Liberty and Reason Facing a Narrow Victory over Bigotry in Washington State

[Excrement_Cranium]

Gay-rights support stops at Cascades

Every county east of the Cascades rejected Referendum 71 — some by resounding margins.

The lopsided results over expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law, which voters overall were approving, show the challenge supporters of gay rights face in winning over all Washingtonians as they seek full equality.

The measure was capturing enough votes in 10 of the state's most populous counties to overcome rejection in the other 29, swaths that remain largely unfamiliar terrain to the gay-rights movement. They are Republican strongholds, counties with large numbers of blue-collar workers — and where opponents of Ref. 71 in recent weeks have staked new, strong claims.

Josh Friedes, campaign manager for Washington Families Standing Together, which worked to uphold the partnership law, said gaining ground in those parts of the state is a slow, steady process.

"The fact that we lost in many of those counties doesn't mean that we didn't improve our numbers or that people there are not thinking about this," he said.

"For many, this is a serious matter; it's about family and marriage and for many, religion. I think it takes time for people to move on this issue."

Passage of Ref. 71 would extend marriage-like state benefits to gay and some senior couples.



Full Story at The Seattle Times

Yesterday morning on local talk radio (my county rejected by 64%) the fundy whining was an age old "split the state" argument.

Again, nothing conservatives hate more than the rule of the people, what we like to call Democracy.

[El Comandante]

Nothing like a good old wedge issue to bring out the right wing. It's too bad they can't get excited about anything unless it involves stepping on gays or minorities.

[Signa]

LOL at the split. I don't know what to say about R71. I think its a step in the right direction, but it falls short, and doesn't do much for gays. I guess most of the stuff it covers can be granted through power of attorney. At least that is what my dad said, but he's not the one to listen to on matters like this. He's such a fucking homophobe.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I think it suffices just fine.

I don't believe in any state definition of marriage, period.

Marriage is a faith-based bond, something that should be handled and defined by the church.

Domestic or civil partnership is nothing more than the state view of marriage. It's a business style relationship between two people that helps legally define divisions of income and property in the event of a split, or death.

They called it the "everything but marriage" bill - well, yeah. It's legally everything but marriage. Anyone can get married - it's just the state recognition of the partnership that's been held back.

It honestly makes more sense to allow these partnerships for the tax payers than not allowing them.

Unfortunately, people let their social values override their sense and fiscal value.

[mountain_rage]

Originally Posted by Excrement_Cranium

Marriage is a faith-based bond, something that should be handled and defined by the church.

The whole idea that marriage is a faith based tradition is bull crap. Marriage is a social agreement, that predates religion. It is not exclusively religious, it can have religious attachments, but its a human tradition not of religion. People that are trying to deny homosexuals from using the term marriage are bigots, they just don't want to give homosexuals the same dignity as the rest of the world. At the depth these people shove their heads up their ass you would think they were gay.

[Signa]

Originally Posted by Excrement_Cranium

I think it suffices just fine.

I don't believe in any state definition of marriage, period.

Marriage is a faith-based bond, something that should be handled and defined by the church.

Domestic or civil partnership is nothing more than the state view of marriage. It's a business style relationship between two people that helps legally define divisions of income and property in the event of a split, or death.

They called it the "everything but marriage" bill - well, yeah. It's legally everything but marriage. Anyone can get married - it's just the state recognition of the partnership that's been held back.

It honestly makes more sense to allow these partnerships for the tax payers than not allowing them.

Unfortunately, people let their social values override their sense and fiscal value.

Well yeah, but according to my dad, gays can get all those rights through power of attorney. I'm really ignorant in most legal matters, so I have no idea what differences will be allowed between this act and PoA. What I do know is that what my dad told me made the bill sound useless to me. He's also against it, but for the wrong reasons. Then there's that radio show host guy I've been listening to, and he's opposed to it for some of the reasons I thought it sounded stupid.

As an aside, that guy is really fun to listen to, and he's the farthest thing from a homophobe. He rants constantly how gays aren't allowed to marry when he hears stories about straight couples who abuse marriage as if it's publicity stunt or a money-grab. Ironically, he's a lot like my dad in his ranting, but not completely retarded in his positions on matters.

[mountain_rage]

Originally Posted by Signa

Well yeah, but according to my dad, gays can get all those rights through power of attorney. I'm really ignorant in most legal matters, so I have no idea what differences will be allowed between this act and PoA. What I do know is that what my dad told me made the bill sound useless to me. He's also against it, but for the wrong reasons. Then there's that radio show host guy I've been listening to, and he's opposed to it for some of the reasons I thought it sounded stupid.

As an aside, that guy is really fun to listen to, and he's the farthest thing from a homophobe. He rants constantly how gays aren't allowed to marry when he hears stories about straight couples who abuse marriage as if it's publicity stunt or a money-grab. Ironically, he's a lot like my dad in his ranting, but not completely retarded in his positions on matters.

The only argument I ever heard about preventing gay people from marrying is that people think people will abuse it. Which people already can abuse it, and others believe in the "sanctity of marriage", which is another way of saying they are bigots. There really isn't any other way of explain the people who oppose the right for homosexuals to marry, and have it be called a marriage. They are just fear mongers, and think that it will turn society gay.

[don webb]

Originally Posted by Excrement_Cranium

Gay-rights support stops at Cascades

Again, nothing conservatives hate more than the rule of the people, what we like to call Democracy.

Well, all that really means is that all the “Butt Fuckers and Cock Suckers” live west of the Cascades?

“And the Majority” that just happens to live east of the cascades, have rejected Ref. 71 some by resounding margins.

And you whine because they do not agree with you and you dare say conservatives hate the “rule of people.”..

.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Originally Posted by don webb

Well, all that really means is that all the “Butt Fuckers and Cock Suckers” live west of the Cascades?

“And the Majority” that just happens to live east of the cascades, have rejected Ref. 71 some by resounding margins.

And you whine because they do not agree with you and you dare say conservatives hate the “rule of people.”..

.

Majority?

The reason it is passing is because the majority of the population of the state lives in those 10 counties on the West side of the state.

Electoral-style voting doesn't apply in state matters, popular vote does.

Now maybe if 100% of eastern counties rejected the measure, 100% in every county, they could actually pull the popular vote.

But they didn't, and they can't. Game over.

Though, thanks Don, for remaining consistent in illustrating your bigotry and ignorance. We always know you stand in the paste-eating crowd.


Now, on the social contract aspect of marriage: historically, it's been both. Though, during the dark ages in Europe the aspect of faith-based bonds took over. Marriages were held in villages, sometimes in secret.

This became a problem in - cue scary music - the event of death. Secret marriages that were faith based and not tracked by the state caused problems when men passed away, and they had legally unrecognized wives who staked claim to their property vs other relatives (predominately male) problems of whom property belonged to rose.

The state - at this time being feudal, or moving into monarchical rule - is inherently lazy, and tired of settling secret-marriage land disputes and such, and began enforcing state-recognized marriage.

Thus, in more urban areas, you had your clergy who were allowed to do state-sanctioned marriages etc.

Today you face some of the same, and then you have your justice-of-the-peace weddings.

Now, consider things like out of state or out of country marriages. I'll use a media-whore example: Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt - they had some tabloid exposure for a "fake marriage."

Well, for a person of faith, standing before a minister and exchanging vows is a spiritual contract. Not fake at all. However, if it's not "legal" then there is no legally binding contract, only one of faith.

Two sides of the same coin.

If you are to believe that God is the King on High, and you take vows before him, who really gives a shit about the law?

If you are an atheist, and you enter a legally binding contract, who gives a shit about what the bible-thumpers think?

Having the two bound together is an issue of convenience, not one of legitimacy.


*edit*

On the whole Conservative/Liberal, East/West division of Washington state: totally not for it.

As it is, conservative politics ruled by agricultural cash has stifled growth in my city for so long, that we already face a major brain-drain. For all of the colleges, universities, and technical institutes that exist even just in my conservative little county - up to 80% of educated people of my education have left the area. We draw from around the state and out-of-state for those educational institutions, but retain very little of the graduates.

The local hospitals, in fact, are loathe to hire graduates from my current program, because the MO for graduates is to get their 1 year in for licensing, and then to split for deeper waters.

Technical jobs don't really exist at all. The tech institute offers guaranteed job placement... further east in the state, where things are slightly more progressive, or in Portland, Oregon - or Seattle.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Ref. 71 lead appears insurmountable

After months of contentious battling over Referendum 71, Washington voters have approved the measure, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners. The vote tally to approve appears insurmountable.

Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, ending months of contentious battles over a state law that expands benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.

That means the law could be enacted in about a month, once the election is certified. Along with other marriagelike state benefits, it will allow registered couples to use sick leave to care for one another or to claim one another's death benefits.

The tally late Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve Referendum 71 leading about 52 percent to 48 percent.

That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.

"Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of lesbian and gay families and the challenges they faced and sent a strong message that we want to see all families treated equally under the law in our state," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which worked for the measure's approval.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rendum06m.html

[Mels_Smileys45]

The way straight America has treated the right of marriage it seems it would be taken away from some of them. Perhaps only allowing people to get married no mare than 3 times. The way some ladies are allowed to shit out kids to the point that they can not work and have to take care of their shit babies 24/7 you might think the right to keep pooping them out would be taken away from them as well.

Its hard for me to give an opinion about marriage because I do not understand it or condone it. IMO people were never meant to enter love as a business partnership and I also think its unnatural for people to stay attached to one man or woman forever. It can happen and actually I wish I could find a female that was good enough of a loyal friend that I could reach a life long loving bond but again, I do not think that is natural, normal or an expectation anyone should realistically expect.

I do have formal girlfriends that I still maintain a non sex friendship with but I think even that is out of the norm as I find few people believe it or understand. I would rather be good friends than fighting sex partners. But I am way off base to this thread...



The gays should be able to have the same rights that the hypocrites who enter their business partnership under the guise of marriage and its no ones business to tell them they can't be together just like all the other idiots out there in fantasy land.

Maybe the government should cut out any benefits they offer married people and then we can take it from there. Let them ( government fucksticks ) butt the Hell out of the civil rights of the people and stop trying to social engineer the people with benefits and taxes. Just my opinion...

[don webb]

Originally Posted by Excrement_Cranium

Majority?

Though, thanks Don, for remaining consistent in illustrating your bigotry and ignorance. We always know you stand in the paste-eating crowd.

Two sides of the same coin.

Yes the Majority!

Your reasoning is that the “Majority” who happen to live East of the Cascades are bigots and ignorant just because they don’t agree with the Butt Fuckers and the Cock Suckers West of the Cascades even though they have as much “right” to their vote?

“Two sides of the same coin”

That’s pretty much illustrating your own bigotry and ignorance?

Oh yeah, you are Welcome

.

[mountain_rage]

Originally Posted by don webb

Yes the Majority!

Your reasoning is that the “Majority” who happen to live East of the Cascades are bigots and ignorant just because they don’t agree with the Butt Fuckers and the Cock Suckers West of the Cascades even though they have as much “right” to their vote?

“Two sides of the same coin”

That’s pretty much illustrating your own bigotry and ignorance?

Oh yeah, you are Welcome

.

So its not just the homosexuals you have a problem with, its about 75% of the population now. Since you know most if not all women at one point in time are cock suckers, and well not sure how prevalent butt fucking is, but I'll assume its a high number. But your narrow mind won't accept that marriage has always been a social construct, with benefits given by the government and allocations made under the guise of marriage, so denying that right to any relationship is wrong. But you keep pushing your crazy ideals, it only hurts the party you praise.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Originally Posted by don webb

Yes the Majority!

Your reasoning is that the “Majority” who happen to live East of the Cascades are bigots and ignorant just because they don’t agree with the Butt Fuckers and the Cock Suckers West of the Cascades even though they have as much “right” to their vote?

“Two sides of the same coin”

That’s pretty much illustrating your own bigotry and ignorance?

Oh yeah, you are Welcome

.

Well, let's put it this way Donny boy; my county is east of the cascades, it's the second largest county in the state by land mass, and about 1/5th the size of King County on the West side by population.

So, when you say "majority" what the fuck are you talking about?

Most of the entire population of the state lives within those 10 counties ringing Puget Sound, that's just standing fact.

I guess they should have had Fox News doctor up some video to inflate the numbers, eh?

[don webb]

Originally Posted by mountain_rage

So its not just the homosexuals you have a problem with, its about 75% of the population now. Since you know most if not all women at one point in time are cock suckers, and well not sure how prevalent butt fucking is, but I'll assume its a high number. But your narrow mind won't accept that marriage has always been a social construct, with benefits given by the government and allocations made under the guise of marriage, so denying that right to any relationship is wrong. But you keep pushing your crazy ideals, it only hurts the party you praise.

I love how Liberals spin everything trying to make their point seem as though it’s lagitimate!

“In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, that refers to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality.”

Your assumtion that I have a problem with 75% of the population does not fit into the topic of the thread at all. By definition, I only have a problem with that “GAY” part of the population which is nowhere close to 75%.

Here’s the link for you so you fully understand..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

.