Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
That will work ... after all, it worked in Cali for Prop 8, right?
(*get off your duffs and stop thinking parades and protests will change a dang thing*)
The Liberal Gays are always bragging about how freakin brilliant they are and the fundies are ignorant mouthbreathers but yet at every turn they manage to make monkeys of you.
priceless.
As recently as 2006, Colorado had a chance to reverse its hate state moniker only to do just the opposite. It passed Amendment 43 to ban same-sex marriage and simultaneously failed Referendum I which would have provide domestic partnership benefits and protections. Colorado did so by almost identical vote percentage spreads as they did in 1992.
It looks like Washington is going down the same road.
Don't cut friends and family slack. Don't buy the "it was confusing" bullshit line that many of you will hear.
Also, beware of breeders who have an "I know better than you" complex--like little Willy-in-Seattle.
There are many, many blacks and latinos (a group to which I also belong) who have bought in hook-line-and-sinker to their oppressor's religion. They have become their oppressor. No amount of rational talking and polite speaking by white individuals will sway them. Choose your outreach wisely and who does your outreach for you.
Hopefully little Willy-in-Seattle will put his money where his "I know better than you" big mouth is and get his breeder ass out talking to people one-on-one.
I've been talking to my WA state family, and they will be voting Yes. Hopefully, they will also be talking with their friends, co-workers and neighbors.
Oh, and it's of my opinion that Will in Seattle, is very pro equality. He's one of the good guys, and will do his part. So go easy on us breeders who support you all.
Losing will be the best thing for lawsuits moving forward because it proves gays and lesbians are politically powerless, and that this isn't about the word "marriage." It's about denying rights out of animosity and hatred.
www.approve71.org
Here is a set of rights which are awarded to a group of people NOT defined by the word Marriage.
While Gays may feel cheated, single people should rejoice.
We are the real victims, because people should not get extra incentives, rights or other special treatment under the law because of religious ceremony called Marriage.
What is more, I see no reason that the state can limit who can register for a Domestic Partnership and get the prescribed rights.
There is no Constitutionally valid way to exclude anyone from these rights just based on lifestyle.
Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States overrides state constitutions. The federal constitution doesn't have any wording that excludes gays and lesbians from getting equal rights. It has a due process clause and an equal rights clause that seem to require it.
@4: thinking that's funny makes you a douche.
If the only difference between a hetero marriage and a homo DP is in the name, and you're okay with that, where does the opposition come in? It seems to me that implies that the sanctity of marriage is encapsulated in the word and the church's endorsement of the word marriage.
If that's true (and please let me know where I'm misrepresenting if it's not) then why do we even let the gov't into church business? Maybe it's just hard for me to get in your mindset, but I feel like if I were a particularly religious person, I'd only want the gov't to have anything to do with my marriage as far as allowing me the rights and responsibilities usually associated with marriage. What the IRS called my spouse and I (civilly unified, domestically partnered, married) wouldn't matter.
What I guess I'm getting at is that I think we share the common ground that:
A) people want to build families.
B) we all want the government to encourage healthy family units through certain legal recognition and rights.
C) those who believe want their unions to be sanctified by their churches.
D) churches should be free to set the eligibility rules for sanctified marriage, since marriage is a central religious rite.
In light of that, would you support a system under which
1) the government issued licenses of civil union to all couples (homo and hetero) in order to, on a legal level, recognize the union. (towards A and B)
2) religious organizations were reserved marriage for their own discretion. (towards C and D)?
That always seemed like the best option to me, however faint a possibility in reality.
I'm just not sure we can get that kind of consensus from the "traditional" marriage crowd. Just a few months ago, our own dear LC went on and on about how she supported DPs and CVs, and now she threatens her support over the issue of public signatures and because someday they could be called marriages. The fact that there are places of worship that will happily bless a DP or CV is not okay with her. Because in doing so will result in them being called religious marriages and that doesn't work for her.
If I'm wrong, then I hope she tells you so. I'd really, really like to be wrong.
Even PMW's own polls said there's a 4 point difference between supporting marriage equality and rejecting it. 5 years ago, that difference was more than 10 points. The trend shifts as more people over 65 die and more folks my age start voting.
The voting public is convinced this is about gay marriage, so if they all vote to approve this? then what? If they vote to reject it, it fits in with the polling on that topic and will certainly be tomorrow's vote to approve it. We can wait you out.
No, there's no way you'll be attacked or persecuted since we're in no position to do so. We can say we disagree with your desire to watch in glee as a gay woman watches her partner die from afar, kept from the hospital bed by laws you support. We can yell about it, we can stamp our feet, but the demographic shift is happening.
Nobody is going to break your windows, nobody is going to even bitch at you. They'll just shake their heads as you proudly boast about the child you ripped out of the arms of his biological father because that dad is in love with a man. Or the elderly woman spending thousands to get back the money she had ripped from her hands by legal restrictions you outright support.
You hide behind vague predictions of "dire consequences" when nothing of the sort will come to pass. Then you can sit quietly while gay families are ripped apart by our own dire consequences. You know it's a lie, you fear no such thing. You just hate to be told you're wrong, and claim you're exercising your freedom of speech.
But listen: we have freedom of speech too, and you're wrong.
Here's some good news for everyone: http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Previ…
Marriage serves for a very important purpose in the lives of men and women and that is primarily to build families. Most marriages (most) bear the fruit of procreation at some time during the marriage and ideally what has been the norm (in past generations at least) is for marriage to serve as the biding glue in which the children born in such unions can be raise into adulthood and be provided with appropriate gender role models, both maternal and paternal in order to they themselves become healthy well balanced adults. That has been the core of every nation, tribe and family since human existence begun.
Homo partnerships or any other civil recognition that can be arranged for them specifically does not serve the same purpose for society as marriages do since their functions and their needs are quite different. While its true that there are a few exceptions of sets of self identified homo individuals raising adopted kids, the vast majority of times usually it is only one that is the adoptive caretaker since it is obvious that two people of the same gender cannot pass as biological parents to a child. In that sense gay caretakers are no different than say a single parent so theres no need for the same precise type of legal recognitions as in that of a marriage. Also in most states allowing self identified gay people to adopt is mostly ambiguously prohibited since it has been rightly determined that children are ideally best served when they are in a home inwhich they are provided with opposite gender models, a mother and a father.
That leads us to conclude that a gay dp or civil partnership is more appropiate for self identified gay sets since it serves to provide to them with the joint legal benefits that they need while at the same time not adding an extra complexity both in the federal and state level by introducing them into a institution like marriage that in the end serves them no purpose because the social connotations and functions of its existence are ones that are meant specifically for heterosexual unions.
So if we take into account the distinctive valuable function that each of these unions exhibit in their own right, then we can better see why there needs to be a clearly understood regulated institution placed by government for each according to their specific roles and functions in society.
The specific biological gender of parents simply seems like a an arbitrary boundary at which to set a limit - as arbitrary as deciding what occupations spouses may have. And I think your repetition of 'most' families do this, 'most' families do that speaks to the fact that you're just placing a cutoff on what is in reality a wide spectrum of experience.
From my point of view, which I agree is pretty much from the opposite side of things as you, the basic point that the whole argument comes down to is recognition of family; the social units from which each next generation springs.
With respect to family life, it's self evident that the government should be in the business of encouraging family units, without making ridiculous value judgments about how masculine or feminine parents are (biologically or culturally).
LC, you do realize that if R 71 gets rejected, than you've voted to deny benifits to the elderly. You've voted against the widows who need the protection that Domestic Partnership laws provide. You're voting to strip rights and legal protections from the elderly.
Can we assume you are aware of this, and are you are willingly choosing to deny benifits to the very widows the church calls us to care for?
* Like allowing religious tyranny in CIVIL law.
* Like thinking the referendum process is anything close to being a "DEMOCRACY" when you have a majority voting away the constitutional rights of a minority, esp. when that majority has access to millions of laundered "church money" - TAX EXEMPT.
* Like forgetting about the children of LGBT parents, who are legally-abused for being in the "wrong" family, or forgetting about our seniors because it's more important to demonize and hurt gays.
The hypocrisy here smells of blatant lies. You want the names to call and harrass voters who made a choice to sign a petition, NOT because you want to "double check" signatures for fraud.
That excuse is just a front for your real agenda. You want to intimated, cajole, pester, annoy, harass, and publically shame those who you don't agree with, and especially don't care to be contacted by you trying to convince them about something they feel strongly enough about to sing a petition.
It really doesn't matter to you if they have a right to express themselves, sign a ballot for something they believe in, and participate in democracy as they see fit.
No. You have (thinly veiled) ulterior motives to get those signatures, so that you can take measures to get "back at them"
Enough with the faux grandstanding on principles.
You have none when it comes to this double standard. Democracy is cool as long as it doesn't infringe on your wishes.
Geesshh....
Seattle OUTProtest has brought together a grassroots coalition of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and straight people and organizations to organize a series of solidarity events to coincide with the National March for Equality this October.
March and Rally
Forty years after the Stonewall Rebellion, we march in solidarity with our brothers and sisters and allies in Washington, DC to demand equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states and to show our public support for the Approval of Referendum 71 here in Washington state.
Sunday, October 11
2:00 pm: Volunteer Park, 10th Ave E & E Prospect
5:00 pm: Rally, Federal Courthouse, 7th & Stewart
Thinking Queerly: Community Workshops on LGBT Issues
Community organizers and activists will present a series of workshops on a range of issues affecting the lgbt community including Stonewall and lgbt movement history, homelessness, hate crimes and self defense, lgbt health, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, lgbt legal issues, Gay-Straight Alliances, marriage equality, and more.
Saturday, October 10
9:30 am to 5 pm
Piggot Auditorium, Seattle University
HIV/AIDS Vigil
As the AIDS pandemic nears its fourth decade, we gather to educate and raise awareness about the continued struggles of people living with HIV/AIDS and their families, friends, and support networks as well as to demand all resources and all funding necessary for prevention, treatment, and a cure.
Saturday, October 10
Starting at 6 pm
Seattle Central Community College South Plaza, Broadway & E Pine
Generation Q Mega Mixer
Come mingle and mix with seasoned leaders and activists of the GLBTQ community at the Generation Q Mega Mixer. Young leaders (25 and under please) will have the opportunity to socialize, learn from, and quite possibly have a dance off with some of the community's most inspiring members in a relaxed social environment.
Sunday, October 11
6:30 pm
Sole Repair Shop, 1001 E Pike
Seattle LGBT Equality Weekend March & Rally
http://nationalmarch.seattleoutprotest.o…
Get involved with one of our planning committees! Contact for more time and details:
March/Rally Committee, March@seattleoutprotest.org
Workshops Committee, Workshops@seattleoutprotest.org
Outreach Committee, Outreach@seattleoutprotest.org
Mixer Committee, Mixer@seattleoutprotest.org
HIV/AIDS Vigil Committee, Vigil@seattleoutprotest.org
Biweekly General Organizing Meetings, please contact whitney@seattleoutprotest.org for time and location.
National Equality March: Equality Across America
www.equalityacrossamerica.org
Approve Referendum 71
Keep the Domestic Partnership Law
Do you deliberately divorce yourself from reality? Is that your shtick?
Please phonebank to get people to APPROVE R-71. You can do it from home.
http://tinyurl.com/poc4h5
This decision is going to bite the right wing in the ass big time. It's a terrible precedent, and almost certainly will be cited by the next campaign organization that chooses not to release names of signers or donors - and precedence is a Very Big Deal in law. The precedent will stand. And there go all our public disclosure laws, *poof*.
Lean on that argument when it suits an end to your means.
On the contrary, a court could well hold that withholding signatures could be limited in scope to those signing referendum petitions, as those petitions represent a narrow scope of citizens who have a justifiable right to want to have privacy from those looking to "civilly confront them". Granted signing a petition is public record, but that shouldn't mean that a signer opens themselves up to harassment by a special interest group with opposite views.
Not to parse hairs... as you are doing the very same thing.
Your scenario of campaign finance law abuse is but one of several possible outcomes. Possible? Sure. Probably. Not likely
But it is a talking point that has been jumped on by the GLBT community in their attempts at getting the records released.
Consider it an ends to a means.
Right?
That is an interesting speculation. Although ultimately it still seems close, at least according to the Slog and Seattle Weekly.
@29 Kim in Portland
Is that true that voting no would deny benefits to the elderly?
Yes, the extended DP benifits are also for elderly couples who cannot marry, because if the do they will lose benifits.
Read for yourself.
Referendum 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be: Approved ___ Rejected ___
Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
Protesting won't cut it.
You can have a party and invite some of them, take some out for brunch, or just specifically ask them to vote yes when you're out for a walk.
And, yes, don't just ask people on Capitol Hill. Cause that won't work.