Possible gay marriage vote Washington(The State)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-votes-pass-washington-state-015509909.html

OLYMPIA, Wash (Reuters) - A bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington now has enough votes to pass the state legislature, a lawmaker who sponsored the measure said on Monday, as the state moved closer to becoming the nation's seventh to legalize same-sex unions.
Democratic Sen. Ed Murray said supporters had secured the 25 votes needed in the state Senate to pass the bipartisan measure, which is being debated in a legislative committee and will likely come to a final vote next month.
Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, announced earlier this month that she would support the legislation, while the state House version already has enough votes to pass.
"I'm hopeful we'll pick up even more (votes) now," Murray said, referring to the handful of lawmakers who remain officially undecided. "I would like to get to 27 or higher." The state Senate has 49 members.
Opponents of same-sex marriage now plan to put the issue before voters, asking them to reaffirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
To qualify for the November ballot, the measure must collect at least 241,153 signatures of registered voters by July 6.
"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.
Murray said the bill's supporters are prepared for a referendum, although he hoped it would not come down to a public vote.
"It will be difficult, there's no doubt about it, but I'm confident that the state is now with us on this issue -- that on the issue of marriage equality we are now the mainstream," he said.
Opponents of gay marriage said they plan to spend $250,000 to fund primary challenges against the Republican lawmakers who vote in favor of gay marriage.
More than 40 U.S. states have outlawed same-sex marriages, while six states explicitly allow it: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. Gay marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia.
Polls show sharp national division on same-sex marriage, and the issue is still divisive in Washington state, which tends to be split between a liberal coast, including Seattle, and a more conservative inland.
Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have officially endorsed the legislation.
"We believe that passing this bill would be good for our business and good for the state's economy," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith wrote in a blog post last week.
More than 100 people testified before the Senate and House committee hearings Monday, each allotted one minute to express impassioned views for or against the proposed legislation.
"Allow me the right to marry the person who has agreed to stand by me, by my side, no matter what, until death do us part," said Sgt. Pablo Monroy, 23, a Navy veteran from Tacoma who now serves in the National Guard.
More than a dozen couples in the room raised their hands when asked who else planned to wed after same-sex marriage is legalized. They included Murray, Rep. Jaime Pederson, the bill's sponsor in the house, and Rep. Laurie Jinkins.

Now im a bleeding heart liberal0. So i hope this passes. I in all honesty cant see how gay marriage hurts anyone or threatens families in anyway

**Frazzled**

Democracy at work.

Unlike the rule of judges.

**frgsinwntr**

Sounds good!

Frazzled wrote:Democracy at work. Unlike the rule of judges I disagree with

Fixed that for you.

**Frazzled**

frgsinwntr wrote:Sounds good!

Frazzled wrote:Democracy at work. Unlike the rule of judges who are not followers of the Great Wiener Dog

Fixed that for you.

Refixed it for you.

**Mannahnin**

We did it here, too. Still have bigots trying to reverse it.

**biccat**

"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.

Er...what? If it belongs to the people then it most certainly belongs to the legislature.

I generally support popular referendums, so I've got no problem with putting this to a vote of the people at large, if there's enough interest to put it to a vote.

Hopefully we won't see a return to the hate and bigotry of the left. See e.g. California Prop. 8.

**Pacific**

Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?

Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.

Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

**biccat**

Pacific wrote:Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right.

Bwah?

You really need to learn your history. Really.

Pacific wrote:As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.

And as far as I know, you don't get too many Republicans asking for the right to murder their children. But this thread isn't about abortion.

Pacific wrote:Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

They also oppress free speech and freedom of religious expression.

Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."

**Howard A Treesong**

biccat wrote:
Pacific wrote:Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

They also oppress free speech and freedom of religious expression.

Although if you're OK with this type of thing, I'm sure you wouldn't see it as "bigotry and lack of tolerance for others' beliefs."

They oppress the right of those who would propagate discrimination certainly.

The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like. But they do 'oppress', if it's appropriate to use that term here, those people trying to enforce inequality upon society. How can it be reasonable to argue a lack of tolerance for their beliefs, when their beliefs are deeply prejudiced. You don't see many people getting bent out of shape because neo-nazis can't go around with the freedom to spew as much racist hate as they can. Are they being oppressed by laws that give race equality?

If allowing gay marriage is a "lack of tolerance for religious beliefs" then feth them. Their beliefs do not trump the rights of others to equality.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:
"The institution of marriage does not belong to the legislature, it belongs to the people," said Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, an organization affiliated with Focus on the Family.

Er...what? If it belongs to the people then it most certainly belongs to the legislature.

What he's trying to say is that "We shouldn't legislate marriage unless I agree with the outcome."

**Frazzled**

Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?

Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.

Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.

Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.

**Melissia**

Can we stop using nebulous, inaccurate terms like "the left"?

Next you'll see someone come along and say "all [conservatives / right wingers / everyone I disagree with] are homophobic gaybashers".

Frazzled wrote:Republicans ended slavery

The republican party was... different back then.

It has changed drastically since then and not, in my view, necessarily for the better. For one, big business (And this applies to both parties) has them in their pocket basically. If you had Ronald Reagan running for office in modern times for example, the Republican party would be bashing, flaming, and throwing about accusations of socialism and crying out against just about everything he stood for. It has changed quite a bit, which many people like, but I certainly don't.

**frgsinwntr**

biccat wrote:

Bwah?
You really need to learn your history. Really.

[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots this is a good read too

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:What he's trying to say is that "We shouldn't legislate marriage unless I agree with the outcome."

Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?

Melissia wrote:The republican party was... different back then.

What Melissia is saying here is that the Republican party was full of the good guys back when they did good things. But those good guys would be Democrats today.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like.

...as long as it's acceptable.

I take the position that offensive speech is more deserving of protection than non-offensive speech.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote: For one, big business (And this applies to both parties) has them in their pocket basically. .

Who do you think is paying those $80 grand tickets at Obama dinners?
The majority of "evil" Bain's contributions have gone to the Democratic Party.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:
biccat wrote:

Bwah?
You really need to learn your history. Really.

[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots this is a good read too

Blah blah. This is a much better read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?

The gay marriage proponents want to legalize gay marriage. If that means going through the courts, they'll do that, if that means going through referendums or other legislative means, then they'll do that. When they lost battles, they took the battle to a different place, still arguing their only goal was to allow for gay marriage. Fighting tooth and nail for the right to marry like this is quite consistent.

But the section you quoted, on the other hand, was essentially the moanings of a sore loser who was trying to save face by directly contradicting their earlier actions.

So basically they're saying "what we did earlier was wrong."

biccat wrote:What Melissia is saying here is that the Republican party was full of the good guys back when they did good things.

No, I'm saying it was different. which is an undeniable fact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Who do you think is paying those $80 grand tickets at Obama dinners?
The majority of "evil" Bain's contributions have gone to the Democratic Party.

Obama at least got more from the common person than his opponents did with his internet campaign, but suffice it to say (in case you didn't actually bother reading) I already said that:

Melissia wrote:(And this applies to both parties)

**Frazzled**

Internet contributions were anonymous, so you have no clue who actually paid them. Could have been Trump for all we know.

Edit: I like how this thread died almost immediately.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Internet contributions were anonymous, so you have no clue who actually paid them. Could have been Trump for all we know.

It's still more information than we know about super PACs.

**Howard A Treesong**

biccat wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:The left support free speech and religious expression, but not as far as allowing racism and homophobia. The left don't oppress free speech, you can say and write almost anything you like.

...as long as it's acceptable.

I take the position that offensive speech is more deserving of protection than non-offensive speech.

Specifically what sorts of things are you not allowed to say? You are not allowed to incite crime and violence, in some parts of Europe you cannot display the swastika. I think you are overstating the 'oppression' here, the left do not support censorship. 'Hate speech' is a rarely used prosecution that covers only the most extreme cases in which people incite racial hatred, such as from muslim extremists. And I think you'll find that the right are more than happy to take action against these people. Even then the topic is strongly debated with people concerned about damaging free speech when trying to tackle extremists. Saying "the left want to oppress religious views" is just wrongheaded.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Isn't that the point that the pro-gay marriage side is making as well?
The gay marriage proponents want to legalize gay marriage. If that means going through the courts, they'll do that, if that means going through referendums or other legislative means, then they'll do that. When they lost battles, they took the battle to a different place, still arguing their only goal was to allow for gay marriage. Fighting tooth and nail for the right to marry like this is quite consistent.

I have a problem with the "by any means necessary" approach to any issue. I especially have a problem with the judicial branch determining social issues and trying to legislate. This was particularly apparent in Iowa where, after determining that there was a right to gay marriage (insert huge caveat here), all of the justices up for confirmation were removed from the bench.

Melissia wrote:But the section you quoted, on the other hand, was essentially the moanings of a sore loser who was trying to save face by directly contradicting their earlier actions.

I think a good case can be made that the legislature, at least on this issue, may not be representative of the desires of the people. Every time the issue has been put to popular vote, gay marriage has not fared well.

There are a lot of areas where I don't think popular referendums are effective because sometimes legislators do have to make bad choices. Marriage, however, is a purely social issue that has very little consequence beyond social interaction. So I think popular referendums (direct democracy, ugh) are the way to go.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Specifically what sorts of things are you not allowed to say?

I'll juse leave this here.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Internet contributions were anonymous, so you have no clue who actually paid them. Could have been Trump for all we know.
It's still more information than we know about super PACs.

Mmmm..no. But thats ok. keep thinking Oabam is able to raise $1.0Bn from OWS protestors or whatever nonsense you believe. Just like some Republican can believe everything they get is from hard working small business that never plays the tax game.

But to the topic: again democracy in action.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?

Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.

Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.

Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.

The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.

When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.

**Howard A Treesong**

biccat wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Specifically what sorts of things are you not allowed to say?

I'll juse leave this here.

Hang on, I though the left wingers were trying to oppress religious viewpoints. Here we have someone absurdly prosecuted for insulting the bible. The "traditionally Catholic country" bit should be a clue that this sort of stupidity is led by the conservative elements, not the left... The left would, or should be opposed to this sort of legislation.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Pacific wrote:Do you live in some kind of weird, parallel universe biccat?

Historically, bigotry and a lack of tolerance for other's beliefs has been associated with the right. As far as I know, you don't get too many Democrats stood outside of Abortion clinics denying women rights over their own bodies, and it would be the same again with this situation.

Case in point, same-sex marriages have been legal for more than a decade in most of Western Europe, the governments of these countries are generally regarded as being left wing compared to their Eastern European counterparts (or the US for that matter) where same sex marriages generally aren't permitted.

Republicans ended slavery
Republicans managed to get eneacted the seminal Amendments to the Constitution [prohibiting slavery, all incidents and badges thereof, and insuring the right to vote.
Republicans were the Congress members that brought you the Civil Rights Act.

Lack of tolerance? Who enacts speech codes? Who is intolerant of people practicing their faith?
Your very statement belies your lack of understanding.

The leaning of both major parties has changed during the course of history.

When formed before the Civil War, the Republican Party was regarded as quite a radical group compared to the Democrats.

You missed the one about the Civil Rights Act, and how the only known US Senator who was a KKK Grand Dragon was a Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

**Howard A Treesong**

The republicans aren't what they were 30 years ago let alone back in the times of slavery.

**Frazzled**

Howard A Treesong wrote:The republicans aren't what they were 30 years ago let alone back in the times of slavery.

Duh. Neither are the Democrats. neither is the Greens Party, nor the American Communist Party, nor the Libertarians. Ok, maybe the Libertarians still are.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:I especially have a problem with the judicial branch determining social issues and trying to legislate.

The Judicial branch can't legislate. They interpret what is already legislated. If what has been legislated is insufficient for the case being considered, they temporarily make case law until the gap is filled by the actual legislative action-- which is why people get legislature to try to close up loopholes, not judges.

Which leads to many people getting upset cause this constitution thing keeps getting in the way of legislation they like.

biccat wrote:I think a good case can be made that the legislature, at least on this issue, may not be representative of the desires of the people. Every time the issue has been put to popular vote, gay marriage has not fared well.

Quite a few polls have shown that fewer people are in favor of outlawing gay marriage than are okay with it being legal.

However, homophobes are a minority that is quite easy to rouse in to political action, so they are overrepresented in referendums. So effectively the democratic process has failed. That's okay though, we're a three-body republic, not a democracy. There are, and have always been, other ways to get things done than merely through referendums.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:The Judicial branch can't legislate. They interpret what is already legislated.

That's what you think.

In Massachusettes the Judicial branch told the legislature what to do. In Iowa the judiciary declared the Iowa marriage law unconstitutional but ordered marriages to continue with the same-sex modification.

These are just examples in the area of marriage. There are plenty of cases where judges have ordered appropriations from legislatures (usually in school related cases) or other relief.

Melissia wrote:Which leads to many people getting upset cause this constitution thing keeps getting in the way of legislation they like.

Yup. See, e.g., Prop. 8 in California.

Melissia wrote:Quite a few polls have shown that fewer people are in favor of outlawing gay marriage than are okay with it being legal.

Which, even if true, isn't the choice we're given.

Melissia wrote:However, homophobes are a minority that is quite easy to rouse in to political action, so they are overrepresented in referendums. So effectively the democratic process has failed. That's okay though, we're a three-body republic, not a democracy. There are, and have always been, other ways to get things done than merely through referendums.

First, the use of hate rhetoric is amusing, but really unfounded and unnecessary.

Second, you're assuming polls are indicative of the popular sentiment and giving them more legitimacy than election results. I don't think this is necessarily true.

And third, I take major exception to your argument that when the democratic/republic process doesn't work that it's appropriate to seek "other ways to get things done." If you want to effect legal change you should play by the rules.

Then again, you've clearly expressed in the past that you believe in the "by any means necessary" approach to achieving political aims that you support. So I'm not terribly surprised by your support for it here.

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded

No, it's not.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:the use of hate rhetoric is [...] really unfounded
No, it's not.

Yes it, in fact is. Utilizing the pattern and practice of declaring everyone who disagrees with you as racist, homophobic, or whatever "ist" is not only lame and tiresome, but shows you can't support your issue properly. Or to use a Melissianism, people who slag on the opinions of breeders are just heterophobes. Don't be a hata, support your local breeder.