Washington: now serving up same sex marriages!!!

[Josh Oakley]

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!!!

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]

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]

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

• Inheritance and administration rights

• Burial, disposition, organ donation, autopsy, and wrongful death claim rights
• A domestic partner has testimonial privileges in court

• Community property and dissolution laws apply

• Domestic partners may sue on behalf of the community

• Domestic violence statutes apply

• Certain property transfers between partners are not taxed
• State veterans benefits apply
• Appointed and elected officials’ partners subjected to same laws as married officials’ spouses

Post-Referendum 71
Under state law, domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Some of the more notable changes include:

• Use of sick leave to care for a domestic partner
• Rights to injured partners’ wages and benefits and unpaid wages upon death of a partner
• Access to unemployment, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation coverage
• Access to insurance continuance rights after the death of a domestic partner
• Rights related to adoption, child custody and child support
• Business succession 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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.