Summer CE Week #2: “Partner rights headed to ballot” Sept. 1st
‘Everything but marriage’ referendum, still facing court hurdle, would come in November
OLYMPIA – Expanded domestic partnerships for same-sex couples could face a public vote after Washington officials ruled that referendum sponsors have enough voter support to force a referendum on the November ballot.
The new partnership law, nicknamed “everything but marriage” by its supporters, would broaden domestic partnerships by granting gay and lesbian couples all the remaining state-provided benefits that presently apply only to married heterosexual couples.
After a month of counting petition signatures, the secretary of state’s office said Monday that Referendum 71 had 121,617 valid voter signatures – more than a thousand more than needed to advance to the general election.
The tally could increase as rejected signatures are double-checked, but that won’t be the final word. Supporters of expanded domestic partnerships asked a King County Superior Court judge on Monday to at least temporarily block the referendum from the ballot, arguing that election officials have accepted thousands of invalid petition signatures. Judge Julie Spector said she would rule early Wednesday, the same day Secretary of State Sam Reed said he’ll certify the referendum to the ballot.
State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who has spearheaded domestic partnership efforts in the state, called it a “tragic day for the state, where we will put the rights of a group of our citizens up for a vote.”
Nevertheless, Murray predicted victory: “We’re going to fight and I believe we’re going to win, but it’s going to be very difficult,” he said.
The new law was supposed to take effect July 26. But the referendum campaign put it on hold, and the law can now take effect only if approved by state voters Nov. 3.
Gov. Chris Gregoire said that while she respected the referendum process she was “very disappointed that this message will be debated once again.”
“I signed the original bill and believe it should be and will be the law of our great state,” she said in a written statement.
Rights granted under the latest phase of domestic partnerships range from adoption and child support to public employment benefits – although any benefits that cost the state money, such as pensions, are delayed until 2014 because of the state’s recession-fueled budget problems.
The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.
Last year, lawmakers expanded that law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship. Opposite-gender seniors also can register as domestic partners.
If rejected at the polls, R-71 wouldn’t overturn those first two phases of domestic partnerships. But a failure in November would roll back the additional rights approved earlier this year under the “everything but marriage” law, which puts domestic partners on par with married couples in all areas of state law that deal with marriage rights.
Opponents of the law say overturning it will help stop full-fledged gay marriage from gaining a foothold in the state.
“We’re not trying to keep anyone from having anything, we’re simply trying to keep marriage from being redefined,” said Gary Randall, of Protect Washington Families, which pushed to get the referendum on the ballot. “The wrong side of the issue is to redefine marriage.”
As of this week, more than 5,800 domestic partnership registrations had been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.
A political group called WhoSigned.Org has said it will publish online the names of people who signed petitions to get the referendum on the ballot. The petition-listing effort is not supported by the official campaign that had tried to keep R-71 off the ballot.
A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to bar the release of signatures on R-71 petitions, and a hearing on that case will be held in Tacoma on Thursday.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, these are my sentiments. It is expressed that particular individuals fear that titling a same sex relationship as “marriage” will taint all that is “marriage”. Honestly, it befuddles me. Just call it something different. In fact, most already do. They coined the term Partnership for a reason. It represents the same thing in essence but is obviously too reminiscent of “matrimony” for most conservatives. Ghee whiz, most homosexual couples aren’t asking to be called married, though I don’t see the harm, they just wanted to be granted “marriage rights”. Here’s a thought: rename “marriage rights”, “couple rights”, and then you include both hetero and homosexual unions, while still separating them. Point of fact, it’s all in the wording. Second point of fact, the whole dilemma is everything short of a dilemma. Why individuals who aren’t directly confronted with the issue feel such a need to suppress those who are actually effected, I’ll never know. We get so caught up in words and syntax we forget what we’re really dealing with. If you’re not down with homosexuality, that’s fine. But isn’t really your concern, is it? It doesn’t affect you directly. And that’s where I stand.
Question: If you are anti-marriage rights for homosexuals, why? I want to understand.
I think it’s awesome Washington is giving gays the same rights as heterosexual married couples. I do think gays should have the chance to marry without supposedly “redefining” the word, because I think it wouldn’t. That is a different argument for a different time though.
Anyways, having the same benefits in our state would be a huge accomplishment. I support this bill because I think it makes Washington state look like we’re taking a step forward in our “free country” with the “freedom to choose”.
Those who oppose this bill- Why? It isn’t fair that just because a person is gay they don’t get the same rights then if they were just to marry heterosexually. I mean, honestly, couldn’t a person just get a sex change and then it would supposedly be a different sex, then they could legally marry and all that good stuff. It just is ridiculous to go through all that. No matter the background, all Americans should have the same rights (in most cases, of course).
I’m wondering though, how and why would signatures get rejected?
I know that same-sex marriage has been a major argument among politicians for years. It comes back to liberal versus conservative; freedom of choice versus traditional values. Telling people who they can and cannot marry is a difficult place to be and the government has gone back and forth many times.
I find the comment made by Senator Ed Murray calling this ballot a “tragic day for the state, where we will put the rights of a group of our citizens up for a vote,” unnerving. He makes this situation less complicated than it is. The issue is not in the rights themselves, but if the state will acknowledge that they have these rights at all. There are activists on both sides that will argue who deserves recognition by the state and who doesn’t. If there are so many adamant individuals on both sides, the people should be allowed to decide. This senator seems to be twisting the issue back to the government’s ability to solve every problem without consulting its citizens. This is a common problem especially in our state because the west and east regions are very different in their beliefs. Without a vote, the east will go unheard because of their lack of representation. Another factor that this comment covers is where the money for those benefits would be coming from. People can argue rights as much as they want, but we are still facing the effects of a recession and money is tight. Why are we concentrating on passing out more benefits when other programs are being cut and underfunded?
This article mentions that this referendum all started with a petition. Can an issue really be put on a ballot simply with a certain number of signatures? Are there other restrictions on what can be petitioned?
I know very little about the fight for gay marriage. For example I have no idea in what states it has been legal but I do know that it is a state law. I have heard of people moving to different states to get married and start a life together. I know that even in the states it is legal, protests still occur. I also see the debate between if people are born gay or if it is a choice, this is something I do not have an opinion on. However, after reading this article I feel that the author tries to see both sides but in the end leans towards supporting gay marriage or at least the fact it should have a fair chance on the ballot. He states the facts about 121, 617 people signing a bill to approve of gay marriage, more than the necessary amount to have to placed upon the ballot, yet it still can not be passed. I just feel that everyone in America is against discrimination, but when it comes to marriage it’s a ‘different’ story. I love how, Gary Randall complains about ‘redefining’ marriage. I would like to know what the term, ‘married’ really means. To the religious it may mean between a man and woman, but we live in America and not everyone is religious. To those that are not the meaning of marriage is different. There is a social perception of marriage. That definition is taught at an early age that when you truly love someone you get married, gender indifferent. I see, even as a Christian myself, that we should not tell someone that they can not love ‘thy neighbor’. If they are ‘allowed’ to do everything but get married why not just let them put the cherry on top and legalize their partnership? They do not hurt anyone by getting married. After reading this article I still wonder why the bill has been taken back if it has already been approved? I also would like to know on a broader spectrum, how many states in the U.S have legalized gay marriage?
Although I support equal rights for homosexual and heterosexual couples, I don’t like that we have to call a gay marriage a “domestic partnership”. Didn’t we decide in the sixties that there is no “separate but equal”? (I will now step down from my soap box and talk about the actual article instead of ranting.) I have to agree with State Senator Ed Murray that it is tragic and disgusting that we have to “put the rights of a group of our citizens up for a vote.” It clearly states in the Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1 that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. I realize I took that slightly out of context, but it still should apply. As someone who feels very strongly about this issue, I’m curious why the opponents of gay marriage feel the way they do. Are you against gay marriage and if so, why?
Personally, I think that homosexual people should have the same rights as heterosexual people. Homosexual people should be able to get married. Their business is their business and if they want to get married they should be able to. If people don’t like then too bad for them because it is not their life. Could you imagine if you were gay and you had all of these restrictions? It’s just not fair! People can believe what they want to believe but just let homosexual people live their life, they can’t change how they are. I really hope that this passes!
I have read and heard about the debate on gay marriage and gay rights, as I’m sure most people have, but I was unaware of this referendum in our own state. I had mostly heard about the bigger news stories about gay marriage in other states, like those about Proposition 8 in California.
I think the referendum is proposing a good change. I believe gay partnerships should enjoy the same rights as married couples. If religious institutions want to limit marriage in their churches to heterosexual couples, then it is their right to do so, but it is not the government’s place to favor one sexual preference over the other.
My question is this: Who would be opposed to this referendum, and why? I understand that some religious people might want marriage to be limited to the union of a man and a woman, but this referendum is “everything BUT marriage.” If churches are allowed to keep their marriages exclusive, what is the problem?
I know this is a touchy subject but I’m going to take a stab at it and probably get attacked for it.
In Response to Jeremy Urann:
I like how your question was simple and straight forward. I think the whole homosexual rights and marriage issue is a major dilemma today. I believe that religion plays a huge factor in the whole anti-marriage rights for homosexuals. Many religions believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. It just goes back to traditional versus new values. We should just remember there will always be two sides to everything.
I can’t seem to understand how we, as Americans who give “Liberty and justice for all” (key word: all) are having so much trouble giving a certain group of people their rights. I understand that the church condemns homosexuality, but to coin the term ‘marrage’ as a purely religious status is the church overstepping its boundaries into the government. After all, atheists can get married too, and they receive all the legal rights and benefits of a married couple. They also don’t have to refer to themselves as ‘life partners’. I believe marriage is a legal status, not a religious one, and that gay people should have every right to get married. The church has every right to not allow homosexual marriages be seen over in a church or by a pastor, but a marriage outside of the church is still a marriage. I would like to speak to someone who is anti-homosexual marriage, simply because I do not understand your point of view and would like to have you explain why it is that you believe what you believe and how would you counter some of the points I have made in my post. If you feel such a way please do reply or talk to me at school because I would genuinely like to debate the subject with you so that I can completely understand the topic and argument. Thank you.
What I know/learned after reading the article is that a petition signed by over 120,000 voters helped approve a referendum on laws that support domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. Some see this as revoking rights of Washington citizens, and the other side sees it as preventing the redefinition of marriage. The people that are completely against gay marriage and are afraid Washington is getting closer to approving it are probably correct to be “afraid”. But I fail to see how the opposers of same sex domestic partnerships can be so upset. All that has been awarded, so to speak, is fairness. There is no redefinition. Gary Randall of Protect Washington families isn’t losing anything from his marriage, nothing changes for him. The way I understand it, all that these recent laws are providing is another group having the chance to be put on the same level of civil rights. Besides being against personal beliefs, is there anything else that drives how adamant the opposition (a.k.a. the supporters of the referendum) of preventing same-sex partnership rights?
This has been an issue for many years now, and it isn’t going to just go away. It needs to be addressed. It’s good Washington is taking a stand and trying to provide the same benefits for same-sex couples as heterosexual couples. If Washington is able to pass this bill then other states will want to do something about the situation. Soon you will have a domino effect. To be honest I’m sick of hearing about this stuff. They just need to pass the bill, and move on to more important things, like the economy. If they want to be with someone of the same sex then I guess let them. It’s nobody’s business, but theirs. They aren’t bothering anybody. They should be able to do what they want to do, and be treated like everyone else. If they don’t pass the bill then the homosexuals will keep fighting and it will be dragged out for another 10 years, so we just need to pass it and give them what they want. It seems like the only fair thing to do. Do you think there will ever be a time when homosexuals aren’t thought of as being different?
I have recently done some reaserch on the subject and found some information the “pro-same sex marriage” media may have not told you.
I am against gay marriage not only because I am a Christian but also for the fact that this does affect me and my religous freedom. There have been reports of a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts that was forced to stop providing adoptions unless they agreed to allow Same sex couples to adopt children as well. Some doctors in California were sued after declining fertilization services to a lesbian couple. They were found to have violated California’s anti-discrimination laws. The California supreme court denied their appeal a religious exemption saying that “When a doctor is in his/her church, they can do religion, but not in a medical office.” Apparantly my religious freedom is limited to the four walls of my church and has no place in the professional world. There are numerous stories just like these of pastors being sued or even sent to prison for expressing their beliefs about homosexuality. Are my religious rights less than that of someone who is homosexual
This article is about gay rights and how there is going to be a vote to see if same sex marriage should have the same rights as traditional marriage.
I personally am totally against same sex marriage. I am a Christian and I follow the morals in the Bible. God made men and women to join together as one in marriage. He made it so we could. He didn’t make us so we could marry the same sex, our anatomy won’t allow anything and it is just wrong. Our world’s morals have slipped tremendously and i have to ask how have we slipped so far that we allow same sex marriage and think it is ok? I think there is a difference between loving someone and being “in love”. Men and women can be “in love” but the same sex can only love each other.
commenting on Katie Bates
I’m wondering though, how and why would signatures get rejected?
There are several reasons: if they aren’t a real person or a registered voter or if someone didn’t fill it out correctly. If it isn’t filled out correctly it is invalid.
It is only every so often that I hear or read anything about legalizing gay marriage. This is good to know that Washington is actually trying to make a change about this slowly, but it is happening. All the people of America should have the same rights, no matter their orientation. The government should not be standing in the way, and people can believe what they want to believe. How can this petition still be going when there were more signatures needed, and has been approved?
In response to Valerie my dear:
So, your question had me intrigued. Which states is it legal for men to marry men and women to marry women? Thanks to a good friend called the internet, I got some “juicy deets” on the situation. First of all, gay-marriage is only completely legal in four states as of this moment: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. There are other states, however, that recognize homosexual unions while not performing them; such as New York and Washington D.C. Maine and California at one point acknowledged same sex marriage, but, due to public protest, they’ve seen been discontinued. New Hampshire is set to both perform and recognize gay marriage starting January 1, 2010. I think that basically covers your question, but what’s even more interesting is the whole legal side of the situation. For that information, I’m going to direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Enjoy!
What i already knew about this topic is most people are o.k. with gay marriage, but some, for some reason, are totally against it.
What i think about this information is it is good, the voting and the rights of ‘everything but marriage’. I don’t think it is a huge deal because two people are of the same sex. I like how there will be a vote on the right of the marriages.
My question~ What is the difference between domestic partners with ‘everything but marriage’ and just being married?
in responce to dillon fisher
The only reason that i can think of why someone wouldn’t want to pass this on the ballot is because it might lead to actual gay marriages, which they think is wrong…
I didn’t know that homosexual rights got this far in our state. I know that they’re making progress, but I never thought of it as being a matter of benefits. I always thought it was a matter of rights, but rights do include benefits. I haven’t heard of any specific laws or referendums yet, so this article is the first time I’ve seen Referendum 71 mentioned.
Here’s where I stand: I think that homosexuality is wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, so should gay marriage be wrong. It doesn’t matter what it’s called: partnership, marriage, couple, it’s all the same thing. I’m not jealous of the rights/benefits that will or will not be given to homosexuals; I’m all for the principle. Most of us think that murder is wrong. Therefore, it’s not allowed. And that’s why I think that homosexuality shouldn’t be allowed.
I would really like to find out why some people who call themselves Christians support homosexuals, and why some Christian pastors “wed” homosexuals. What are they basing it on? If you fit the description, please, tell me.
@ Jeremy Urann:
Your question: “If you are anti-marriage rights for homosexuals, why? I want to understand.”
I think that homosexuality is wrong, therefore, I’m against marriage rights for homosexuals. It’s not like I want to kill them, it’s more like I think that they’re lost. I believe that we should live by the Bible. It says that homosexuality is wrong. All the rest you can get by using simple logic. Giving homosexuals rights is saying that homosexuality is alright. It’s the same as giving thieves the right to steal or killers the right to murder. You may say that gays or lesbians don’t hurt anyone. That’s not a point I’m trying to make, but it’s still not true. They hurt themselves. Homosexuals are under a much bigger risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals. And what if they decide to raise a child? Would you want a kid to be raised up by two dads or two moms? That’s not normal; the other guy might be called a mom, but he still doesn’t have breasts that produce milk, and he still has/had (who knows?) a pen*s (the system tried to block it) between his legs…
@ Dillon Fischer & Valerie Nauditt
Dillon, you said: “If churches are allowed to keep their marriages exclusive, what is the problem?”
Valerie, you said: “why not just let them put the cherry on top and legalize their partnership? They do not hurt anyone by getting married.”
You both brought up good points. Did we just stop caring about people in general? “It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t hurt people close to me,” so it must be good? If someone commits suicide, we should just let them be, because they don’t hurt anyone besides themselves? Because if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, it’s comparable to suicide. I think that churches that are against gay marriage in any form just care about people. Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. If you met a druggie that was going to overdose soon, would you give him a joint and just finish him off, or would you say that he’s doing the wrong thing and do something about it? After all, he’s not hurting anyone by snorting cocaine in his backyard, might as well enjoy it. The druggie wouldn’t like you telling him to stop substance abuse, but not letting him hit that final fix could save his life. Now, picture legalizing gay marriage as giving the druggie that final fix. Would you do it if you saw it as that? Do we really care about people anymore?
It is sad to me that as a nation so modernized and forward, we still deny our citizens basic rights granted in the constitution because we may not agree with their moral choice. While I do believe that gay marriage should be indefinitely legalized, R-71 is definitely progress. I believe my friend Valerie Nauditt put it well when she simply stated, “They do not hurt anyone by getting married.” How true. It is not a matter of domestic partnerships infringing on those who are opposed to it, but those who are opposed are indeed oppressing the rights of a very large group of people.
Answers and new questions (2 parts, 1 post!):
Christy, in answer to your question, we are not concentrated on giving out more benefits, just basic rights. For many, this issue is the key issue in their life. Many homosexual Americans cannot live the life they want to with their partner because we deny them basic rights. You say that people can “argue rights as much as they want” but rights seem pretty basic, necessary, and important to me. Rights should not be argued over, rights should be guaranteed. The decision will be left up to the people as the bill is being pushed for the ballot. Furthermore, the people of Washington will be represented fairly as this bill is for the state and is not being hosted at a federal level. If you do not think that this vote should be held at a state level, then what would you recommend? Will the “east side” not be represented based off the number of the number of votes? How else can we determine make decisions if not by popular vote? What better representation of popular consensus is there than a popular vote? And yes, it is indeed quite sad that we have to leave the rights of a group of our citizens to a vote.
In Responce to Dillon Fischer:
Marriage was originally a Holy union between man and wife, it was originally a religious thing. And even if your not calling it marriage but they are still getting all the rights of the married then isn’t it pretty much marriage. You could call an apple an orange but dosnt it still look and taste like an apple?
In response to Daniel Lipuzhin:
The thing is, though, I don’t believe homosexuality is wrong. I don’t see how churches are caring about people by denying homosexuals the right to marry. I also don’t see how being gay is at all comparable to suicide. It isn’t hurting me, it isn’t hurting the people close to me, but it’s also not hurting anyone else and they aren’t hurting themselves, either.
In response to Justin McClain:
I understand that marriage was originally a religious thing. Which is why I said that I think churches should maintain their right to not marry a couple of the same sex. However, civil union and the rights of marriage are a government thing, not a church thing, and the two should be seperate. And yes, it is pretty much marriage, which is perfectly fine with me. The church has no more say in marriage than the word “marriage” and the religious connotations that may carry.
“Partner rights headed to ballot”
I have heard the arguments on whether or not to allow homosexual marriage in different states. I had no clue however that our state gives rights of married couples differently based on if they are same sex or not.
It does not seem right to me to have the state be able to decide/limit the rights of one couple and not the next. If you base rights on this topic why is it not based on race also because the state is already judging a certain group when we should all be treated equal and in that given the same rights? Also, I do not understand how people can be refusing to put the decision to ballot because in the article it seems like the group wanting the vote has passed the requirements to be able to, so why is there an argument on the matter at all, why do they have a choice?
I want to know what exactly are the rights this group is asking for in this petition that they do not hold? I am also curious about how a petition signature can be rejected?
I know that this topic seems to be very heated. Some people are against this because of teachings from the bible, and others are for it, even those who are strait. I also know that gay marriage in California has been voted not legal, or what ever you want to call it.
Reading this makes me want to vote almost more than anything does. When something like the rights of people is being voted on, which it should not in the first place, I want to have my say in it. People rights should not be voted on. We have the right to vote, we have the right to free speech, we have the right to bear arms, and now we are voting on whether or not gay couples have the same rights and privileges as other married couples. This is wrong in my opinion. I know that this does not matter now. If I could vote, I would definitely vote yes for gay and lesbian couple to have all rights granted to ‘normal’ married couples.
I want to know how many states have created laws against gay marriage. Is California the only state?
in response to Christy Houk:
Christy, I have to admit that your post left me a little confused. I feel like that quote from Senator Murray wasn’t not making the problem less complicated at all. Putting “the rights of a group of our citizens up for a vote” is very hefty and complicated. I also think the senator doesn’t want the vote to be taken back to the people because by doing so it puts laws and rights on the chopping block that have already been approved. And yes, money is tight, but these benefits to be “handed out” only equalize the economic room that a domestic partnership couple has compared to a legally married couple. Without these benefits, wouldn’t you think that the homosexual couple is the group facing the tight money struggle in this particular issue?
In Response to Christy’s Question:
“Why are we concentrating on passing out more benefits when other programs are being cut and underfunded?”
Gay couples pay taxes too. It seems like they would deserve the same benefits that straight couples automatically receive once they marry. It seems to parallel the civil rights crusades where “separate but equal” really wasn’t all that equal. It is true that domestic partners in Washington have it better off than most states (other than those that offer full marriage for gay couples) but should we say that it is “good enough” since it will be “too hard” given the recession or do we fight for what is fair and just under the law?
It isn’t fair that many people lie about their incomes in order to receive state aid – aid that costs a lot to both the government and society, but there are no major movements against this. What those people do is morally wrong, and yet it goes without much notice. It seems ironic that the gay people (who work, pay taxes, and stimulate the economy with their spending) are given less benefits than those who lie and steal from the government. This may seem a little harsh and I admit that it does fall into a bit of a generalization, but it does take this whole scenario to a “moral level” even though I believe gay rights are about equality and fairness.
What I actually know about this issue is limited. I know that homosexuals have been fighting for years for equality in every aspect. Gay marriage is an issue people have been protesting about a lot lately. I don’t know the specific laws in our state or all the rights that are granted to homosexual couples.
I think that it is a good thing that homosexual couples are granted the same rights as heterosexual couples, and they have just as much of a right to be “married” as heterosexual couples. Aren’t we striving towards equality? By calling marriage something other than marriage, we are creating a distinct line between gay and straight rights.
What I don’t understand is why people are so opposed to granting everyone the same rights. Gary Randall said, “…We’re simply trying to keep marriage from being redefined.” I would like to know his definition of marriage in America today. With divorce rates as high as they are, I this argument is losing substance and has become a façade for some people that simply don’t want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I was confused when Sen. Ed Murray called it a “tragic day for the state.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought this referendum would advance gay rights?
I found this article really interesting, and I learned a lot about how a petition advances through the system. I would like to know how our laws differ from those in other states. Also, I want to know why people get so fired up about this issue when it doesn’t affect them directly (especially when the law specifically postponed spending the state’s money)? Does it really come down to prejudice?
In response to Joanna:
I didn’t see a question but I would like to debate something.
You talked about the difference between :love” and “in love”. Are you saying that men and women are “in love” with each other’s anatomy? Because that doesn’t make any sense. It just makes heterosexual people seem like skanks if you ask me. I personally think that it is the person a heterosexual is in love with. I also think that it is the person that a homosexual is in love with. I don’t think it is fair for you to say that a homosexual cannot be in love with another homosexual. I think that if you took the time to understand the dynamic between the average homosexual couple you would find that it is no different than a straight couple.
In a brief amici curiae (Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California) of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers (CA Chapter) (which were in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion), it says:
“Sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment.”
So basically all of these Psychological associations are supporting the fact that homosexuals can be “in love” with each other and not just “love” each others anatomy.
In response to Joanna Luse:
You didn’t ask any questions, but I will comment on your post. You said “I think there is a difference between loving someone and being “in love”. Men and women can be “in love” but the same sex can only love each other.”
Well I happen do differ in opinion with you on this. You can’t say something doesn’t exist without experiencing it or at least seeing and understanding it. How do you know what you said to be true?
Washington is working towards giving same-sex couples the same rights that married couples have. There is a referendum, R-71, trying to get the issue on the ballot that has plenty of signatures but it is being re-checked to make sure all the signatures are legitimate. This is pushing the vote on R-71 further and further.
People are so worried that the referendum would pass they’re trying anything to get it postponed. The signatures have already been checked and it doesn’t need it again, so stop trying to delay the issue and put it on the ballot so we can vote on it! Personally, I believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed, not just give them the same rights as married couples but let them be married couples. It really made me mad when Gary Randall said “The wrong side of the issue is to redefine marriage.” Allowing same-sex couples to be married may- and I repeat may- somewhat redefine marriage, sure, but we have to realize that the definition of marriage must keep up with the times. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution so it could adapt to modern times because things change, even they realized things don’t always stay the same. Fifty years ago, being gay was unheard of and if you were you didn’t dare say anything or act on it. Now it’s becoming more acceptable, yes there is definitely controversy, but look at how far we’ve come. We see gay couples out living their lives and not afraid to admit that they are in fact gay! We can’t keep living in the dark ages! Marriage is bound to be “redefinied” because we are in more modern times and everything changes eventually and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It’s time the law becomes more accepting of gay couples and adapts the law to modern times.
Those who say allowing gay marriage is wrong are racist in my mind. Descrimintating against them because they are gay is no different than descriminating against someone because they are Catholic. Marriage is simply making a comittment to spend the rest of your life with someone because you love them and want to be with them exclusively. It’s a way to show your devotion. Homosexuals should be allowed to make the same commitment to one another. Not allowing them to be married goes against their inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness and their freedom. There is no sound reasoning against gay marriage and my question is, is there any concrete “definiton” of marriage? I think not.
In response to Joanna Luse-
I am not religious because I tend to find many flaws in it, so maybe my understanding is incorrect but I am under the impression God made people the way they are- i.e. to like who they like, do what they do, etc. So if that is the case then why would he make some men like men and some women like women? If he created men to marry women then what happened there? Every religion has different beliefs and just because one religion thinks one way doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same. I don’t neccessarily have the same morals as you and therefore do not find same-sex marriage immoral. Yes, marriage is a religious tradition but it is also a legal union and our country isn’t base on the bible it’s base on the constitution, which doesn’t say gay marriage is wrong. Just because someone is homosexual doesn’t mean they aren’t religious, either. If they want to show their devotion to each other by marrying and also reap the legal benefits of marriage they should be allowed to.
I agree with your comment that our anatomy won’t allow anything to happen but I’d like to point out that every married couple in America doens’t have kids. I have many family members who are married and don’t have childern. Couples get married for reasons besides kids. If a homosexual couple did want children though, there are a plenty of alternative options, such as adoption.
Also, why can’t homosexuals be “in love”? They have the same emotional capabilites of men and women who are heterosexual, just because the person they have feelings for is the same sex doesn’t mean it’s any less legitimate than if that person were the opposite sex. I’d also like to point out that many heterosexual couples think they are in love when they aren’t, look at the divorce rate. Homosexuals have the same ability to love as any other human being on the planet.
Responding to Justin McClain:
It seems to me that you are saying that religion is a justification for illegal actions. This is similar to saying that the actions of terrorists are justified because it was their religious beliefs that fueled them. I’m still trying to understand how giving equality to everyone affects your religious freedom. Are you really willing to give up some of your rights for someone else’s religious beliefs?
Taylor:
Excuse me but with the phrase, “by granting gay and lesbian couples all he remaining state-provided benefits that presently apply only to married heterosexual couples,” I took that to mean monetary benefits. I could easily be wrong in that assumption, but from the little that I have heard concerning this referendum, rights are not the only item homosexuals are looking to gain.
I never said that I was unhappy with deciding this issue as a state. I believe this is most definitely a topic to be discussed within every state, apart from the federal government. However, I mentioned it because I saw that a vote is the only way to get a fair outcome for an issue such as this because of unbalanced representation in our state government. The part from Murray made it sound like he did not wish the people to have a say. Most political figures come from the west coast. Although you and others may not be, the east side of the state has a tendency to be more conservative. A vote will allow everyone to have their say without relying on the beliefs of a few or of one region.
This is a very controversial issue and the people should be allowed to decide. Rights must be held sacred, but when there is argument as to what groups are allowed rights there must also be room for discussion. As I said before, there are legitimate aspects to both sides and they both deserve to be heard.
I don’t even know where to start. Marriage is marriage, between a man and a woman. But that isn’t the problem here. What we are deciding is if homosexuals are allowed to marry. I say no. Marriage is a commitment before God to love each other till death. It has everything to do with religion. That is the point of it all. Now I know people will argue with me but I’m religious. In the bible it says point blank that homosexuality is a sin. It is Leviticus 18:22, you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (ESV). Sins are bad, things you don’t do. I think that it is all just wrong. Marriage is a deeply religious experience and commitment.
In response for Valerie: you say you’re a Christian so I ask what you think of my complete verse instead of love thy neighbor. Yes that is in the bible, I believe it. But that is completely different. The bible was originally written in Hebrew so it doesn’t translate perfectly. Love has multiple meanings. Love and homosexuality are two different things. Yes I love my neighbor but I don’t love a man. The love thy neighbor comes from when Jesus told the land to love everyone like he does. It is two different loves.
This is a very interesting piece because this is not only a State issue, but national as well. I happen to agree with what they are doing. I have zero problems with a man choosing to spend his life with another man in a partnership, but no more than that. I strongly believe that marriage is something that is shared between a man and a woman. But that is also why I support this ballot, because it gives domestic partnerships the same rights as a married couple, just without the title. And if they do truly love one anther than they won’t put so much emphasis on the title of marriage. They will just be happy that they are able to spend the rest of their life with the ones they love, and in the eyes of the public still be seen as a couple. Whether being officially married or not.
In Response to Bree Ferris: You r understanding of (most) religions is flawed. According to biblical records, there is a flaw, or Hubris in every person. This Hubris is what causes things like lust, homosexuality, pride, etc. You know me well enough to know my beliefs so there is no point in me going into them. I personally see no point in preventing a very small but very vocal minority (less than 2.5 % according to Barna-Gallup poll 2008) from having the same legal rights of married couples. However, forcing churches to marry homosexual couples infringes on the right to freedom of religion. If you want to talk about seperation of church and state, then the state needs to stay out of the churches business as well. It works both ways. Homosexual couples also face interesting “nature related” problems. For example, Homosexuals have a 24% higher risk of contracting AIDS than any other group– including bestialists. (Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM).
By all means let them have legal visitation rights etc., like they do in almost every state right now, but forcing religious groups to respect it creates alot of problems. In some countries, Christians are greatly persecuted by the government because what they say about homosexuality is called a hate crime.
To any homosexuals out there reading this, I do not hate you. I fully accept you for who you are and i support you. I do not support your decisions, but I certainly do not preach hate or violence. However, many of you do. I have been called unspeakable names for the way I believe, and have seen violence against other Christians. If Christianity is one day silenced by law because of new “anti Hate crime” legislation, I will fight it every way I can. That is the next step, after all. It always has been. Mesopotamia, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Phillistine, what do these countries have in common? They silenced the voice of “oppressive” morality and soon after fell to their own corruption. Like a rotting wound, they killed off the only antibodies still struggling for survival and soon after fell into the silence of a corrupt grave.
Lauren:
Sen. Ed Murray called it a sad day for the state because of the fact that people were actually trying to challenge the rights that homosexuals had already earned and been given two years ago. He was just upset that there were still people out there that disagreed with gay marriage in the state of Washington so strongly.
Response to Kelli Davin
“My question~ What is the difference between domestic partners with ‘everything but marriage’ and just being married?”
Answer-Basically it is exactly how the author put it “everything but marriage”. I went onto dictionary.reference.com and definitions from that site say marriage is “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” While a domestic partner is “either member of an unmarried, cohabiting, and esp. homosexual couple that seeks benefits usu. available only to spouses.” As far as I know according to Washington’s laws domestic partners gain all the same benefits as a couple that is married except that they are not recognized as spouses. If this is true, then they are only being looked at as dating or living together not spouses. They are looked at as a partnership which I think is what makes them upset. They want to be seen as spouses because that’s how they feel they are.
I find that same sex marriage is often only considered as a moral issue and not really looked at from all angles. When I look at this issue, if we provide homosexual couples with the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples we could have fraudulent issues on our hands.
For instance let’s say legislation to give the same rights to all married couples despite gender was passed. Next let’s say you are a boy and your best male friend and you are rooming together in an apartment. You are not sexually involved and you both are raging heterosexuals. But hey last night while doing research for a homework assignment you googled marriage rights and found a nice little list of tax,estate planning, government, employment, medical, death, family, housing, consumer, and other benefits available to married couples. Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if my buddy and I got married just to obtain these benefits? We don’t necessarily even have to be friends anymore or even live together, just as long as we have a certificate that says were married and gives us fantastic benefits.
Now I also realize that this kind of fraud probably occurs in opposite sex marriages as well, but I’m trying to make the point that even though same sex marriage is obviously a moral issue, it needs to be looked at from other angles as well.
Response to Jeremy:
People are against same sex marriage often because it would disgrace the sacred institution of marriage. I like your point about how it’s all in the wording and we could just call marriage rights “partnership rights”. That would solve some of the feelings people get about whether it’s okay to allow homosexual marriages. When I think of whether or not it’s okay to allow marriages of this type I’m more considered about the children same sex couples adopt. I feel in our society kids already struggle quite a bit to find themselves and make a place for themselves in society. Often times I see homosexually individuals discriminated against, and a child, who isn’t necesessarily homosexual but has homosexual parents could experince social difficulties caused by issues out of his control.
Talking about the topic brought up about denying basic rights, how many of you know about the ban on automatic weapons? We have the right to bear arms, but owning an automatic weapon is ridiculous and unnecessary right? So that’s illegal. Same with gay marriage we have the right to be married, but homosexual marriage is simply ridiculous. It’s not a matter of denying someone basic rights it’s just allowing what is necessary. Our country was founded on God… In God we trust. If we go against our country and the foundation we were built on, what is next? Drinking age lowered because teenagers feel discriminated against? You have to be 21 to drink legally and you have to be heterosexual to be married. It’s just how it works.
Responding to Derrick Cunningham
To be in love is chemical, it’s biological. Our bodies were created to feel attraction toward the opposite sex which is why our sexual organs were created. So what homosexuals think is “being in love” is really a lust. Going against our basic anatomy and human nature isn’t right. What if I was in love with a goat? Is that right? No. Not at all. If we were made to be gay we would be given the ability to reproduce homosexually.
Responding to Bree Ferris
Give me proof that gays were made to be gay. Humans are by nature inclined to do things that are pleasing. Sex, drugs, and alcohol. Humans go to many lengths to fulfill those desires, also known as sinful desires which God rids us of, but I won’t go into that, which may include homosexuality. Our makeup is perfect. We were made the way we are for a reason and NO ONE can argue with that religious or not, if we were all gay we’d be extinct. If we were into bestiality we’d be extinct. We weren’t made to reproduce with the same sex, nature says it for you.
I appreciate the intent of this legislation, I really do. The clean suited, neatly coiffed politicians are a bunch always willing to extend an empathetic hand to their more queer of counterparts. Even though they aren’t (heaven forbid) willing to risk the political lash backs of getting friendly with their own kind, they can at least show some understanding with a key voter demographic (because who doesn’t love a congenial politician come election day, tell me who), without flustering the more traditional-minded constituents. Well played, Olympia. Well played.
However, the issue is this: this piece of legislation is a sham. And people of all creeds should reject it as such.
Prop. 8 didn’t go over as hot as some would have liked, the people of California just weren’t ready to see its gay citizens strutting about in marital bliss. So, a compromise: these half-assed “we’ll give them the rights without the title” bills. And while they are certainly a step forward, the gay community would do well to scoff them and ask for more.
The fight for gay marriage became an argument of humanity. Gays wanted nothing more than to forge their true love and everlasting devotion in the most permanent of human bonds: marriage. And to deny them these rights– well it sure did make those gay-bashing conservatives look like real sour pusses, didn’t it?
But these “rights alone” bills affirm all of the nay-sayers worst fears: that gays are only in it for the good pickins. The insurance benefits, the tax breaks, the spousal perks (the money, essentially)– all of which is included in this bill. It shifts the issue from one of True Love to that of Big Money. In the effort to bypass the moral gray area of what Marriage Truly Is, we’ve run into a whole new problem: defining how “committed” two people must be to gain the benefits of a couple. I can hear the shouts of the naysayers now “What about long term roommates? Committed (but not married) heterosexual couples… they’ll want benefits too!” A real big mess, folks, a real big one. In order to maintain the integrity of their desires ( to be in a committed relationship with the one they love), the gay community should hold out for a piece of legislation that gives them what they really want.
In Response to Jeremy Urann:
“If you’re not down with homosexuality, that’s fine. But isn’t really your concern, is it? It doesn’t affect you directly.”
Essentially, yes, it is a tradition loving gay-hater’s business whether or not gays are allowed to marry. The benefits given to married couples (insurance coopts, increased life-insurance payouts, tax breaks, etc.) cost money. Money which will cause the cost of insurance to rise, the insurance policies given out by corporations to their employees to necessarily be less generous, and taxes to rise. Basically the more marriages there are, the higher the total costs given out in benefits (and if gay marriage is legalized, there will be significantly more marriages). This will cost everyone, gay or straight, a significant amount of cash in the long run. So the issue of morality aside, anyone can understand why someone would want to hold onto a little more of their hard earned living.
In response to JJ:
How does that make me a terrorist? None of the actions I mentioned are illegal, for procedures such as fertilization, Doctors have right of refusal if they have a valid reason, is the fact that I believe it is a sin not a good enough reason. We have rights to practice our religion and we are not bombing anyone we are simple Americans trying to keep our rights intact. Relating us to terrorists is not even close, we are not making anyone else give up their rights we are simply keeping the ones we already have.
In Response to Joanna Luse:
I don’t think it is fair to compare lowering the drinking age to gay marriage. I understand what you are saying that our nation was built with God playing an important role, but God created us all equally. We cannot discriminate based on someone sexual orientation, that is not fair or Christ-like at all. I just don’t see why you think denying the right of a couple to be happy is ridiculous. It is not our place to judge others actions.
Responding to Justin McClain:
I apologize if my statement came across as me calling you or anyone that supports your belief a terrorist; that is not what I meant. I was just trying to make a comparison on the fact that you said people were breaking anti-discrimination laws due to their religious beliefs.