Senate Bill 6239 would legalize same-sex marriage in Washngton state. The bill was recently introduced with 23 sponsoring senators. It needs 25 votes to pass.
Today it just got one vote closer to passage (via KIRO):
Sen. Jim Kastama of Puyallup announced his decision Thursday, becoming the 24th senator to commit their vote to the measure. The chamber now needs to just one more yes vote from a group of a half-dozen uncommitted votes that remain.
Earlier today, the Washington State Catholic Conference came out against same-sex marriage. The reason they give is laughable:
This same law also prohibits marriage to close-blood relations, a clear indication that the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest.
Horseshit.
What the bill actually does (see Section 3) is modify the incest laws by striking phrases like “husband and wife” and replacing them with “spouses”. For example:
When the ((
husband and wife)) spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins…
and
It is unlawful for any ((
man to marry his father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son)) person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.
Update: I misinterpreted what was being claimed, and have marked up what follows:
Clearly, what the bill does is just the opposite of what the Washington State Catholic Conference claims. Rather than adding proscriptions against incest that may result in inbred children, the law modifies to modify extant incest laws to make them apply to same-sex marriages as well.
But do the laws on the book actually refer only to relationships that are for procreation? I don’t think so. The incest laws apply equally to incestuous marriages in which one partner is sterile or in which the female partner is of a post-reproductive age. If a brother and sister marriage is a “moral shock,” is it any less of a shock to learn that he had had a vasectomy?
What about a post-menopausal mother marrying her son or grandson? Remember the priest in Harold and Maude? “I would be remiss in my duty, if I did not tell you, that the idea of… intercourse – your firm, young… body… comingling with… withered flesh… sagging breasts… flabby b-b-buttocks… makes me want… to vomit.”
Shocking? Yes. About procreation? no.
Clearly, there is something about our laws against incest that goes beyond mere inbreeding avoidance.
What a bunch of lying uptight assholes!
I’m not seeing where they are lying. I don’t support the Washington State Catholic Conference, but thinking they are wrong and thinking they are lying are two different matters.
The current law places restrictions on marrying close blood relatives. The Washington State Catholic Conference claims this is because marriage is about procreation. They are grasping at straws to come up with a reason to oppose same sex marriage that isn’t obviously a law based on (their) religion.
notrouble @ 1,
You’re right…they were referring to the current law, not the legislation. I’ll update the post.
The idea of the Catholic Church being a moral arbiter of what constitutes acceptable consensual relationships, when they covered up – including in our state – for decades of buggering pedophiliac priests, is just laughable.
The above is just plain weak.
photography tumblr rings