The state’s new domestic partnership law, which went into effect Sunday, gives gay and lesbian couples some of the rights granted to married couples, including the right to visit a partner in the hospital, inherit a partner’s property without a will and make funeral arrangements.
To qualify, the couples must file an affidavit of domestic partnership with the Secretary of State’s Office. The state then gives them a certificate with a state seal, and plastic cards that say “State registered domestic partnership” and lists their names. On the back it cites the chapter where the law can be viewed.
But not everybody is happy:
Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network, a Christian political organization, said last week that his group has no plans to demonstrate today, but that doesn’t mean it approves of the new law.
“I’m disappointed, and I don’t think it should be happening,” said Randall, who considers the law a steppingstone to gay marriage. “I think it deteriorates society. Over time it takes away from what is the most important cornerstone of society, and that’s marriage between a man and woman.”
Notice how Gary doesn’t approve of the law, but he isn’t sending in the anti-gay shock troops just yet. You see, normal people (even many conservatives!) think that there is nothing overtly weird about a person visiting a loved one in the hospital, even if they are both of the same sex. Gary knows he’s on the wrong side of public opinion, so he’s doing his best to tie domestic partnerships to something not as popular: gay marriage. He knows fighting this law is a loser for his side, so he’s keeping his powder dry.
So Gary is reduced to getting the second quote in newspaper articles like this one. In the future, I hope for his sake that he can manage a less limp-dicked response than “I don’t think it should be happening.”
On a similar note, comedian Louis CK has a bit in his act where he explains how the gay marriage was argued in court in Massachusetts:
I can imagine when they get to the Supreme Court and the lawyers for the gay side say:
“Well your honor, we pay taxes, there’s nothing illegal about what we do, we’re the same as anyone else, why shouldn’t we get the same protection under the law as the heterosexuals get?”
And then they ask the lawyers [for the other side] and they say:
[Thick Boston accent] “THEY’RE FUCKING QUEER!!! THEY’RE FUCKING QUEER!!!”
So basically, Gary Randall’s response is “they’re fucking queer!” And that’s all he’s got.
***THERE’S MORE***
You can watch the Louis C.K. clip here.
Also, according to HA’s Lee:
Gary Randall was also pissed that a Hindu was allowed to give a prayer in front of Congress. The man is loco.
http://effinunsound.com/?p=424
Nice.
Gary Randall was also pissed that a Hindu was allowed to give a prayer in front of Congress. The man is loco.
http://effinunsound.com/?p=424
This may come as a shock to some of you, but as a South Park Conservative/Classical Liberal, I don’t have any problem with Gay Marriage/Domestic partnerships. No special rights for ANY group means just that. Two people want to get married, fine no problem, get married. I’ll throw rice.
However, I DO object to putting (foul) words in someone else’s mouth, especially when his original comments were pretty mild for a religious conservative on one of their hot-button issues. It demeans your argument and makes him look better as a result.
Aw, delbert. Is that a stick up your ass or are you just happy to see me?
However, I DO object to putting (foul) words in someone else’s mouth, especially when his original comments were pretty mild for a religious conservative on one of their hot-button issues. It demeans your argument and makes him look better as a result.
Gary’s argument isn’t based on fact. He’s saying, in his own way, that since “THEY’RE QUEERS!!!”, they shouldn’t have the rights other tax-paying Americans have. Besides, since when is inheritance law or hospital visitation a “hot-button issue”? Only when it comes to teh gays, I guess.
Delbert has a valid point. Free speech means just that–free speech. Mr. Randall certainly has the right to express his opinion. Whether the “mainstream” press should be treating his opinion as representative of a significant part of the sane populace, might be open to question, but it’s refreshing to have someone speak of an issue like this in a civil tone, especially if he’s on the losing side.
I can’t help but expect sooner or later we’re going to be hearing something considerably less restrained from Ken Hutcherson.
Delbert: “However, I DO object to putting (foul) words in someone else’s mouth…..”
It may be demeaning to Gary Randall and his ilk, but who cares? It’s not like they have minds to change.
Sane people see the injustice here. Are you saying somebody who advocates hate discrimination ‘looks better’ than somebody who occasionally says “fuck”? What would Dick Cheney think?
2/5
I don’t agree. We don’t know what his entire quote was, but in what we see he’s peddling the same “Teh Gay is damaging marriage and society” horsehit that’s been the conservative stock in trade for years. It’s provably untrue and thus does not deserve printing.
The guy can obviously say whatever he wants, but in a just society he’d be screaming Bible verses at passers-by on the street and not heading up a powerful organization that has the ear of top government officials.
As someone who has read Randall’s blog more than anyone else here (he always has great fodder for EffU), I disagree with Delbert on this. Randall is very political about how his says things, but the basis of his disagreement with these reforms is nothing more than bigotry. He is not a moderate, even if he tries to sound like one.
Is it possible to be FOR traditional marriage and not be labeled a “homophobe?”
I see no reason why gay and lesbian partners shouldn’t have all the same legal “rights” as married couples.
I do however believe in traditional marriage and family as the basic structure of our society.
9 My God! An expression of a genuinely moderate point of view!
This is truly refreshing. Thank you.
You have to wonder if this isn’t a typical anti-gay, gay Publican.
Wow, look what happens when people are expected to stay on topic.
This seems like a no-brainer. If Chuck and Larry want to get domestic partnership benefits, they should be able to go to City Hall and get a domestic partnership license. They then get all the legal benefits of married couples, but without the “m” word. If they can find a priest, rabbi, mail-order minister or attorney* to preside over some sort of rite, good on ’em, but that way they get what they want (equal recognition) while the Christianists get what they want (no state-supported gay marriage).
Yes, of course I know it’s not that simple.
* Assuming attorneys can do that — I know at some times in some jurisdictions they could, but apparently they changed the law in California in the late 90s. A friend of mine wanted his California lawyer uncle to marry him and his girl friend, but the uncle had to get a mail-order minister license to do it because being a lawyer wasn’t sufficient anymore. It’s a strange world we live in.
Another argument for gay marriage:
man ordered to pay alimony in spite of his ex-wife’s domestic partnership
My only bitch about this domestic partnership shit is that if you are man/woman and under 62, it doesn’t apply. Why not?? Maybe they don’t want to get married, but want the benny’s the “partnership” gives them.
Why do you have to be gay or old for it to apply. Isn’t that discrimination???
14 This is pure off-the-top-of-my-head speculation, but it might be reasoned that there’s a difference when the partners are young enough that there’s a real possibility of having children. That might have been the original concern, but no doubt the age limit of 62 was arrived at by some totally absurd, irrational back-room head butting and deal making.
RightStuff @ 9:
Is it possible to be FOR traditional marriage and not be labeled a “homophobe?”
Sure. I’m good with that.
The question comes with the problem of writing that into legislation.
Here’s an example.
It is legal in Washington State for a 70 year-old man to marry an 18 year-old woman.
It is my opinion that such a marriage is not a good idea. I can think of very few cases where that’s healthy, but the state allows it. It is not the job of the state to divine people’s intent in pairing each other up.
When you attempt to write laws which give preference to one group or another, you wind up running into 14th ammendment issues.
For the state to proscribe how people keep house is (IMHO) against the premises of a small unobtrusive government which conservatives are supposed to hold dear.
#16
With the new Partnership, that 70 yr old man and that 18 year old girl, can be partners, cause he is over 62.
She will have the rights to his money.
But back at #15, can’t a 70 yr old, still impregnate an 18 yr old? So they should have included that all parties be sterile. (just kidding) but the reasoning is valid.
This is what Will quoted:
“I’m disappointed, and I don’t think it should be happening,” said Randall, who considers the law a steppingstone to gay marriage. “I think it deteriorates society. Over time it takes away from what is the most important cornerstone of society, and that’s marriage between a man and woman.”
If he says more inflammatory things on his blog, mea culpa, I don’t read Randall’s blog…
The quotes above are not fire and brimstone, condemning all who disobey into the fiery pits of Hell. The words he used were “disappointed” and “I think it deteriorates society.”
How you get to “THEY’RE F@#$ING QUEER!!!”” from there?
Of course, reasonableness and rationality are missing from several comments here, witness #2 (nice ad hominem attack) and #6 (defining your opponent to be less than human).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
What is a “south park” conservative? The actual community in the Denver metroplex or is this another attempt to claim the cartoon as theirs by conservatives?
Maybe he lives in the South Park district of Seattle.
Being a South Seattle conservative makes you one of the rarest creatures known to man.
Oh, indeed. Very Good. I guess Georgetown is not tony enough of a name for a conflicted south Seattleite.
Delbert,
It wasn’t outrageous at all for you to think to defend Randall, but in this particular case, Randall really is an extreme conservative, just one who works hard to present himself as a moderate.
I have the solution to this whole kerfluffle. The state should not be in the business of approving or disapproving marriage of any kind. Marriage is a religious concept IMHO. They should only be in the business of recognizing partnerships, of whatever brand. Thus, you go to the city hall and get your partnership licensed, and then you go to church or whatever to get married. Or not. In some European countries, like Germany, you have a civil ceremony before the religious one. Why not adopt that?
AKAMALE’s “Truth_In_Dating_Act”
My Curiosity is getting to me…WHy do I have to wait until I’m 62 to have the same rights as gay’s now? I’ve been with my partner living together over 3 years..how come we dont qualify..
SEE…I dont’t want to be married..but I want her to have my leftovers..after all she respect’s me more than anyone. This is the reward she’ll get for never screwing me over in real time.
Hey Folks,
I’m not a liberal..not a repulibican……BUT I WANT real debate. another liberal site..Crooks and Liars booted me for being non-conforming. I posted an opposing view with facts..I almost had to fill out a hurt feelings report…. We need mutilple views..thats what Seattles’ about right?
Can I be in your sand box?
Why is Divorce so widely accepted and not frowned upon as the deterioration to the basic structure of our society but when it comes to two people of the same sex trying to experience the same union of two people of the opposite sex all hell brakes loose. Oh and don’t forget the Mormon Polygimists, not to many people going out of there way or business to speak to them – the only time it comes up is in defense of “So Gay Marriage, no What Polygimy?”
I do not have a link to site but I understand that the 62 years thing was about allowing retirees to cohabitate without reducing their Social Security benefits.
Many older folks have what amounts to an additional marriage after the death of a spouse, but choose not to get married to preserve Social Security benefits. The inclusion of older couples was a political move to keep the more socially conservative membership of AARP from sinking this bill.
I happen to be straight myself. STRONG belief in separation between church and state! Have several gay friends who have had longer commitments/partnerships than most married friends/family.
I personally believe the government should get OUT of the religion business altogether!!! Let ALL couples (whether HETERO or HOMO) get a Civil License/Blessed Contract because it’s seriously a CONTRACT after all (just ask Judge Judy!). Later, if they seek or desire some Witchdoctor’s Blessing, I don’t much care. Believe me, my divorce 20-some years ago, made me understand WHAT a contract that marriage was when I got taken to the cleaners financially later! Pure luck that I was able to hang on to my retirement pension which I am now (as a single) purely enjoying!!!!!
But there needs to be some fair play. Rather than SOME getting tax breaks (while OTHERS obtaining no social security benefits, no worker’s benefits for spouses, no social security disability for their kids because they couldn’t get married, so MANY etcs). Level the Playing Ground!!!
Hey Folks! What’s this I hear about that guy Republican Senator David Vitter, who has been so sanctimonious about the need to keep marriage between an Man & a Woman? I’ve read he has a penchant for doing weird diaper routines between a Man & His Madam (while leaving lil Wife at home). Why are these dudes that come off so pure and righteous so icky? I mean, Pampers are pricey these days. Do ya suppose the Madam has a diaper service? He seems like a REAL ‘Commitment’ Kinda Guy. Think I want a shower frankly.
How homophobic is bush and his republican gay bashers to sign the defense of marriage act into law.
AKAMALE @ 25 “Can I be in your sand box?”
Do you want to play in the sandbox or shit in it?
We must regretfully admit that Clinton is reponsible for the defense of marriage act, and that he betrayed the shit out of gay folks on more than one occasion. He looks glorious compared to the shrub, but that’s damning with vanishingly faint praise.
My take is that the State should stay completely out of Marriage. Instead, I think the State should issue certificates of Civil Union, which would be a legal document. Marriage would be a completely socio-religious matter, *not* a legal one.
In essence, marriage is what you do out of the courthouse; civil unions are what you do inside the courthouse.
In my view, people should be allowed to enter into whatever sort living arrangement they wish, so long as they’re of legal age to do so. If you want to be bound in some meaningful way to your partner(s), then that’s fine with me. Knock yourself out. You can call it marriage or life-mating or whatever the heck you want. You want to bind yourself to 5 other men, or women, no problem: only the stipulations of the Certificate of Civil Union will be recognized in legal matters.
Churches and other religious institutions would still have their ceremonies. People could individually decide whether or not they wanted to respect the social aspects of whatever sort of bonding others have engaged in. The State would have no say in the matter. I think it would be a win-win for everyone, but of course it will never happen.
19:
I’ve actually heard that term, “South Park Conservative,” but the reference actually is for part of the base for Australian Premier John Howard, and an Aussie newspaper coined that term. I remember Andrew Sullivan had a good chuckle at that. Now back on topic!
9:
Great point RS, but I have to offer the classic counter argument. Which is more damaging to the ‘traditional’ (read European) nuclear family, same-sex marriage or divorce? My belief is that why demonize a segment of our society that actually wants to form stable nuclear families (albeit with either 2 protons or electrons, instead of one of each. ba-dum-pum)? I will concede that a ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’ is a good start, and maybe for the time being the best hope for same-sex couples, at least until the current generation of the fringes of both sides, those who scream the loudest die down and allow cooler heads to prevail.
29 “How homophobic is bush and his republican gay bashers?”
Who knows? Who cares? It doesn’t matter. They’re a bunch of fat-cat pseudo-conservative corporate socialists. They pander to the homophobes to get their votes so they can keep lining their pockets from the public purse.
@32
Tuor,
I completely agree with everything you say, especially the part about it never happening. :)
Are these people retarded? WHERE does this nonsense come from? We have to “defend” traditional marriage?! From what? There is NOT a fixed # of marriage licenses you idiots! It is NOT the case that if you ‘allow’ gay marriages, that same # of ‘traditional’ marriages will not be allowed. EVERYONE can get married you twits! Everyone! Letting your two gay neighbors get married has NO IMPACT WHAT-SO-EVER on your life, your marriage and whether or not you ever decide to get married, divorced or have children. Get a life and stop trying to control other peoples lives! You don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of same sex…problem solved. But don’t stick your…er…nose in my private life. I don’t care if you think I’m being “moral”.
And hey Mr. “Traditional Marriage”…the Amish think your wife is a whore because she wears make up and a bra to look sexual and attractive…she probably listens to music and dances too. She’s going to hell! Of course YOU don’t think so. You think YOU’RE being the moral ones. But there’s always someone who thinks YOUR lifestyle is wrong (Amish, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrianists) So get off your high horse. You may think because you go to your weekly suburban pre-football game mega-church rock concert service that you’re the moral one…news flash, you’re not.
Lee @32,
I’ve long since learned that, at least in the US, the acceptance of an idea is inversely proportional to its reasonability.