Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

And a marriage is a contract between two people. If one wants out, they'll play that card. Still not banned from marrying though.

The same would be true if it was an open marriage and one wanted out, using the infidelity as an excuse.

 

Same goes for a divorce.

Your point?

 

I sure hope they are getting married for reasons other than financial. If that's all they are marrying for, is that really the type of couple society wishes to promote and have children? I think not.

Not at all. If a couple truly plans on having children, I would support an additional option that the family-to-be can ask for those financial rights, but that those rights will be striped away if they do not reproduce in a timely manner... consider what you will to be a "timely manner".

By properly rewarding those who DO have children, and NOT rewarding those who DON'T have children, we should be able to more effectively channel our resources to those who do have children. In theory, this should help those who are raising children MORE than just carpet-bombing every straight couple who asks for it with financial rights that everyone has to pay for.


And no, it doesn't take away "preference" for biological parents to rais their children... they automatically qualify still. What it does is ALSO provide support for those who adopt... or are you saying adopting is less noble and helpful to society than raising your own children, and that we should not encourage adoption?

never suggested this anywhere.

all the more reason to encourage it.

 

If it goes to a ballot and loses it will end up in court where the ballots will be tossed in favor of rights for all. Eventually the SCOTUS will hear the case and SSM will be legal in every state. This is another boon for all people and not just gays.

 

They are not afforded the same rights as marriage so it is different and therefore unjust. Thanks for sharing such an odd view of fair and equal.

 

Soooooo you want the incentives for couples to adopt and raise someone elses children, to be equal to those for biological parents to raise their own children. Like I said, you want to eliminate any preference for biological parents, because it offends the gays.

 

You cant even begin to comprehend. Never mind.

 

dixon, most people aren't for discriminating against people just because they are 'homosexual'; so a lot of things you say, aren't really going to be fully understood. Many do not want to go to where YOUR mind is.

 

Why wouldn't they?

The situation is the same regardless of whether or not they birthed the children themselves. They will need the same things in life, the same protections and responsibilities should be applied.

The sad thing is, you really do believe those children deserve less because they aren't with their biological parents. Don't you?

 

Platonic couples, heterosexual couples of the same sex, closely related couples and homosexual couples of the same sex are all excluded from marriage because they cant or shouldnt procreate. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual.

 

Because there are more children currently available for adoption than there are couples willing to adopt them and infinately more children born than could ever be adopted. And, of all the children born to sigle mothes, only a tiny fraction are ever adopted by anybody.

 

Not a thing you just posted has anything to do with why adoptive parents shouldn't have the same protections and benefits of biological parents.

 

Lol, fine. if that's the stand you want to take, so be it.

Let it be known, that I, JeffLV, would "eliminate the preference" of biological parents by providing those who adopt children the same rights. And apparently this is a bad thing.

Let is also be known, that (apparently) Dixon76710 wishes to strip all heterosexual couples who have adopted non-biological children of any rights they have obtained as a consequence of that adoption, because he wishes to maintain the preference for biological parents. And apparently this is a good thing.

You're (*)(*)(*)(*) right it does, and any other class of individual that should otherwise be able to adopt and be recognized and supported as a consequence of doing so.

I speak nothing against biological parents.... in a perfect world, that might be all we have, and I support any rights and privileges they get as a consequence of it in as far as it helps support the upbringing of the next generation. I simply support adoptees the same way.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... it doesn't sound to me like he doesn't want to give couples that adopt the same rights. He does. What he wants is to restrict those rights strictly to those who are married, and then restrict who can marry.

In so doing, this ensures that only those who SHOULD be raising children get the rights.

Like he said:

So this really doesn't come down to an argument about rights that should be granted to families of adoptees. It's about who should be able to adopt and raise children.

And I'm glad society has taken this seriously. Given that child molesters, axe murders, individuals with severe genetic abnormalities, and any other multitude of people that can't (or shouldn't) reproduce are all denied the right to marry, it's clear that society has established a strong connection between who can (or should) be able to reproduce and who can marry.

I mean really, Dixon is just cherry picking with his examples to try and establish this connection.

And I know of no evidence that suggests that gays (or other named types of couples) should not be able to adopt, as a class. Particularly when the alternative is to be raised as as a ward of the state. Any evidence I've seen only supports the idea that they can raise children just as well, or try to blow some statistical variance of .02% out of proportion.

 

The repeal effort is already underway in Wa.

After losing a historic vote in the state Senate, opponents of gay marriage are shifting their focus to placing a referendum on the ballot in November that would overturn the prospective same-sex marriage law.

They have until the beginning of July to collect 120,000 signatures of registered voters to get the referendum on the ballot.

And on Thursday, a leader of the effort said they just got a huge boost.

“Yesterday, there was a commitment of $1 million made to this campaign,” said Joe Fuiten, senior pastor of the Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell.

Fuiten is part of a coalition to overturn the likely gay marriage law. When asked who contributed the money, Fuiten said: “I’m not going to say, but it’s been committed.”

He acknowledged the money does come from out of state.

That makes it look very much like a replay of 2009, when Referendum 71 was on the ballot to overturn Washington’s final domestic partnership law.

But Fuiten thinks the chances of overturning a gay marriage law this year are better. “Marriage motivates people far more than domestic partnership does,” he said.

Supporters of gay marriage have been expecting a referendum effort, and have been organizing for several months. They have been bolstered by the voters’ support of domestic partnerships in 2009 and like their chances even better this year.

“Younger voters overwhelmingly support marriage equality, and they are much more likely to vote in presidential election years,” said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington.
Video here >>>>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ready-for-referendum-20120202,0,1921327.story

Washingtonians against gay marriage contact your reps here

http://www.nationformarriage.org/c....Action_Item/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx

Our government has done its job and its elected officials have spoken. now its time for the people to speak and we only need 120,577 sigs by June 6th to post pone any gay marriage till after November where it will be repealed....easy money but make sure you give your support

 

You cant even keep track of the topic of discussion

 

I just don't get the logic.

Yes the people have the right to vote on any law which is passed, but how come plain old democratic representation is fine for approximately 99.9% of all other legislation enacted... Yet this, something that has given same-sex couples the right to call their unions 'marriage', is somehow of great importance to voters? Even though a raise in taxes effects around 97% more people than this law ever could?!

I think submitting the rights of same-sex couples for a popular vote - when the law has already been approved by the people who were democratically elected - is crazy. SSM affects only a tiny portion of society, but in a way that ensures there's no "separate but equal" treatment under the law. SSM doesn't "change the definition of marriage for everyone" because unless you intend to marry a member of your own sex, your rights, your privileges and the definition of YOUR marriage is unaffected.

Besides that, Washington voters already approved the bulk of same sex marriage - the rights. This is over a name for crying out loud. It's hard to see how it won't pass... And if if does, it's hard to see how it won't go to court.

 

It's up to the people to decide what's important to them, and that's why they have to get the signatures to go through and put it on the ballot.

Nothing says people have to be rational.

 

I dont want to restrict marriage. It has already been so restricted in the US from 1776 to the 1990s. To the present in 43 states.Im the one arguing that there is nothing wrong with the restriction.
Adoption? A gay couple is no more better suited to raising adopted children than are ANY TWO CONSENTING adults, for instance the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children /grandchildren together for nearly a decade and the grnadmother is considering adopting the children. What possible justification could there be for government encouraging the adoption by gay couples above that of any two people?

 

And nothing says legislatures need to be rational.

 

Well, two incomes perhaps. In any event, I don't see anything wrong with a mother and grandmother also adopting. If there is no good reason to see this adoption as making the child any worse off than being raised as a ward of the state, then I'm all for it.

So basically, I'm not encouraging the government to give gays preference above any other two people. I'm just encouraging them to be allowed to adopt by their own merit, just as a mother and grandmother should be considered by their own merit.

I may argue for gay rights, but that doesn't imply that I'm arguing against the rights of others at the same time. The asexuals, bisexuals, non-sexuals, and mother-grandmothers can come too, by their own merit and similar situation to heterosexual couples.

 

Agreed, hence also why a referendum exists . Dear god, we agree on something!

 

The courts have the final say though. It's not like people can just impose something Unconstitutional by popular vote - see Romer Vs Evans. Rational basis test.

The 120,000 people required to bring this to ballot represent only ~3.5% of eligible voters in Washington State. Polls show support for this law being @ plurality and very nearly a majority, and those against are in the low 40s. But since that minority are forcing a vote, regardless of the true opinion of the public, if they can turn out more voters who feel more passionate about taking this right away, this law will get repealed. I remain hopeful that the voters will see sense though.

 

Correction, it's the process of amending the constitution that has the final say Even then, the process of changing the constitution has to be carried out according to the framework established by the constitution, which is reviewable by judges as well. But that depends on how the process works with the given constitution.

And the flaw of democracy... Effective democracy requires that people A: be rational and B: show up.

 

You're right, but of course that's not easily done. And then the power goes back to the legislators right?