ended.
Equal rights under the law for all people. That’s what America is supposed to be about. And no voting on people’s civil rights.
February 4, 2012 at 1:58 am #747255
SmittyParticipantdhg, yes that is what I meant, thank you.
I think (but am not certain) that “marriage” is a religious term, so just make everyone a domestic partnership and if you want to get “married” feel free, but it does not grant you any additional benefits/rights.
Basically, take government out of the marriage business.
February 4, 2012 at 5:57 am #747256
JanSParticipantso..you are willing to give up your status of Married and it’s benefits when you file taxes by becoming a domestic relationship? Or are you saying that all “domestic relationships” should have that benefit taxwise, and also be able to inherit the partners estate at death. Right now it doesn’t work that way, and it doesn’t other way , too. Domestic partners still aren’t considered relatives, so aren’t allowed in ” family only” hospital rooms, etc. Would you say that needs to be changed?
If you take gov’t. out of marriage altogether, looks like the IRS will have to at least change it’s paperwork :)
February 4, 2012 at 6:03 am #747257
dobroParticipantthe dictionary doesn’t say anything about religion re: marriage…
marriage |Ëmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
âą a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
âą a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
âą figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.
PHRASES
by marriage as a result of a marriage : a distant cousin by marriage.
in marriage as husband or wife : he asked my father for my hand in marriage.
marriage of convenience a marriage concluded to achieve a practical purpose.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French mariage, from marier âmarry.â
The whole religious part of marriage has zilch to do with civil union (taxes,family visitation rights,etc).
February 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm #747258
kootchmanMemberYep Dobro… a new dictionary construct to fit a new social construct. The dictionary is hardly a legal covenant. Bet that dictionary was not so written 50 years ago. There are no civil right for same sex marriages. It is an expansion of the definition of civil rights. The over turn of same sex unions has been successful in states that “legislated” same sex marriages. Legislation can be repealed simply and effectively. The hurdle to repeal a civil right protected by a constitutional provision is much harder. Try as you might, (and lord knows our second amendment rights have withstood far more assaults for a lot longer time than “same sex” opposition, ) second amendment rights stand because it is constitutionally protected right. Washington State being a very good example Our gun laws are very liberal as a constitutionally (state) right. The states that legislated same sex civil unions had that legislation overturned with oppositional funds. If WA state is to have an enduring same sex union..it needs to be enshrined in the state constitution. That is exactly what we did in the federal case for racial discrimination, we expanded the definition of equality in the constitution. Creditors will love it though. They have two bodies to go after for bad debts, ditto IRS, et al. Nothing like being on the hook for a joint debt when or if the union goes bad! But you raise a good point about equality. SS benefits were granted surviving spouses at an earlier time, when it was assumed a single wage earner supported a wife and children. ( the Roosevelt speech, “the widow and her children clause) .. that is not true today. Maybe we should just stop survivor benefits unless there are minor children in need of protection? Be careful about those mutual tax filings…. kgdlg… it does not always work out to your benefit. And … JAN… Obama wants to raise taxes on 200K plus individuals…. OR raise taxes on married couples at 250K… the marriage tax penalty is coming back again. Democrats are so sly… you are going to pay for this symbolism.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604576150332819819692.html
Since federal tax law follows state property guidelines… two same sex persons, would see no tax increases on individual income levels of 200K or less. (unmarried) IF married, however, any combination of income over 250K. So.. if one partner makes 55K and the other 195… BAM… welcome to the world of marriage discrimination in the tax code. Married you pay higher rates on 250K of joint income…single, after 400K. The Democrats are “selling” you your equality, for about 10K a year for the duration of your “married” life so you can say “we are married”.
February 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm #747259
AlkiKmacParticipantFirst, you can get married without a religious ceremony. It is a legal union, not religious, although many bring religion into it.
Lastly, the history of marriage is beautifully presented in Elizabeth Gilbert’s book “Committed”. She was also the author of Eat, Pray, Love.
February 4, 2012 at 9:12 pm #747260
JanSParticipantwhat Obama or anyone else does with raising or lowering taxes has nothing to do with this conversation. The point was made that we should take the gov’t. out of marriage totally, period. All unions are civil, domestic partnerships. But…gov’t. uses marriage when filing tax returns. That would have to be a big change. That is what I was talking about. Nothing more.
February 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm #747261
JiggersMemberI’m still trying to figure out who’s the ones that are against gay marriage.
February 4, 2012 at 9:28 pm #747262
dobroParticipantThat’s easy. Religious bigots and homophobes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.