- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2012 at 9:57 pm #775444
kootchmanMemberThe Federal Government does not recognize same sex civil marriage and this measure won’t do it. Defense of Marriage Act has to be repealed first… yes? It’s a gesture. It has no substance.
November 2, 2012 at 10:41 pm #775445
JoBParticipantKootch..
the federal government is more likely to recognize same sex marriages if more states sign on…
and that does mean something
As for the need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act… not so.. if it is declared unconstitutional…
the supreme court will be speaking on this one way or another in our not so distant future kootch.
November 2, 2012 at 11:05 pm #775446
kgdlgParticipantI am not sure why I haven’t learned my lesson here about “convincing Kootch” but I think this time it is because it is so personal to me and my family.
Kootch, on the face of it, you are right. Having marriage here won’t automatically make the IRS allow us to file married. And it won’t automatically allow my partner to collect my social security if I die tomorrow.
BUT, it is my firm belief that 74 is a step in that very just, fair, and right direction. The more states that allow marriage, the more likely the US government will have to recognize us as equal, eventually.
What will you lose if voting yes? Nothing. What does my family have to gain? A lot. Please consider voting to approve.
November 2, 2012 at 11:50 pm #775447
ThistlemistMemberI think something worthy to point out is the fact that there is a huge precedence in favor of the idea that State action pressures Federal Action. Women were granted numerous important, life changing legal rights, including voting and property ownership, at the State level well before the federal government came into play. It was a strategic move on the part of suffragist to get as many states on board as possible to place pressure on Congress to act. Countless consumer safety and work place rights that are now Federally mandated started at the State level. It does make a difference in the larger scheme of things.
November 3, 2012 at 2:13 am #775448
kootchmanMemberI have my reservations… done deal kgdlg…. although I doubt my affirmative vote helped, WA is going to support the measure overwhelmingly…. my nuanced objection is not as larger as the greater issue.
November 3, 2012 at 3:05 am #775449
kgdlgParticipantKootch, can I buy you coffee or a meal? Your action is much appreciated.
November 3, 2012 at 9:32 am #775450
kootchmanMemberNo..not necessary… love em.. and protect them.. that’s all.
November 3, 2012 at 9:43 am #775451
kootchmanMemberNovember 3, 2012 at 10:11 am #775452
HMC RichParticipantI have many reasons to vote against 74. The Domestic Partner Registry provides almost everything a same sex couple needs legally. And, I believe there needs to be a legal distinction for governmental purposes about the type of marriage. There is for race or ethnicity. There is for your gender. Straight and Gay are not the same.
Traditional marriage was not for love but for a variety of reasons. I am glad we are beyond most of them.
But let us not blur our genders either. If you are gay, you are different from me or If I am straight I am different from you. Only in sexuality but we are different.
Marriage for love is relatively recent.
Without outside help, same sex people cannot birth children and that is why marriage between a man and woman is generally necessary. Boys and Girls need to know what the differences are. But these days straight people have to accept that same sex couples are good parents too. That Men are Men and Women are Women. Some of you may deceive yourself in these roles but deep down most of you are your gender but also LOVE the same gender. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am grateful for the same sex parents who are adopting kids or having children together. That support is necessary for a child. I prefer two parent families over single parent families. There is much more stability.
In fact, the DOMA needs to be struck down but won’t be for a while. This should be a state’s rights issue you Big Government types.
I will be voting for 74. I will enjoy seeing more and more people who are gay become Republicans.
November 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm #775453
JanSParticipantwait, wait…first you said “I have many reasons to vote against 74”, and then you said “I will be voting for 74” So…voting for spite? What’s up? ;-)
November 3, 2012 at 3:24 pm #775454
anonymeParticipantKootch occasionally has some fairly lucid moments, from what I’ve observed.
November 3, 2012 at 5:03 pm #775455
JoBParticipantWhen it’s the right thing to do
it’s the right thing to do no matter which political party you belong to
November 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm #775456
HMC RichParticipantWell JanS, In the end I want people to be happy no matter what their “categories” are. Well, within reason. I have too many gay friends and relatives who do the right thing but feel left out and have been discriminated. It would be easy to vote no, but I think the right thing to do in this case is vote yes.
November 3, 2012 at 5:42 pm #775457
dobroParticipantWhy would it be easy to vote no? All the “reasons” you cited for doing so are BS and, apparently,to your credit, you realize that yourself and in this case have decided to do the “right” thing. I’m glad you made the correct vote but question your reasoning.
November 4, 2012 at 7:56 am #775458
kootchmanMemberAhhhh… dobro… sometimes ya just take the win. Lesson #1 to any sales rep/agent…. once ya got the order, say thank you, shut up. leave. Maybe it was not bs.. maybe someone weighed their belief against a need, and just opted to measure the impact of both courses of action. And Pro 74 seems to have won. Sometimes ya just take the win, dude.
November 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm #775459
hooper1961Member1 + 1 now equals 3 in Washington
I absolutely have no issue with giving equal rights to everyone. Civil Unions providing every legal right is appropriate. But re-defining the term Marriage is not appropriate.
November 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm #775460
miwsParticipantBut re-defining the term Marriage is not appropriate.
Sez you.
Do the good ol’ republican thing, and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and deal with it.
Mike
November 8, 2012 at 9:00 pm #775461
hooper1961Membermike like i said i support equal rights for everyone. how about the term matrimonial couple?
November 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm #775462
sb in wsMember@hooper1961. Seperate is not equal you know that right? How would it really affect you calling it marriage? Tell me?
November 8, 2012 at 9:59 pm #775463
WorldCitizenParticipant“But re-defining the term Marriage is not appropriate.”
If that is so, then why all the movements to re-define marriage as one man, one woman?
November 8, 2012 at 10:30 pm #775464
DBPMemberThere are two areas in which the term “married” matters. One is in our laws and one is in our culture.
What marriage means in law has just been decided, at least for Washington State. What it means in the culture hasn’t changed at all, though. Some people still believe (just like they did on November 5) that two men can be married. Some people still believe that two men can not be married. And if you ask the latter group – or maybe even if you don’t – they’ll tell you that.
Gay marriage proponents claim that they are concerned only with getting equal treatment under the law. However, sometimes I get the feeling that R-74 was something else as well. Sometimes I feel like it was an attempt to mandate that everyone embrace gay marriage. If so, it could be a recipe for heartbreak.
R-74 supporters, please don’t be hurt or surprised if you discover, in the end, that you really couldn’t change people’s hearts by legislative fiat.
It’s never happened yet.
November 8, 2012 at 10:45 pm #775465
datamuseParticipantSometimes I feel like it was an attempt to mandate that everyone embrace gay marriage.
You know, I kind of wonder where you got that idea. Nobody I know or have spoken to on either side of the issue believes this. I suspect that gay people know all too well that it’s not possible to change someone’s mind via mandate. Sheesh, this thread right here is a case in point.
What it does do, however, is make it much harder to profess legal ignorance. There are people who, civil domestic partnership laws notwithstanding, have experienced genuine legal discrimination in this state because everybody knows what “spouse” means and not everybody knows what “domestic partner” means. I’ve met them. (Yes, they took it to court. Do you know how exhausting and expensive that is?)
Your statement gives me the impression that you think that the supporters of R-74 are woefully naive, or something, and I find that very puzzling.
November 8, 2012 at 11:35 pm #775466
hooper1961Memberworldcitizen
1 + 1 now equals 3. it is unfortunate re-affirming a basic definition has to occur at all.
as i said i fully support civil unions with every legal protection. what i do not like is re-defining the word married.
November 9, 2012 at 12:36 am #775467
miwsParticipantwhat i do not like is re-defining the word married.
Like I said above, just deal with it.
There’s plenty of folks out there, gay and straight, that don’t have a problem with “redefining” it, to include consenting adults of the same gender.
Dude, we are 1/8th into the 21st century. Maybe it’s just about time to “redefine” it.
I had a copy of an old 1908 Webster’s Dictionary, that defined Masturbation as “….Self-pollution….”
As a whole, save for a relatively few that are very easily offended, our society probably hasn’t held that definition as common opinion, for many decades now.
Mike
November 9, 2012 at 2:59 am #775468
Betty TMemberI myself am glad this passed bcause of the rights & benefits they’ve been refused in the past. I know there are some very happy people out there. I haven’t known any gay or lesbian people who tried to “force” their ways on anyone else but have kbown a few Christians,for example” who have tried to insist I be like them when I’m not. I once knew a gay couple, great guys, who were hurt because they were asked not to return to their church. I’m so glad they now have what they want and thoroughly feel that R-74 was not just to make a staement. My best to all concerned.
Like your reference Mike.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.