A press release was just issued stating that Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10 LD) will support Senate Bill 6239, that will legalize same-sex marriage in Washngton state.
The Senate bill was introduced with 23 sponsoring senators. Last Thursday, Sen. Jim Kastama (D-25 LD) signed on.
And then there was 25.
Passage is all but certain in the House, which means same-sex marriage is coming to Washington.
Opponents have promised to put a referendum on the ballot. But, considering that a recent Washington Poll poll found 55% to 38% support for such a referendum, this pretty much works in favor of those supporting equal rights for same sex couples. Having the referendum on the ballot may well encourage disgruntled liberals to participate in other high-stakes elections.
Update: Within minutes of posting this, I received a robo-poll from the National Organization for Marriage seeking my opinion whether “marriage should be between one man and one woman only.” I said, “no”, and was then asked my sex and whether I was over 50 years old.
Their web site proclaims:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to work with allies in Washington State to mount a referendum campaign to ensure that voters have the final say on the definition of marriage in Washington. Legislation, House Bill 2516 and Senate Bill 6239, has been introduced to abandon Washington’s historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus imposing same-sex marriage on the state.
Just one more reason why the 2012 election will be extraordinary.
Kudos to the Rs who played to make this happen. Now that we know at least some of you aren’t totally insane:
How about some tax reform (tax break repeal)?
NOM means Moremen money. Another reason I won’t vote for Mittens.
Moremen? Lmfao….
That’s great news.
I saw somewhere that Republicans in NY that broke with the party and supported gay marriage are now getting lots-o donations from all over the country.
This really does make me happy.
This is a great thing.
I’m amazed that it’s just kind of happening – no strum und drang – just announced, and there are sufficient votes.
Wow, perhaps the world does change for the better.
It’s hard to be proud of our elected officials, but, assuming this goes through, I’m proud of our Legislature and Gregoire today.
It’s 2012. I welcome a ballot initiative.
And regarding celebrating…I’ll wait until the bill is signed in to law. That’ll be a fine day!
Our world is becoming more and more disalusioned as to our rights. We have God given rights and we need to turn to our Creator to find the answers. God’s word in the bible is quite clear.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)
“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral,nor men who practice homosexuality will inherit the kingdom of God.” Anyone who supports these things goes against God. Whether you believe in Jesus as your Savior or not, does not alter the fact that Jesus is real and he will judge eveyone, and everyone will eventually be acountable before God for all we do. I’m not sure what bible Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen reads, but God’s word doesn’t change and he isn’t swayed by cultural or generational phases. We can change our clothing, music, and hairstyles as generations pass, but God’s word was here at creation and will continue until Jesus returns and after.
Holy matrimoney is of God and is designed to be between one woman and one man.
@8: I know you’ll struggle, your ass being all tight and puckered-up and all, but stick your bible up your ass, fucktwit.
@8
Churches can do, or not do, what they want. Some Christian churches support gay marriage, some don’t. But, what Churches can’t do is use laws in our secular government to enforce their world views. This is about rights granted between two people by the state, not about churches.
@10
What is going to happen is when enough states allow gay marriage people will start to sue churches to preform the ceremony. All they need is a few court decisions and then the goverment can start shutting down religions they do not like.
8
You have no understanding what “rights” means. Do you believe that you have a “right” that the government can prohibit another person from doing what you yourself can do? Rights are political creations, not religious creations. You might take a Political Theory 101 course.
“LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Police were investigating Monday after a cat belonging to the family of a Democrat’s campaign manager was beaten to death and the word “liberal” scrawled across its side.”
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....-across-it
This is just too sick for words. Darryl or Goldy shout write this up as a separate thread. It’s time we had a discussion in this country about the escalating violence coming from the Far Right. (But don’t hold your breath to see a discussion about this incident on Sound Politics.)
Here’s a photo of the deceased cat. (Warning: Graphic violence)
http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=8417
@11 That’s quite a leap of (il)logic there, pardner.
If only… I think it’s appalling the degree to which this society tolerates and subsidizes organized delusion.
@16 Unfortunately the mental defectives among us have made sure there’s no money to reopen the mental hospitals.
@8 Begging your pardon here, but we’re not talking about “marriage in the eyes of God”…except that God of course sees all of our follies and some of those are an awful lot worse than this one.
This is marriage in the eyes of the state. Nobody’s talking about the Roman Catholic church to which I belong or whatever denomination you’re part of to administer the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples. It’s a matter of same-sex civil marriages being recognized as having the same rights and responsibilities under secular law. It means my sister and her wife won’t have to go through all the BS for one of them to sit all night at the other’s bedside and handle her legal affairs, as experienced experienced a few years when one of them was fighting cancer. (Successfully, by the way, for which I humbly thank the Lord.) I don’t have a problem with that, and it certainly doesn’t “threaten” my 37-year marriage. If you somehow feel it does yours, I can’t help but wonder if you’re putting the blame in the wrong place.
Granted, my church isn’t particularly happy about it, but what the heck–per Catholic doctrine, nobody’s married in the Church’s eyes unless it’s witnessed and certified by one of our priests or deacons…but the Church doesn’t run around hassling all the other people who were married by a Protestant minister or a rabbi or a judge and scold them for fornication–well, they used to, but they’ve learned better. Maybe you should as well.
11
You haven’t the faintest grasp of what the separation of church and state entails, do you? Let me guarantee you that there is no chance a court will order a church to perform marriages of any sort.
A concerned citizen @ 8,
Welcome! You are the first of the “marriage concern trolls” (well…today, anyway).
“Holy matrimoney is of God and is designed to be between one woman and one man.”
Matrimoney?!? Is that like marriage with a dowery? Or did you mean matrimony?
Fortunately, Senate Bill 6239 isn’t redefining “holy matrimony”.
The bill provides legal recognition and a legally defined status to married people.
The “institution” of holy matrimony (as defined by your particular brand/denomination of religion will be left entirely unchanged.
Let me extend my empathy to wingnut evangelicals. They do seem to be a vilified minority who are under constant threat in this godless society of ours. They are utterly without political power, their rights and concerns ignored by every politician out there. The media pay them no attention, courts are denying them rights and privileges that every other citizen has, and their churches are infiltrated by FBI agents ensuring that every sermon does not violate liberal notions of political correctness. Indeed, how can anyone not feel for the threat the Religious Right faces?
@11
Probably. People order hot coffee and then sue when the coffee’s too hot. Hopefully, those cases will get thrown out. I’d support a church that didn’t want to perform gay marriages. Churches need to stay out of the workings of the state and the state needs to stay out of the workings of churches.
@21
Um… That sounds more like muslim Americans…
Michael @ 22,
It’s long past time that the McDonald’s case disappear from America’s political mythology. Take a look at Hot Coffee. Here’s a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_%28film%29
The nonsense needs to end. In an age of Citizens United and inordinate corporate control over politics, courts offer at least some hope that an individual can attain justice in this country.
23
Ya think?
@ 9, Zotz
That sort of “Christian” is very proud of having an ass so tight that nothing can get in. The problem is, nothing can get out either.
@24
I wasn’t actually thinking about the McDonald’s case, at least not consciously . I was just pointing out that we sue each other over every damn little thing in America. The fact that someone might sue is hardly a reason to not do something in America.
27
Corporations file frivolous lawsuits against each other all the time. They do so because they can.
@19 You don’t expect a troll to understand something as simple as the Constitution, do you?
@24 Few, if any, cases in American history have been lied about as much as this one. The Liebeck case has been mythologized by rightwing tort “reformers” to the point of comic-book fiction. McDonald’s knowingly sold coffee that was hotter than any other restaurant’s coffee for business reasons. Liebeck was not driving the car, as tort “reformers” contend; she was a passenger and the car was not moving when the coffee spilled. She suffered extensive burns that required multiple skin grafts. The jury award of $2.7 million for punitive damages — equal to two days of coffee sales for the McDonald’s chain at the time — was reduced by the judge and she ultimately received a total settlement of less than $600,000 (before subtracting attorney fees). She sued McDonald’s because McDonald’s offered her only $800 to cover her $20,000+ of medical expenses.
Just seeing if HA will let me post.
@ 18. ArtFart spews:
Thank YOU! I’ve never seen my own thoughts so well written, even though I’m an Agnostic myself!
Called my Sis tonight (Sis and Niece are gay). Told her I hadn’t felt too hopeful, but this is HISTORIC! If we get stuck with McKenna as Gov, this chance may never happen again. It’s a Now or Never moment in time.
I’m pleased that WA State is getting on the bandwagon!
I look forward to being able to marry my partner of 18 years. We had the big public display of commitment in 1996 and jumped the broom. Hopefully soon we will file the paperwork to catch up with the commitment.
My marriage will not in any way diminish Straight marriage. I don’t see how my marriage will have any effect on the sanctity of the Kardasian 72 day marriage or Britney’s 12 hour version or the validity of the Bachelor or Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire or Newt and his three wives, or Rush and his three wives ( I’m doing something wrong, I guess, I’m still on husband number 1.)
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck.....sages.html
Leviticus 18:22:
“You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”
Author’s Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.
Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an “abomination.” Leviticus 20:25 demands that “you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.” You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don’t know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning “complete rest” on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing “a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together.” Leviticus 19:27 demands that “you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard.” The next verse forbids “tattoo marks on yourself.” Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.
Why don’t fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are “abominations” in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that “If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments …I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up.” The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.
Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. “Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves… Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? …You hypocrite!”
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
…Just saying
@33
Wish HA had a “like” button. I’d use it on that post.