The American Spectator

hmm_contrib| 2.13.12 @ 4:02PM

Congrats to WA to increasing freedom from religious preferences and encouraging long-term commitment between couples.

Tim the Enchanter| 2.13.12 @ 4:39PM

Tell it to God. I'm sure He agrees with you.
/sarc off

hmm_contrib| 2.13.12 @ 5:31PM

Good thing civil marriage, a license granted by the secular state, doesn't have anything to do with what you or I are guessing God thinks.
/nonsarc

kf451| 2.13.12 @ 9:24PM

Washington State may get a referendum on the ballot this fall to repeal it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 2.13.12 @ 9:52PM

It's been voted on 31 times and failed 31 times. The upcoming Washington referendum will more than likely make 0-32.

hmm_contrib| 2.14.12 @ 1:58AM

Of course! Surely, the trends in these elections over the years re: the diminishing margin in the victories, the recent polling on SSM showing gay marriage at near 50% acceptance, and the success of the "everything but marriage" bill in WA a few years ago probably don't mean anything.
/s

john| 2.14.12 @ 11:55AM

right along with one that stops driver licenses to be handed out to illegals

Bob S| 2.14.12 @ 2:30AM

Funny, in all the whining from the homosexual equal rights crowd, nobody bothers to admit that heterosexual polygamists and practitioners of incest are discriminated against.

IOW it's not about equal rights, its about special rights for the homosexuals while heterosexuals are still not "free" to marry anybody that they want to.

I think it's called hypocrisy. Not that that bothers all the persecuted homosexuals a bit.

But I am not surprised about that either.

Still as Joe Sobran might put it, the heterosexuals at least aren't confused about what the poop chute is for.

It's a sad day for Washington.

hmm_contrib| 2.14.12 @ 1:22PM

So, you agree that homosexuals are discriminated against in marriage laws? That's progress, I guess.

What you're ignoring, though, is that laws against "more than one" spouse and a blood-related spouse are enforced across all marriages and genders, where as the gender restriction of same-sex/opposite-sex marriage laws aren't: A man can't marry a man, but a woman can. The restrictions on consanguinity and polygamy are equally enforced on all (multiple partners would be a different beast anyway, what with insurance, survivability, etc). But, at least you didn't claim that SSM is just like pedophilia or bestiality, so that's progress.

Bob S| 2.14.12 @ 1:45PM

Rather marriage discriminates against all who aren't married, whether heterosexual or not, as well as the just plain old single/unmarried.

Oh, but marital rights for sodomites and lesbians will honor the taboo against incest. Great. A man can marry any man just so long as they are not related.

It is again hypocritical to single out homosexuality for "equal rights" and deny the same to heterosexual incest and polygamy.

IOW heterosexuals just can't marry anybody they want to as the homosexuals claim.

IOW homosexuals aren't the only "victims" of "discrimination".

I ain't crying about it, but guess who is?
That is, if you count crocodile tears.

hmm_contrib| 2.14.12 @ 3:08PM

Ah, and it took a whole 3 posts for someone to start muttering about anal sex. At least they're consistent. /eyeroll
If you want marriage rights for blood relations, or polygamists, then start a group, advocate for it, and good luck!
But the GLBT side has never and isn't asking for that, and your slippery slope arguments aren't working, given the way the polls are going, especially with the generational gap we're seeing.
You're willfully misrepresenting the arguments of the SSM crowd - they don't rely on nothing but "equal rights" as the reason they should have the same license from the government as opposite-sex couples, and they also don't want to marry "anybody". Your lies aren't working here or with the public, and you may want to think about what kind of damage you're willing to do to the image of the marriage sacrament - not to mention Christianity - just to stop a fractional percentage of Americans from sharing insurance and legal benefits.

Bob S| 2.15.12 @ 1:57AM

Yeah, it is hard to figure out what the glbt's want/argue, not that they can coherently tell you, as we have seen above. But so what?
And lies?
Who's, pray tell?
Never mind "damage to the marriage sacrament".

Sorry, pal. All I am seeing is the same old left/libertine argument of accuse the other person of what you yourself are doing in aces and spades.

Marriage between a man and a woman discriminates against anybody that isn't currently married, whether hetero or homo. Get used to it.

Further, if the homosexuals insist on their freedom to define marriage as they see fit, by the same token those of us who disagree have the same freedom not to include their perversion in the definition. Otherwise, somebody's a bigot and it ain't me.

Or will it be tit for tat and the homosexuals will withdraw their consent/acknowledgement that heterosexual marriage is a marriage if the mainstream doesn't return the favor?

But then what will they base their counterfeit version on? Dunno. Beats me.

hmm_contrib| 2.15.12 @ 1:59PM

What you're missing, of course, is that you're free to harbor any distaste or opinion you want. Just as you do now on the Kardashian marriage, e.g. What you can't do is deny legal benefits to people because your holy book says some kinds of sex is wrong.
So, it's a deal, then? We as a society don't discriminate on who gets the licenses and you can feel any way you want about any marriage. Works for me.

Bob S| 2.16.12 @ 12:20AM

I'm not missing anything.
What you are still missing is:

1. You believe that polygamy and incest is OK as long as it is licensed.

2. If Kim and Klhoe get married do I have to rent them the honeymoon suite for instance, if I run a hotel, or do I have to keep my disagreement to myself in order not to be prosecuted for "hate speech"?

hmm_contrib| 2.16.12 @ 4:30PM

Nope; now, you're just lying. Sad, but there it is.
I have no desire to see incest or polygamy licensed in this country. Multi-partner marriage is another beast from 2-person marriage entirely, especially with respect to benefits, survivability, rights, etc, so, again, if you want to advocate for it, go for it, but since I am not and no one I know is, this is nothing but a desperate slippery slope argument. Have anything to say about the topic on the OP - you know, same-sex marriage? Have an argument on the actual topic we're discussing?
If John (a black man) and Kim (a white woman) rent a honeymoon suite in your hotel, do you have to rent them a room or can you deny them so you're not prosecuted for discrimination? Are you asking for the sacred right of not catering to people whom your religion dislikes to be protected? Did we protect that right for people who disapproved of interracial couples for religious reasons?

Bob S| 2.17.12 @ 2:26AM

And your argument at this late date is what?
That you're not in favor of incest or polygamy is immaterial. And if the basis for homosexual "marriage" is discrimination - yes, you have denied it, but so what? you have offered no coherent alternative - the same can be said for polygamy and incest. End of story for any reasonable opposition to the same.

FWIW from time immemorial marriage boils down to two different individuals of different families and genders becoming one flesh/family.
Not more than one partner, not the same family, not the same gender.

Notice, there is no mention of race, which is a red herring and distraction other than homosexuals want to piggy back on the civil rights issue for blacks and claim that sexual minorities are just like racial minorities.

You also dodge the other question. Again.
If you are free to do what you want to do, how come others are not free to disagree and do otherwise?
Oh, that's right, it's called special rights. Homosexuals have attained the magic victim status and can trample the constitutional rights of others.

But what else is new? We're seeing the same thing in principle with Geo. W. Obama's latest insurance dictat. Because contraception is legal, the govt. will force every employer to provide it whether they personally agree with it or not. If an employer doesn't pay his employees that's one thing, but to force them to toe the Planned Parenthood line is quite another.

It's generally called fascism, but since you probably gave The Pink Swastika 1 star at Amazon, we're not going to expect you to admit the obvious.

Ciao, my friend. If this is the best you can do, don't bother.

hmm_contrib| 2.17.12 @ 3:45PM

The central argument you have against this legislative action is your secret belief that I also support or cannot deny another, separate action. That's a heck of an argument - I'd suggest you take that public and help my side, but based on the polls, I'm already winning.
You also haven't explained how same-sex couples gaining marriage rights are "special" rights. Opposite sex couples have them - are they getting special rights? No? Then same-sex couples are getting the same rights as Ozzie and Harriet - what's the problem?
Also, your attempt to avoid the race question is noted. No one said sexual orientation is the same as race, but much of the arguments against racial integration were couched in religion (it's a historical fact, my friend), so I ask you again - were the rights to deny equal treatment to interracial married couples based on religion protected in this country? Why not? Should they have been?

Bob S| 2.17.12 @ 10:00PM

One of the arguments against same sexers is that legislative action should also afford the same "equal rights" to polygamous and incestual unions. If Ozzie can marry Harry, why can't Ozzie also marry his daughter? It's no secret. It's an open and unanswered question.

IOW some heterosexuals don't have equal rights like other heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. Yeah, I know. Shock and amazement. Even from the equal right same sexers. But what else is new?

Yet regardless of the studied and wilful ignorance of the status quo, as it stands now, same sex marriage is special/privileged over and against polygamy and incest, which are heterosexual unions that are forbidden/discriminated against.

Further, in that race is not a choice, it doesn't have anything to do with the question. Which we repeat: If Kim and Khloe get married, do hotel owners, wedding photographers and society page editors have to buy into the kool aid?

Your answer seems to be yes, because you mistakenly think that just because govt. is required to legalize something - regardless if they do or do not legalize/approve/license same sexers - the rest of us who disagree have to go along.

And yes, a black proprietor of a restaurant doesn't have
to host or serve a KKK get together. Or a white owner, the Black Panthers or Eric Holder. Or a Jew a neo-nazis. They may, but they don't have to under the constitution.

Capiche?

Imissbuckley| 2.14.12 @ 8:53AM

Eh, I don't care. The fact that this was done legislatively is good, if they get a referendum on the ballot and it fails then it is what it is. The 10th Amendment is a fantastic thing we should allow it to work more often.

Washingtonion| 2.14.12 @ 9:45AM

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that claim if Gregoire didn't "win" (read: stole, after losing the first two counts) her first election by 129 votes running explicitly against gay marriage.

Gary Locke, admirably, said way back in 1996 he was for gay marriage and if it passed the state House and Senate, he'd sign it. But then again, while I disagreed with him on many things, Locke wasn't an incompetent moron, so he didn't have to pander to get elected.

hmm_contrib| 2.14.12 @ 1:24PM

A lot of liberals didn't think Bush was legitimate after Florida, but that doesn't make any action he took as President any less legal or valid, whether it lined up with what he said on the campaign trail or not.

Minilening| 2.15.12 @ 11:01AM

It's a good thing. We have to say goodbye to the oldfashioned way. Gays are just people.. like us.. at least that's what they told me :)