# Washington: now serving up same sex marriages!!!



## Josh Oakley (Feb 2, 2012)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/01/state-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage/

It's about damn time!!!


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2012)

Holla!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2012)

Good.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 2, 2012)

Wait, I've been told that only activist judges acting against the clear will of the people have legalized gay marriage?

Good on them.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 2, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Wait, I've been told that only activist judges acting against the clear will of the people have legalized gay marriage?
> 
> Good on them.



And activist legislatures acting against the will of the governor. 

Good job, Washington.


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2012)

This is likely to be sent to the voters as a referendum in November.  While it will be signed by Governor Gregoire, the opponents of the bill will have no problem at all getting sufficient signatures to put this on a ballot for the voters to decide.  In other words, this was a major victory, but it's not over yet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2012)

The popular arguments fall into 2 camps:

1- This is too important for politicians to decide. So lets put it on the ballot and let the people decide. But only after we have time to get as many special interests and their money from out of state to fund it.

2- This is too complicated an issue to leave to the people who are easily swayed and vote on emotion not 'facts'. It should be handled by the politicians because that's what we elected them to do.


Which one you prefer tends to follow which one would give you your preferred outcome.

Of course, the people are stupid and the politicians for sale.

So that's where activist courts step in and refer to ugly and annoying things like the US Constitution which annoy the 'anti' folks, and the 'states rights' clauses which annoy the pro's.


Me, my reply on facebook was this:


> and we move closer to the Armageddon, a world where people are equal and  allowed to love and live regardless of obsolete dogma imposed  feltercarb. I predict gay nazi's will ride dinosaurs out of Mt. Ranier  and Mt. St. Helens as "God" shows his  displeasure.  Of course, if said gay nazi's fail to appear, I'd guess  the 'Almighty' falls more in the 'couldn't care less' area on the topic.   If He does, if he's really, really, really anti-gay, I demand he kill  me right now.  Right now!!!!!!  Smite Me! Smite Me!   Try not to take  out Fresno though deadeye.


This is of course a reference to the fact that since "Gay Marriage" first became a political issue in the US, despite the ramblings of loonitics abouts Haiti and tsunami's being signs of some cross eyed god with bad aim's displeasure, God has yet to actually show up and say anything on the topic. The fact that numerous countries and states have legalized it and the world hasn't ended. 


Here is my argument:
The US Constitution's Full Faith Clause (Article 4, Section 1)
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public  Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the  Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,  Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
​Marriage being a 'public record'. You need a 'state issued marriage license' to get married and have the protections it offers. 

As of June 2011, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 29 via the state's constitution. As a result they do not recognize the same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in the 9 US States and Territories that do (not counting CA which is in flux now)

This is in violation of A4S1 USC above, as well as Amend. 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States  respectively, or to the people.​
With more and more legally married gay couples seeking Federal recognition and the end to over taxation, denial of benefits and other discrimination, the isue will soon end up in front of the US Supreme Court who will have to decide the issue.  Ultimately, it will favor marriage equality. The world will not end. No irate 'god' will 'disfavor' the US. Life will go on as it has for thousands of years.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2012)

But what's next?  Polygamy?  Marriage to animals?  Marriage to inanimate objects?  

http://www.kmbc.com/r/30338965/detail.html

IT'S ALREADY STARTED!!!!  GAHHHHH

And to make it worse, it's a Gay Marriage because the warehouse is a girl!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2012)

Critic go on about the 'sanctity' of marriage.

Marriage is a civil -and- religious matter, however they are not 1 matter.

In the US to have a State Recognized Marriage, you need a license.
For this license to be valid you must meet certain requirements.
Once met, you have a limited time period to have someone authorized to marry you do so.
This person may be a judge, mayor, minister or other person so authorized by your jurisdiction. 
You'll note, only -1- of those has anything to do with religion. The rest are civic.
Once married, witnesses and the officiant sign the paperwork, mail it in and a few weeks later you get a nice piece of paper to file away somewhere.

The actual ceremony varies. The civic is very short, sometimes little more than showing up and signing the paperwork in front of the judge.

While I understand that some people have religious based issues with same-sex marriage, that is their business. 
Not mine.
If you are against gay marriage, if you are against inter-racial, or inter-faith marriage, the answer is simple: Don't do it.
But don't deny someone else a chance at happiness.

As to the sanctity and specialness, that's between the 2 people in the relationship.  I know that Zha Zha and Liz Taylor's gabillion marriages, Britney Spears  1 day, and the guy down the block's cheating ways, in no way shape or form somehow invalidate, negate, diminish or otherwise effect my own relationship with my wife. To think it does is simply put, moronic.

Worry about making your own relationship something special. Isn't that more important?

As for multi-partner issues:


> Wikipedia:[h=3]Polygyny[/h] Further information: Polygyny and Polygamy
> Religious groups have differing views on the legitimacy of polygyny, the practice of a man taking more than one wife. It is allowed in Islam and Confucianism, though in most areas today it is uncommon.[SUP][101][/SUP][SUP][102][/SUP] Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism have allowed polygny in the past, but it is prohibited by their mainstream modern authorities.[SUP][101][/SUP]


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2012)

I hope it's clear that I was posting tongue in cheek.  If not, I'll say it outright: "I was posting tongue in cheek."  

I just didn't think that this thread merited an entire rehash of our positions on the subject.  I thought we'd all thoroughly vetted the matter and were pretty comfortable with where everyone stood on the issues.

In the event that I'm wrong, my position in brief is that I think the government should largely recuse itself from the marriage issue beyond, perhaps recording the event for next of kin purposes.  As a result, if a person wants to marry another person, gender doesn't really matter to me and I will likely vote in favor of gay marriage in November.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> I hope it's clear that I was posting tongue in cheek.  If not, I'll say it outright: "I was posting tongue in cheek."
> 
> I just didn't think that this thread merited an entire rehash of our positions on the subject.  I thought we'd all thoroughly vetted the matter and were pretty comfortable with where everyone stood on the issues.
> 
> In the event that I'm wrong, my position in brief is that I think the government should largely recuse itself from the marriage issue beyond, perhaps recording the event for next of kin purposes.  As a result, if a person wants to marry another person, gender doesn't really matter to me and I will likely vote in favor of gay marriage in November.



I blame it on too much blood in the coffee system that I didn't get it at first...
Oh well, it was a good PR stunt, hopefully a better party.

Before they tear down the old building and put up those apartments...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2012)

Naw, I got it.  Was mostly expanding my earlier bit.


----------



## Brian King (Feb 2, 2012)

LOL, Heard the bride ehh groom errr occupier on the radio talking about her gay marriage to the warehouse. Glad that they were able to find someone to marry them. The warehouse was able to say yes to the vows by other occupiers holding up a yes sign and at no time during the ceremony did they ask if anyone objects. It is important that people be allowed to be happy and marry whoever or whatever they love and anybody that laughs or objects is bigoted, ignorant and bad.

Washington State already has extremely liberal civil union/domestic partner laws on the books. As I understand it, currently there is no difference in states benefits or rights between those in a civil union and those married, other than civil unions are performed at courthouses and some churches but not all churches. As I see this, this is a political fight being in order to rally lagging support in a blue state by a lame duck governor whose leadership has been very weak during her entire term. I see this as a freedom of religion fight not a gay rights fight. 

One aspect that I do find interesting regards the Referendum 71 fight. Washington State has a referendum process where by some laws passed by the houses and signed into law by the governor can be challenged by letting the people vote. The petition has to be signed by a certain large percentage of the population, the signatures have to verified by the state and this all has to happen in a very short amount of time. It is a complicated and difficult system. There have not been that many times in our states history that this has been used either successfully or unsuccessfully. The state passed and signed into law the domestic partners law and it was challenged in what became referendum 71. The referendum failed and the law stands. That was not enough for some groups of gay activists. They then sued to have the names and addresses of those citizens that signed referendum 71 made public. After much back and forth the judge agreed with them and now for the first time in our states history the names and addresses of people that sign a petition are public record. Despite the fact that some gay activist groups had stated that they will be using the lists of names to protest and boycott those names that are associated with businesses and business leaders, despite that those same groups saying that they want to use the list of petition names and addresses to target educational contacts with private citizens. I am sure that this lawsuit was not intended to silence or intimidate future opposition to the gay lobby and I am equally sure that the upcoming political discourse will be civil, fair, and peaceful and that the shouting and trying to circumvent or silence opposition seen in the past will be a thing of the past.  LOL   

While I do not understand the desire to marry a warehouse, nor do I understand what makes this marriage gay, it is their life and their terms so whatever, anyway glad the warehouse and the activist were allowed to complete their 'gay marriage'. I hope that they both live a long and happy life...except that the warehouse has already been partially demolished and scheduled for further demolition to make way for an apartment complex. Will that make her widow or will the marriage morph from warehouse to apartment complex? if it morphs to the apartment complex will that mean that she is also married to the people that will be living there? What about the pets that will be living there- will they also now be married? Oh well, the bride has the right, she is in love and no-one has the right to consider that abnormal or stand in her way.

Rolling my eyes at the politics and hysterics but seeing the danger that some are putting the system into in order to advance their agenda's. They are being shortsighted in my opinion but no matter...it is interesting and will lead to interesting times.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Carol (Feb 2, 2012)

Brian King said:


> LOL, Heard the bride ehh groom errr occupier on the radio talking about her gay marriage to the warehouse. Glad that they were able to find someone to marry them. The warehouse was able to say yes to the vows by other occupiers holding up a yes sign and at no time during the ceremony did they ask if anyone objects. It is important that people be allowed to be happy and marry whoever or whatever they love and anybody that laughs or objects is bigoted, ignorant and bad.
> 
> Washington State already has extremely liberal civil union/domestic partner laws on the books. As I understand it, currently there is no difference in states benefits or rights between those in a civil union and those married, other than civil unions are performed at courthouses and some churches but not all churches. As I see this, this is a political fight being in order to rally lagging support in a blue state by a lame duck governor whose leadership has been very weak during her entire term. I see this as a freedom of religion fight not a gay rights fight.
> 
> ...



Actually there is a difference.

NH determined that by solumizing their civil unions in to marriages, the move would reduce state-level expenditures for means-tested benefits. Spouses are obligated to provide for one another&#8217;s basic needs. After marrying, a same-sex spouse&#8217;s income and assets will be included in assessing an individual&#8217;s eligibility for
means-tested public benefits, reducing the number of people eligible for such benefits.   Even taking in to account that some couples will still qualify even if married, and other couples will deliberately not marry in order to receive the higher benefit rates as two individuals.

Unfortunately despite the fact that gay marriage is supported by the majority of NH citizens, at least according to UNH polls, there's a bill before our House to repeal gay marriage that will go to a vote later this month.   As an interesting side note, NH has a very strong libertarian community and a civilian legislature -- some of the libertarians representatives have introduced a counter-proposal to dissolve all marriages in to civil unions.


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2012)

The real danger, as I see it, is the ratification of discrimination that is occurring in states that are "protecting the sanctity of marriage."   Americans are encouraged to discriminate.  The way it's set up is that we are actually free to discriminate based upon just about any criteria we choose, except for some very specific categories: race, religion, gender, etc.  In other words, we can discriminate UNLESS we are discriminating based upon a protected category.

To date, however, we are not REQUIRED to discriminate based upon a specific category.  Passing laws such as the "Defense of Marriage" bills that some States are passing, is the first time that I'm aware of where we are legally bound to discriminate based upon a special category, and the implications of this are very disturbing to me.

In other words, right now, we have laws saying, "You can't discriminate based upon race, so refusing to hire someone because he's black is against the law."  But we don't have any laws saying, "You MUST discriminate based upon race.  You are not allowed to hire someone if he's black."  These bills are essentially saying the latter.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 2, 2012)

I thought I posted on this last night (or very early this morning.)  To reprise:

Go Washington!

And I am looking forward to seeing how many wedding invites we get this year, I sort of thought my wife and I were past that stage where you have to hit multiple weddings annually. 

Lamont


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Blindside said:


> I thought I posted on this last night (or very early this morning.)  To reprise:
> 
> Go Washington!
> 
> ...





well, when that passes, there will be a back log. And I hear those same sex couples can throw really good parties! 

(I know, stereotype...)


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> This is likely to be sent to the voters as a referendum in November.  While it will be signed by Governor Gregoire, the opponents of the bill will have no problem at all getting sufficient signatures to put this on a ballot for the voters to decide.  In other words, this was a major victory, but it's not over yet.



We'll treated it just like we did the law on domestic partnerships. People will raise a stink, then we'll pass it anyway by a vast majority.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm gonna have to polish up my moves, don't want to be embarrassed on the dance floor.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 2, 2012)

cdunn said:


> And activist legislatures acting against the will of the governor.
> 
> Good job, Washington.



Let's not forget those damn activist citizens acting against the will of.... Jesus?

Meh. MARRIAGE FOR HOMO's!!! YEAH!!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> But what's next?  Polygamy?  Marriage to animals?  Marriage to inanimate objects?
> 
> http://www.kmbc.com/r/30338965/detail.html
> 
> ...



To show how we handle the wierdos in Seattle:

"Nonetheless, demolition on the building began ahead of schedule, starting last Friday."
​Let her marry the building! LOL! She can renew her vows to the rubble afterwords!


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> To show how we handle the wierdos in Seattle:
> 
> "Nonetheless, demolition on the building began ahead of schedule, starting last Friday."
> ​Let her marry the building! LOL! She can renew her vows to the rubble afterwords!


Damned hippy!


----------



## Brian King (Feb 3, 2012)

*Carol Wrote;*


> Actually there is a difference.




Difference in what?




> NH determined that by solumizing their civil unions in to marriages, the move would reduce state-level expenditures for means-tested benefits. Spouses are obligated to provide for one anothers basic needs. After marrying, a same-sex spouses income and assets will be included in assessing an individuals eligibility for
> means-tested public benefits, reducing the number of people eligible for such benefits. Even taking in to account that some couples will still qualify even if married, and other couples will deliberately not marry in order to receive the higher benefit rates as two individuals.




Gah, just finished a 12 hour+ day and my head is foggy. I have as much chance understanding what was written above as I do when Tez goes all colloquial on us. Sounds like NH is changing their civil unions to marriages as the state provided benefits are different? In Washington the benefits are the same whether married or domestic partners, so not sure what the point was supposed to be?


Domestic partnership in Washington State info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington


> Similar to Californias incremental approach with its domestic partnership laws, the Washington Legislature has expanded the scope of partnerships. On March 4, 2008, lawmakers approved adding over 170 rights and responsibilities to domestic partnerships


 /snip


> Everything but marriage Again like California, lawmakers continued to extend the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners. Legislation introduced on January 28, 2009 intended to provide everything but marriage to domestic partners


 /snip


> The legislation cleared the Senate on March 10, 2009 and the House on April 15, 2009. Governor Gregoire signed it into law on May 18, 2009.





> After 2008s expanded domestic partnership law took effect, some of the domestic partners benefits and responsibilities include:
> 
> Visitation, health care decision-making, and information-access rights
> 
> ...


The rights of domestic partners is quite extensive as seen from the partial list above, but does not include the word marriage. The new law will change the definition of marriage despite the gay lobby saying it will not.


*Josh Oakley wrote:*


> People will raise a stink, then we'll pass it anyway by a vast majority.




Your idea of vast majority is different than mine.
Referendum 71 results from 2009 
951,822 yes vs 838.432 no
7 counties yes vs 32 counties no
It was indeed a majority I think nearly 6%, so the law stood as passed and the system worked. But if you look at a map of the results you will see that as many of the controversial votes in our state go, it was divided East vs West with the city of Seattle and King county again providing the difference between yes and no.


I remember referendum 71 well because of the fight to make those names and addresses of the petition signers public information. The case went to the US Supreme Court and was decided 8-1 in favor of making the names and addresses public. This not only set a new precedent in our state but will set the precedent in all other states that give their citizens the right to address bad laws enacted by legislators by petitioning and then voting as a citizenry. The very fact that people now know that their names and addresses will be public cannot help but to intimidate some and keep them from signing petitions. This will make a difficult process even more difficult and in my opinion removes a valuable citizens tool to redress government. It is ok as the vote and results were PC...this time. The process had made a huge difference in our states rights and the methods of legislating in the past. Often just the petition or the threat of a popular referendum was enough to cause both Republican (way back when we had some of those in our government) and Democrats back off of and moderate controversial laws. It will be interesting to see if this tool (referendums) will still be viable and useful in our and in other states legislative processes or if it is now and forever lost to us.


Regards
Brian King


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 7, 2012)

BTW, I would like to thank whoever it was that gave me a negative rep for posting the article. I've never had a negative rep before and if I'm going to get a negative rep, It may as well be for something I am passionate about. Thank, anonymous hater! You made my day!


----------



## Steve (Feb 7, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> BTW, I would like to thank whoever it was that gave me a negative rep for posting the article. I've never had a negative rep before and if I'm going to get a negative rep, It may as well be for something I am passionate about. Thank, anonymous hater! You made my day!


Happens to us all, eventually.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 7, 2012)

Negative rep without a signer make me laugh.    They hate so much what I had to say they negative rep, but are so firm behind thier beliefs that they won't sign thier name...or they are just kinda cowardly   Either was I just shake my head and laugh.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 7, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Negative rep without a signer make me laugh.    They hate so much what I had to say they negative rep, but are so firm behind thier beliefs that they won't sign thier name...or they are just kinda cowardly   Either was I just shake my head and laugh.



True story. I just saw I got another unsigned negative rep saying, "stop crying about your rep. What are you, two?" And I had to laugh even harder! I don't really care incredibly much about some green bars under my name. My reputation and my rep points are different matters entirely!

So here's something else to hate on! Prop 8 was just ruled unconstitutional! Now the gays can marry again in California! 

Yeah, sucka!
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> True story. I just saw I got another unsigned negative rep saying, "stop crying about your rep. What are you, two?" And I had to laugh even harder! I don't really care incredibly much about some green bars under my name. My reputation and my rep points are different matters entirely!
> 
> So here's something else to hate on! Prop 8 was just ruled unconstitutional! Now the gays can marry again in California!
> 
> ...



Yeah sorry that was me.  For someone who doesn't care you sure are crying about it a lot like a two year old.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 7, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah sorry that was me.  For someone who doesn't care you sure are crying about it a lot like a two year old.



You say crying, I say laughing. No bigger to me. Just as long as you understand that when you fly up to Washington to gay marry me, I expect to come home to beer and a good damn sandwich. 

And NO mayonaise. None. Or ya git da back of me hand!

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Last Legionary (Feb 8, 2012)

If I had a dollar for everyone who felt the need to complain about a little rep ding, I could buy them all clean panties to replace the ones that they have now that are all knotted up.  Really, you mentioned it. It bugged you. Pull the floss out of your vagoo and give your boys room to drop already. Or does the opinion of random anonymous people really have that much impact in your ego and all that?

Gay marriage. Who the **** cares? Are you so insecure that what other people you don't know somehow lessens what you do? Do you worry that some pimple popper at a burger joint might be getting better sex than you? No? Do you worry that guy on the other side of town has more money than you? No? Then why bother worrying if some turd burgler or carpet muncher is ****ing happier than you? 
Worry about your own relationships already.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go wax some walnut and play with some knotty pine!  Who wants a shrubbery! Who. Wants. A. Shrubbery!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2012)

Josh, Josh Josh... If I were gonna "Gay Marry" someone, I'd actually marry a Man.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

*Enough kids.


Everyone complaining about rep, or taking shots at each other, pick a separate corner and don't come out until you're told.

Sheesh.


Closed.*


----------

