Gay Marriage Secures Final Vote Needed to Pass Legislature

Comments

1
If the house, senate, and gov are all signing on, why will it hit the ballot? Is this under the assumption there will be a recall referendum/initiative?
2
Oh. Fuck. Yes.
3
I can't wait to marry the love of my life. We have been waiting for almost a decade for this.
4
@1 There will definitely be a referendum/initiative on this.
5
Good for her. In the videos and statements it seemed that while she had no animosity toward gay people she just didn't get it about this being a matter of civil rights and not just an opinion with all her talk about referendums to the people, etc.
6
Didn't New York do this legislatively? I thought the Governor successfully pushed it through...
7
@1 I think he meant the official senatorial vote. They have said they will vote, they haven't voted as such yet.
Right?
8
i am an ordained minister, and am ready, willing and able to perform marriage ceremonies.
9
My email, just sent:

Dear Ms. Haugen,

Thank you so much for your decision to support marriage equality! You have taken a stand on an historic civil rights issue! You will undoubtedly attract a lot of criticism from some circles; rest assured that you are doing the right thing.

10
Wow! Great day.
11
@6) You are correct and thank you. Fixed.
12
A referendum push is coming. Someone needs to publish the R71 names (like, right now!)

nothing but silence from whosigned.org
13
Sweeeeeet.
14
Hurrah!
15
Thanks bigoted homophobes for your incoherent, hysterical testimony today; which apparently was all that was needed to tip Senator Haugen into the "yes" column...
16
About time
17
This is fantastic news! Congratulations to all who fought the good fight for civil rights!

My best wishes to SSM advocates and friends for defeating any potential Anti-SSM ballot initiatives that likely comes next!
18
Oh, and we've got that whole issue inre: Ref 71 settled now, right? So the bigots will have to go on-record and have their names & contact info published by WA Secretary of State if they sign the referendum petition, yes?
19
YES! YES! YES!

This has made my day. I'll be on pins and needles until the vote is taken, but this is HUGE. Next up will be the ugly mess of a public vote. It would be wonderful if we the people could actually see civil rights as the issue here, but I am not deluding myself into thinnking that. Civil rights simply should not be decided by a popular vote. Rights are rights for a reason. That said, if we COULD actually pass this on a vote of the people, it would send a big message to the rest of the country, and the world.
20
I think there should be a massive gay marriage party the first day it's legal. Dozens/hundreds of couples getting married, all together. I'll be there to throw the glitter!
21
This is a very, very good day.
22
@8 Me too! I have been a ULC ordained minister since 2007, and have nearly 10 weddings under my belt. I have been waiting for this day for years, and I am also ready, willing and able to perform marriage ceremonies.
23
Remember that when the University of Washington conducted a poll asking how residents would vote on this law were it put up to the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes, only 38 percent no. Those are just about the same polling numbers Ref. 71 had fall of 2008. And in 2009 Ref. 71 passed. This thing is in the bag.
24
yayyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!
25
You have to stop taking civil rights issues to the polls! Nobody's civil rights should be put up to a vote! Will we allow African-Americans in our libraries? Will we allow Jewish people to marry Christians? Seems silly, doesn't it? It's the same fucking thing!
26
Cool
27
A great day indeed! Congratulations to Senator Haugen for making the moral and correct decision. Shame on Senators Hatfield and Shin for cowardly remaining on the fence.
28
@25

exactly. The Supreme Court should stop any referendum on civil rights.

Did anyone make this argument against R-71?

29
Kudos to Senator Haugen for a well-put statement.
30
Nice statement, too. It sounds like she's wrestled hard with her own concerns and those of her constituents, and she's doing it because she genuinely feels it's the right thing. Thanks for doing it, Sen. Haugen.
31
Also, in b4 grade-A SeattleBlues trollgasm!
32
very happy to see this, yet my preference would have been for the court to decide it as a civil right and then have the legislature pass an enabling law. Either way, hooray! If only my partner were alive, I know what I'd be a wanting - though it might have been a tough sell :)
33
In Anderson v. King County, Justice Madsen all but dared the Legislature to man up, and do the right thing. It has taken quite a few years, but this is great news!

I do think a lot of kudos go to the people of the 10th that worked over their Senator, the Stranger for their detailed coverage of who to target, and folks like Rod Hearne, Josh Castle and ERW who mobilized people to call their legislators and make not only this 25th vote happen, but the 24 before. And, of course, Sen. Kastama, who may well be the only person to have supported DOMA in 1998 while in the House, and now supporting equality 14 years later in the Senate.

In short: Hurrah!
34
A very thoughtful statement by Sen. Haugen. Remember, she's a strong lifelong Catholic and she is announcing her support the day after her church's bishops called on Washington State Catholics to actively lobby against marriage equality.

It's a brave and honorable stand and she really deserves our positive recognition and support.

@27 -- look for Shin and Hatfield to fall in line now that they don't have to take responsibility for being the deciding vote.
35
My mom wrote a really sweet note to Sen Haugen, who represents her district--and attends her church. She's Methodist, not Catholic. My mom mentioned that my wife and I were introduced by a gay friend (hi Dave!), that her earliest friends in the Seattle area were a lesbian couple who'd been together for decades and were waiting till they could get married where they live to do so, and basically did a great PFLAG drill about the awesome gay folks in her life. I'm so proud of her, and of Sen. Haugen, for doing the right thing.
36
Hearing the news, I immediately wanted to make a donation. She's up for re-election this fall. I found no way to do that on her website, so I called her Olympia office.

As you might imagine, her office has been swamped with incoming phone calls. On my fourth attempt, a staffer answered. I asked if there was some way I could donate online. He said he'd not been asked this question before and put me on hold. When he returned, he said that some law or other prevented him from advising me on this matter and he gave me another phone number to call.

I made this call and it turned out to be Senator Haugen's home. Her husband answered. I heard fairly loud classical music in the background and Mr. Haugen told me that the law prevents state senators from receiving campaign donations while the legislature is in session. Donations are not allowed until 30 days after the session ends. He estimated that donations can be solicited and received in late April or early May.

I told Mr. Haugen that I would let others know about this. I'm sure other sloggers might also wish to donate to Sen. Haugen's re-election campaign. We need to wait until later this spring and let's not forget in the meantime.
37
Wonderful! So wonderful!
38
Thanks for posting Sen Haugans number. I've emailed it and her email to everyone I know in the 10th and elsewhere who understands what marriage and family are. They like me will be expressing their anger and intent to make sure she loses re-election and never serves in public office again, since she's proving herself entirely unworthy of that trust. Contact information for the remaining 24 traitors to our state were also included in that email with similar effects.

Thanks also Gay Special Citizens With More Rights Than Others lobby for crossing the rubicon. This should awaken decent people to the peril of allowing a tiny self selecting minority to set terms for everyone else. Politeness is something we owe each other. Tolerance of adults making different choices another, provided they're willing to accept the consequences of those choices. But the Shrill Whiners Gay lobby has proven they're owed neither politeness nor tolerance in their attacks on our culture and basic morality. When the barbarians are at the gate you fight and you give no quarter. You don't negotiate. You don't compromise. You destroy them utterly, root and branch. The referendum in which decent citizens of this state speak loudly and clearly should educate you in how you don't actually have the right to destroy your own culture out of petty childishness.

To all those claiming to be Christian ministers officiating at gay marriagse (NOT marriage equality which we already have) you aren't Christian. You wouldn't officiate at a marriage between a man and his dog. You wouldn't officiate at a marriage between a woman and her son. You wouldn't officiate at a 'polyamorous' marriage. (Or maybe you would in any or all of these cases. Who knows what depths of depravity and moral corruption you'll sink to if you'll 'marry' a homosexual or lesbian couple?) And you shouldn't encourage unrepentant sin and potential damnation by officiating at a gay wedding. Shame on you, and may God teach you the errors of your ways while you have time to make some amends for the destruction you're causing. As shepherds you've so far forgotten your duties as to lead your charges to damnation and destruction rather than salvation. You aren't Christians, so please stop calling yourselves by that ancient name to which you have no claim.

Think this is over? Think you've succeeded in destroying marriage and family and morality and decency as you wish to do? Think again. It's possible that right will lose in this battle, but not without a fight, and not without clear delineation that choosing your side is choosing chaos and immorality and disorder.
39
@36 Thank you for that information, and good work!
40
At 38 it is over, bring it to a vote you will lose.
41
!!!
42
@38, most entertaining read all day. When I got to "Gay Special Citizens With More Rights Than Others lobby" I thought it was brilliant satire until I looked down to see who wrote it.

43
Can someone tell me if Seattleblues is serious?

I would engage, but have been warned about feeding trolls....
44
@38: okay now you've given yourself a way. I've had a sneaking hunch for a while that you were a sock puppet in here as parody and this last post of yours pretty much proves it. That's so over the top it can't be for real. Too overplayed.
45
@38

You're invisible man has no sway over me.

I did like you rant though. It was very nicely typed out and in good grammar, it's so hard to find that nowadays. :)
46
"Shame on you, and may God teach you the errors of your ways while you have time to make some amends for the destruction you're causing [...] choosing your side is choosing chaos and immorality and disorder."

Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!!!
47
Thank you, Senator Haugen. You are absolutely correct that senators from left-leaning LDs have an easy road with this vote, and senators like you have to answer to a constituency that may judge you harshly for taking this stand. Twenty-fifth vote or no, I treasure your 'yea' vote because it took more courage for you to do the right thing. You are actually taking a personal risk, and I have to admire you for it. I accept your statement at face value. Thank you for doing this.
48
"A new command I give you: LOVE ONE ANOTHER.. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By THIS ALL men will know that you are my disciples, IF you love one another."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the book of John (chapt. 13, vs. 34-35)

"To all those claiming to be Christian ministers officiating at gay marriagse (NOT marriage equality which we already have) you aren't Christian. You wouldn't officiate at a marriage between a man and his dog. You wouldn't officiate at a marriage between a woman and her son. You wouldn't officiate at a 'polyamorous' marriage. (Or maybe you would in any or all of these cases. Who knows what depths of depravity and moral corruption you'll sink to if you'll 'marry' a homosexual or lesbian couple?) And you shouldn't encourage unrepentant sin and potential damnation by officiating at a gay wedding. Shame on you, and may God teach you the errors of your ways while you have time to make some amends for the destruction you're causing. As shepherds you've so far forgotten your duties as to lead your charges to damnation and destruction rather than salvation. You aren't Christians, so please stop calling yourselves by that ancient name to which you have no claim."

The gospel of Seattleblues whose inflated opinion of himself allows him to think that he speaks for God, the one who commands him to love his neighbor as evidence of his piety, and proclaim who is or is not a Christian.

Seattleblues, according to Jesus his disciples are the ones who can love their neighbors, love their enemies. You will have to take this up with Him. He's the one that tells you that you must love and that you are better off with a millstone as a necktie than giving your brothers and sisters a reason to fail to come to Him. Then again if you really knew your Bible you would know to turn off your computer instead of choosing to come here and insult your neighbors. I pity you. And I hope that you find peace.
49
What ever happened to Loveschild? I'd love to hear what she has to say about this.
50
@48

I haven't insulted anyone in that post, nor could a rational person see me as doing so.

Leading your parishioners to open unrepentant sin is at least a good indicator that a pastor may not be hewing close to the Christian standard. More bluntly, he or she is the shepherd leading their charges to slaughter. The spiritual burden a Father Ryan or any other Christian minister takes upon him or herself in so doing is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Far from insulting them, I deeply pity them.

You don't express love for someone by lying to them. You don't express love for someone by seeing them on a path of self destruction and not saying so. You don't express love for someone by pretending unacceptable behavior is fine. If anything by doing these things you express indifference, if not outright malice.

Keep your watered down compromised half faith if you like. That's your decision, with which I wouldn't dream of interfering. Only don't call it Christian.
51
Ha ha @ 50 - you logged in from Italy just to post this?

I knew it - you ran away from the other day's debate, because you just couldn't swallow the meaning of "acquittal."

Also, your rhetoric alone is an insult. I doubt you'll cop to that, given your trouble with the real definition of actual words. Like "acquittal."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

@ everyone else, right on, Washington.
52
I'd respectfully suggest that the 25th vote is a huge victory for us, and gloating, though fun for a while, tends to sour a celebration of the moment. Not that anyone here is gloating (yet), but one of the strongest arguments in favor of marriage equality is that those who oppose it will not suffer in the slightest because of its passage. Other than the inevitable bruised ego, I suppose.

We continue to have work to do. It would be nice to have a little wiggle room with those remaining votes, and after this is passed and signed, we'll have to deal with the referendum vote in November. That will likely be as much of a nail biter as the senate vote is now. We must keep our wits about us and continue to tell our stories and to make our case heard.

@43, I cannot tell you for sure whether the persona is serious, but I can tell you that the poster is completely impervious to genuine attempts at engagement. Whether serious or manufactured, all correspondence with SB is one way.
53
@38 From the ULC website, where I obtained my ordination:

"The Universal Life Church is the only denomination worldwide that opens its doors to all, welcoming all who feel called to be a minister to complete a free online ordination to be a minister, rabbi, priest or pastor. We are a non-denominational community and offer a full spectrum of support services. Millions of ministers have become legally ordained through the ULC Monastery all over the world. We do not have tests of loyalty, religious rings to kiss, nor do we require payment."

I'm not calling myself a Christian minister because I'm not. But nice try. I turned my back long ago on the hatred and anger that your brand of Christianity revels in, because I was tired of being miserable. It's not too late for you.
54
Seattleblues - On what basis are you certain that your understanding of "what marriage and family are" is objectively, or even foundationally, definitive?

What rights are being lobbied for that you or I do not currently enjoy? Please be specific.

In what way does this lobbying attack our culture and basic morality? Please be specific.

Why should your definitions of "depravity" be considered binding? Start by being coherent; when you even make an assertion worthy of address, I'll ask you, please, to be specific. :)

Given the wide variety of Christian denominations--given also the wide variety of people who refer to themselves as Buddhists, or Jews, or conservatives--on what basis can you state definitively that those in the clergy who support marriage equality (and it is that; as a man married to a woman who enjoys the company of a good many gay couples, I can assure you that I am granted the privilege of marrying a person with whom I am capable of sharing romantic and erotic bonds, a privilege which these fellow travelers do not enjoy) are not Christian? Is this any more valid that one sect calling another sect less than Christian over, say, doctrinal questions regarding the Trinity?
Think you've succeeded in destroying marriage and family and morality and decency as you wish to do?

Why would I want to destroy marriage? I am married; I have been a best man; I am a highly favored uncle.
55
@52 okay, noted: Do not engage. Thanks!

Otherwise: WOOOOO HOOO HOOOO HOOOO! This is fantastic. Thank you to everyone fighting the good fight. Today is a good day!
56
@54 ah ha ha ha "I am a highly favored uncle." love it.
57
@ 54, Seattleblues may write well enough to sound reasonable, but he's rigid, impervious to facts and logic, and doesn't respect any viewpoint he doesn't share. He also has a bad habit of answering questions you didn't ask. He seems to be wishing to read certain questions so that he can answer them with thought-ahead "zingers," but they actually do not answer the question you asked. Bear this in mind if he chooses to answer you. For him, it's an exercise in mental masturbation, not a discussion.
58
You don't express love for someone by lying to them. You don't express love for someone by seeing them on a path of self destruction and not saying so. You don't express love for someone by pretending unacceptable behavior is fine. If anything by doing these things you express indifference, if not outright malice.

Assumes facts not in evidence--namely, that the clergy in question believe that homosexuality is a path of self-destruction, that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. Isn't it possible, regardless of what you believe, that these individuals believe that proscriptions regarding homosexuality in biblical canon are more indicative of the time at which it was written than with the will of deity?
Keep your watered down compromised half faith if you like. That's your decision, with which I wouldn't dream of interfering. Only don't call it Christian.

By what qualifications ought anyone to accept your definition of the word "Christian" as correct and immutable, and hers as being in error?

Again, and as always, please be specific.
59
@Mile High Matt,

Yep. I done lernt to write reel purty at collige, but never done lernt none of that there logik stuff not nohow.

Just because I don't accept your interpretations and feelings as fact or logic doesn't mean I don't respect either. Quite the contrary. I require a fact to have support or a logical construct to follow the rules of that discipline before I give them much credence. Just because you can't do either isn't the issue.

FYI, they have the internets in Italy too. Really I should be asleep, but jetlag affects me more the older I get. Ah well. Couple of days and this too shall pass.

Further FYI, Clinton plea bargained a criminal case with a federal prosecutor separate from his impeachment, surrendering his law license for 5 years. A plea bargain is an admission of guilt. Just thought you should know.
60
@57 - I've seen enough to agree that your conclusions are reasonable. Since he tries to portray himself as honest and rational, however, it's worth testing that by giving him rational questions, and seeing if he's honest enough to address them. Either I'll get rational debate in return, or his own failure to respond undermines any future claims to honest, rational participation in these debates, marring the credibility of his future posts.

Which, I suppose, may add up to more work than reward.
61
@54 and 58

Marriage is fundamentally NOT objective. It is a social construct, and a legal one. It has nothing to do with fair, or some kindergarten game of bringing enough cookies for the class if you bring any at all. It's a building block of our culture.

Nor did I address what a Buddhist or Pagan or anyone other religion might think of marriage. I just note that to deny the tenets of Christianity but claim to be a Christian isn't accurate. And I request that those unable to accept the tenets of Christianity stop calling themselves Christian.

And yes Christianity can change in some ways. It's a human invention, not a divine one. But if it changes, as you folks would like marriage to do, to the point of diffuse meaninglessness why bother with it at all?

I don't have a specific problem with atheists or agnostics or those of other faith who reject Christianity. That's absolutely their right. I just have an issue with those who mis-state what Christianity is but call themselves Christian.

"Why would I want to destroy marriage? I am married; I have been a best man; I am a highly favored uncle."

I don't know. It's your position that we should redefine marriage to be so vague as to be meaningless, to destroy it as a useful social term. How you came to despise marriage so deeply despite apparently being happily married is yours to explain, not mine.

62
Nice try, Seattleblues.

You do not get to define what is and who is "Christian". Full stop.

You do not get to define what is or is not acceptable behavior. Full stop.

Lastly, you do not get to tell me what to do or what to call myself. I am not your doormat, you will keep your boots far from me. Full stop.

You are not correct. You are not omniscient. You are not immutable. You are highly opinionated. Keep your opinions, everyone gets to have one. Do not for one minute think that i will accept them as facts or that they require either my compliance or obedience, ever.
63
There's a hole in the dike holding back the waters of love and justice. And the hole is getting bigger.
64
@63, dilation is only at 3cm. Let us know when the water breaks.
65
Hey Seattleblues? Can you explain why the Christian view even should have primacy in these discussions and formulations of law? There are active religions that predate Christianity. We have separation of church and state. We have atheists. We have multiple schools of Christianity.

Why is your view more valid than ours? You cannot claim God's or divine authority, any more than a Buddhist or pagan or Muslim or Jew can, or than an atheist can claim the authority of science and reason.

So -- why is your religious view to dominate our culture and laws? Why shouldn't mine, instead, whatever that may be?
66
@62

If I was rude to you I apologize, though I wasn't. If you're that sensitive about your beliefs I might suggest you examine the beliefs rather than getting snappy with those who challenge them. But that really isn't my busines or my problem.

But to be clear- you and most others here don't represent mainstream America. Nor do I, being slightly to the right of many of my fellow citizens. You represent urban Portland or Seattle or Boston or New York just fine. But you don't even come close to what the vast majority of your fellow citizens outside the dense urban cores think about most social issues. Perhaps you're ahead of history, the vangaurd for needed social change. Perhaps I'm a fossil unwilling to recognize the need for that change. I don't think so, but time will tell.
67
@ 59, you are given facts time and time and time again. So much for that requirement being unmet, ever.

Impervious to facts. Proven one more time. It's like a scientific theory by this point.
68
Marriage is fundamentally NOT objective. It is a social construct, and a legal one.

Exactly! That is to say, what you require from a marriage and what I require from a marriage will tend to differ according to our different metaphysical views, our different lifestyles, etc.

The civic contract that is marriage, however, DOES have objective boundaries. It does not require procreation, or even the capacity to procreate; in what way, then, can we say that limits on the sex or gender of participants therein are justified by a tradition of marriage as a vessel for building environments in which to raise children? Do you also support withholding marital rights from individuals who currently enjoy them, such as the elderly or clinically infertile?

Nor did I address what a Buddhist or Pagan or anyone other religion might think of marriage. I just note that to deny the tenets of Christianity but claim to be a Christian isn't accurate. And I request that those unable to accept the tenets of Christianity stop calling themselves Christian.

Sorry; you gave the impression that you were capable of actually reading what a person wrote and responding do it. I'm not concerned with the Buddhist definition of marriage; I wasn't even a Buddhist when I married. What I was pointing out is that the Buddhist's definition of Buddhism is not bound by petty notions like canon vs. apocrypha; that is, one may be a Buddhist without even believing that Siddhartha Gautama/Shakyamuni ever actually lived. Likewise, a Christian may, in theory, believe that Christ was an aspect of a triune deity, per Trinitarian doctrine; a son of deity, as according to Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Seventh Day Adventists; or a great philosopher likely not possessed of any magic significance whatsoever, per Enlightnement deists like Thomas Jefferson. But all of the above would, on some level, identify as Christian. I wonder on what authority, by what theological argument, you would call all of those people liars.

When you can answer that question, you will have established some credibility for your exclusive definition. Otherwise . . . well, here we are.
And yes Christianity can change in some ways. It's a human invention, not a divine one. But if it changes, as you folks would like marriage to do, to the point of diffuse meaninglessness why bother with it at all?

I'll let you determine at what point Christianity becomes meaningless, since "Christianity," as such, is only meaningful to me the way any other body of assumptions is (more so than some such bodies, less so than others). As someone who has still found sound advice and solace in the mythopoetry of the Bible, however, I have to say that the reason to "bother with it" is that any attempt of that scale to describe the origin, nature, and ultimate fate of humanity deserves, and will--in one way or another--reward study. And those who find for any one such body of assertions and poetry over another, in whole or in great part, will tend to identify with that paradigm.

All of which is to say--and I must admit, I'm surprised you need me to explain this to you--that the reason to "bother with it at all" is because it may yet be of use, and will likely be of greater use to some than to others.
It's your position that we should redefine marriage to be so vague as to be meaningless, to destroy it as a useful social term. How you came to despise marriage so deeply despite apparently being happily married is yours to explain, not mine.

On the contrary--it's my position that we should share it. The way I define MY marriage RIGHT NOW is identical to the way it would continue to be defined (both as a spiritual sacrament AND as a civic contract, though, for legal purposes, only the latter matters) if it were extended to the various committed same-sex couples I know.

It's not my position you have to explain, then; it's your view of my position that is perplexing, from over here.
69
It is a social construct, and a legal one.


As a legal construct, it should have a much recourse to empirically demonstrable civic utilities as possible, and should be allowable only insofar and in what form it has recourse to precisely that.
70
@38: Name one right that gay people would have that straight people wouldn't. Don't even get me started on those rascally bischmexuals!
@50: If you care so deeply about how gay people are dirty but not about how shellfish are dirty, you have already watered down the religion. You are cherry-picking, playing semantics while ignoring the keystone of your religion and mine. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah [and the sum of what Jesus of Nazareth said too, I might add]; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." (Hillel the Elder)
@59: You rely so much on the beams and joists of logic that you neglect the foundation stone of evidence. I'd be afeared to live in a house you built if you take this approach with your carpentry.
Also, they keep lists of convicted felons, yes? Show me one with Bill Clinton's name on it, you scrub.
@61: Marriage is two people pledging themselves to each other for the sake of love and companionship.
What's so bad about that definition?
@66: Hate to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of Americans live in the urban cores. 79.219% live in urban settings, and 68.646% live in cities of 50,000 souls or larger (source).
You are not a fossil, Seattleblues. A fossil has weathered the ages, passed through the sieves of biostratinomy, diagenesis, and discovery, and remained as a physical record of a time past. Some fossils have extant cousins, some have no living family, and some even represent species that are themselves yet living. Your preservation potential, however, is quite low; you will not be remembered as an opponent of marriage equality, because only your family will remember you. No, you will be a biomarker, or a contributor to one at least. When people a hundred years from now look back on the historical record, they will see support for marriage equality grow and spread and they will see views such as yours die out. You will be part of a statistic, a dwindling one at that. We'll all be dust and loam and bones then, but our ideas will have gone to fixation and yours to extinction.
Trust me; I'm a paleontologist.
71
If I was rude to you I apologize, though I wasn't.

Um . . . Does someone need to post the definition of "apology" for you?
If you're that sensitive about your beliefs I might suggest you examine the beliefs rather than getting snappy with those who challenge them.

Says the person so sensitive about his beliefs that he won't be satisfied until the state has sanctified the lot of them.
But that really isn't my busines[s] or my problem.

I think we can safely say that no one here is qualified to diagnose your problem.
But to be clear- you and most others here don't represent mainstream America.

Polls suggest that mainstream America is warming to the idea of same-sex marriage. That said, I'm not sure there's any particular value in being mainstream.
You represent urban Portland or Seattle or Boston or New York just fine. But you don't even come close to what the vast majority of your fellow citizens outside the dense urban cores think about most social issues.

Which, at the very least, qualifies us to determine how we should be governed in those urban cores. And let's be realistic--if it becomes legal to marry a same-sex partner in Helena, MT (where I grew up), those partners will still be going to Seattle to do it, for the most part. In principle, it should be legal anywhere in the U.S.; in practice, it will take place almost exclusively in the urban archipelago.
72
Seattleblues,

I'm not sensitive about my beliefs. Not even a little. Nor am I feeling snappy. I'm being clear.

Now, I am being straight forward and honest. I am tired of your proclamation that you get to define things. I am tired of your thinking your opinions are correct and immutable and thus require obedience without your ever offering evidence or citable sources to support them. I am tired of your ignoring your own name calling and insults on numerous threads, while pointing fingers at others who call names or use insults. It is very reminiscent of grade school.

Just so you are clear. I do not call myself "Christian", that is what you call yourself. And, thus I acknowledge your right to proclaim that you hold to some tenants of what you think is 'right' or 'correct' Christianity for yourself, even when you actively choose actions that reveal that you can not keep your own Biblical commands on how you are to treat others, and thus I acknowledge your right to define yourself and to call yourself "Christian". I am not obligated to share your opinion, or to agree that your holding certain tenants permits you to ignore commands of your proclaimed Savior on how to treat others. I can and do hold the opinion that your behavior is often a sad example of the rather common trope of "Jesus with skin on". You, of course, are not obligated to agree. I hope I have made myself clear.

I sincerely hope we are clear about my not caring if you think I have a "watered down compromised half faith", opinions are like hearts and everyone has one. Your "apology" was not wished for or needed.
73
Marriage is two people pledging themselves to each other for the sake of love and companionship. What's so bad about that definition?


Seems pretty nearly perfect, to me. What's more, it's precisely the definition my married, Catholic mother offered when I was growing up.

It seems that this definition suffices right up until someone wishes to offer state recognition of this pledge to those who don't currently possess it.
74
Just wanted to add my "Fuck yeah!" Thank you, Senator Haugen.
75
So, Seattleblues - Are you planning to move from Washington state, or do you not give one tiny shit about your marriage? I mean, It's a worthless sham now. A joke. And what shred of dignity is still provides you is at risk! Don't you care about your family?

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out - and enjoy Mississippi! I bet they pay carpenters twice as much as the rich liberal home owners in Seattle (whose money you take while you badmouth them behind their back).

I mean that with the greatest respect, as I - like you - am incapable of hate.
76
It's been pointed out, but I want to emphasize: you cannot meaningfully talk about the majority of Americans while at the same time exclude Americans who live in urban centers. That's like talking about all the colors of the rainbow, but excluding blue, green, orange and yellow.

On a different and way more important topic, kick ass, Senator Haugen! I particularly admire her statement- way to demonstrate a graceful way to deal with the competing demands of your personal beliefs and political and civic responsibilities in a thoughtful, moral way. That is just really heartening to me. It's particularly heartening to me that she was able to get to "everyone is entitled to the same rights I have" without needing to get to "I agree with how everyone is going to use those rights". Because I feel like for the portion of people who are anti-gay marriage, it's ultimately more fruitful to work to get them to agree with equality than it is to be "ok" with gayness.

I'm totally also forwarding Haugen's speech to all of my social conservative relatives for a little bit of a nudge.
77
This is the introduction to "God Hates Shrimp"......it is being edited and I hope to have it published soon.........I wanted to share this and I felt as if this was an appropriate time to do so......I want to thank our Senator Mary Margaret Haugen for her wisdom and passion........I am so glad HE calls us friend..

Introduction (God Hates Shrimp)
Life is a journey, not so much to a destination, but a transformation. Looking back on my life, I realized some of the most rewarding times come from some of the most difficult times. Each situation is a stepping stone that brings us one more step closer to being who HE made us to be. God made us to live, to laugh, to cry, to hurt and to celebrate with each other no matter our differences.

The entire belief system of man-made Christianity requires the individual to accept what is being presented on faith and to deny the evidence of human intelligence. Integrity for the Christian becomes impossible. My intent is not to tell people they need to make a mad exit out of their churches, but to learn to set aside “man-made doctrines’ in order to have a “PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP” with “SPIRIT”, (John 4:24). Once we learn to put ALL of our trust in God, instead of our leaders and religion, we will be able to see more clearly and understand the true meaning of man’s purpose in God’s plan.

I believe one of the saddest things in life is when another person can strip you of your dignity, pride and self-worth in the name of religion or GOD. Human beings are creatures of habits and as a result, we tend to revert back to our comfort zones, no matter how much pain it might provoke on us. Being raised Apostolic, I long for the Apostolic, Pentecostal worship. Being a gay man and with the stringent antigay beliefs within the ranks of the Pentecostals, my quest for this type of worship left me feeling isolated and alone.

Even though, deep within my soul, I knew being gay was how I was created, I still spent more than half of my life, living in shame, and in fear of being discarded by the ones I thought meant the most. People who as long as I lived by their rules, I would be accepted. But as soon as I became a threat to their belief system or I stepped outside of the box, I would be thrown to the wayside to defend for myself.

Transformation is tough, and we do not always end up where we think we will, and when we have struggles in believing in ourselves, he always believes in us. He fills our lives with purpose and passion and if we let him, he will put us at the right place at the right time. The best part of the journey is the God of the universe, the one that created life, allows us to play a part in…. changing…… the…… world.

.
78
“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. . . . But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed."

Great stuff. A Christian who gets it.
79
I think it's great that she was able to overcome her personal beliefs and stand for the civil rights, but I would disagree with her on one point.
She said that she respects people on both sides of the issue, but I do not understand how she, once understanding why marriage equality is a civil right, would respect people who are against it. It's like saying that a person should respect racist or sexist people even though their beliefs might differ. No. Racism and sexism should not be condoned or respected in any way, just like homophobia shouldn't.
80
@ Seattleblues:

You make a pretty airtight case for not being Christian. Because who'd want to spend eternity with a bunch of ignorant assholes like you? You're on the wrong side of history, fool. Feel free to attempt to deny others their basic civil rights (like the right to visit your loved one in the hospital or adopt a child who needs a home). We'll feel free to call you out for the fucknut you are.

@ Everyone else:

How can Christians expect to be taken seriously when they believe there's a floating man in the sky who created everything and although he loves everyone very much, he's hyper homophobic and more than willing to throw you in a firepit for eternity if you love the wrong person? Seriously, I don't get it.
81
Yes, I know some Christians are tolerant of homosexuals. But merely being tolerated is still insulting. And Christians base their faith on a book that instructs its followers to stone homosexuals TO DEATH. How can you pick and choose the instructions of the creator of the universe?

Why am I "picking on" Christianity? Because opposition to gay marriage is rooted there. It's full of hate and bigotry. You don't need religion or god to love. But it is a convenient thing to have when you want to justify your own small-mindedness. So good for Senator Haugen, but it shouldn't have even been a question of whether or not to support this. So my cheerleading for her is limited to "Good job for not institutionalizing your antiquated philosophy".

Now back to work!
82
@79, it's possible to respect people, and to appreciate that they are willing to fight and sacrifice for their beliefs, without agreeing with those beliefs. My grandpa was kinda racist. I loved and respected him for other things.

It's a bit of a stretch, but it can be done.
83
Get your wardrobes ready to attend a lot of great weddings!
84
@ 79, if she represent a district with a lot of homophobes who are going to be in her face over this, cut her some slack. Remember that she's a politician, and politicians try not to alienate any constituent.

She's going to get a lot of grief over this. Give her your support and withhold any pointless criticism. This battle is being won by converting one person at a time; it doesn't help to have a "what took you so long" kind of attitude.
85
Dear fossil @66:

You DO know that roughly 60% of the U.S. population lives in "dense urban cores", defined as "urban areas with greater than 200,000 population", yes?

In other words, we ARE "mainstream America", you insufferable twit.
86
Seattleblues, will your marriage and family fall apart when gay marriage is legalized? Or do you think that your marriage and family are better than anyone else's, and you're just trying to defend people who aren't as morally superior as you?
87
@80

"You make a pretty airtight case for not being Christian."

Um hmm. Couple things. First a virulent bigot like you isn't interested in reality, just your prejudices about the faith. Second I'm not proselytizing, just setting the record straight when folks lie about the faith or misrepresent it as something they share when they quite obviously don't.

But in general you and your fellow travellers on the left can keep attacking Christianity with my encouragement. It's what the left truly thinks, and attacking the faith that sustains the majority of your fellow citizens is one of the best ways I know to alienate them. What's bad for the left politically is good for the country, so alls well that ends well.
88
@87: If we were interested in reality, none of us would be talking to you.
89
@Gay Marriage logic fail-

My real marriage and that of my heterosexual neighbors is fine (or not fine) regardless of whether a gay man or lesbian can corrupt the term to include their chosen relationships. That isn't and never has been the point.

Nor does my wifes mother remarrying late in life without the possibility of children affect a blind thing. The point isn't the exceptions, it's the rule that we use marraige as a way to socially channel powerful urges like sexuality and parenthood. It isn't a plaything for the radical left to throw about while making false claims about equality.

See, unlike the left, generally conservatives look past the next 5 minutes or 5 days or even 5 months when we think about government policies. What this will do to marriage as a concept in a generation or two is more the concern than what it will do to my marriage today. And what it will do has been pointed out by some of the more honest posters. Look at countries which view marraige with the contempt you folks do and you see declining rates of marriage among young people. All for what? So that a person who chose a lifestyle can evade the consequences of that lifestlye? Yes, very mature.

But keep trying the red herring approach. It's amusing.
90
I have no interest in attacking Christians, Seattleblues, or even Christianity. I realize that offering this as the obvious blanket view held by all liberals, however, is what allows you to refrain from addressing any of the actual questions put to you, or attempting to debate any of the challenges to your various assertions. It is, perhaps, inhumane of me to deny you such easy shelter from civil discourse.
91
@Urban v America

This confusion is justified, since I put the qualifier once and you folks don't do details.

Dense urban cores was the term I used. Not urban alone, which does indeed encompass a slight majority of our population. While in my neighborhood near Seattle we vote moderate to conservative, on Capital Hill they vote for things like Baghdad Jim McDermott. See, it may well be true that in the densest part of an urban enviroment the insanity that is the far left flourishes. Rats in an overcrowded cage do tend to go a bit nutty after all. But in the outlying less densely populated areas this effect diminishes and in the suburbs tends to revert to the center right political leaning that typifies the majority of American voters.
92
Nor does my wifes mother remarrying late in life without the possibility of children affect a blind thing. The point isn't the exceptions, it's the rule that we use marr[ia]ge as a way to socially channel powerful urges like sexuality and parenthood.


Would same-sex marriage not "channel" the "powerful urge" of sexuality with regards to what many on your side of the fence consider to be the dangerous and irresponsible promiscuity of at least some portion of the gay male population?

And the exceptions are worth noting because the exceptions noted are built into the rule; that is, your wife remarrying late in life is an allowable exception to the procreative rule, while an individual marrying a romantic partner of the same-sex is not. Why? What does one exception provide society that the other exception does not? Please be specific.
What this will do to marriage as a concept in a generation or two is more the concern than what it will do to my marriage today. And what it will do has been pointed out by some of the more honest posters. Look at countries which view marraige with the contempt you folks do and you see declining rates of marriage among young people.

However much I subjectively value my own marriage, I'm not sure what objective value is realized by keeping marriage rates high. I would rather that children grow up in two parent households with some assurances of financial and micro-social stability; I'm not too concerned as to the sex or gender of the parents or their blood relation (or lack thereof) to the progeny (though I'm certainly not in favor of those who make the babies giving them away in large numbers). In that regard, I should hope that as many people who DO raise children--including same-sex couples--are married as possibly can be.

As to whether others will marry, I can only testify as to how satisfying my own marriage is. That said, I don't think it would be any less so if the government opted to offer NO recognition to childless unions; nor do I see any empirically demonstrable utility served by keeping birth rates, or rates of marriage among the childless, high. Feel free to demonstrate this value in any way you can; there is, after all, a first time for everything.
93
God loves Seattleblues more than you, and has blessed him with Super-Christian! powers. You may think you know in your heart you're a Christian, but Seattleblues knows you are wrong. Don't you realize that Seattleblues alone has the only possible interpretation of the Bible, and he can determine who is truly Christian, and who is not.

94
Why do you think that urban/suburban sprawl collects around those dense cores, Seattleblues? Is it, perhaps, because those overcrowded cages, and the nutty rats that keep them running, actually constitute a viable cultural and economic engine?
95
"God loves Seattleblues more than you, and has blessed him with Super-Christian! powers."

That is an interpretation of what I wrote that unfortunately could seem reasonable to those wanting it to seem reasonable. I can be mildly arrogant at times, and impatient with obvious and preventable errors of fact. And where it could negatively impact a reasonable persons view of Christianity that arrogance and impatience is a serious vice.

I get it. You've had some bad experiences with Christianity, probably when told that the sexual urges you feel aren't physically or spiritually healthy. Sorry you couldn't handle that. Truth, like medical care, can be initially painful.

Nor did I say that God loves anyone from me to the Pope any more or less. Which I actually wrote, if you'd bothered to read it. Grace is available to anyone who seeks it on the same terms. And I surely need it more than many others.

Having said which, the liberal attack on marriage and that on Christianity are similar in nature. Sure, some of the loud screeching voices like Savages are direct in their attacks on morality and family and marriage. But mostly it's the quiet reasonable sounding 'inclusive' argument that works the best. We're not trying to destroy marriage/Christianity, we're trying to make it more 'inclusive.' Problem is, in your inclusiveness you make the term so broad as to be meaningless. That kind of attack, were it not so destructive, would almost be admirable in its' sublety, really.

Now, where I am it's 10:00 and jet lag appears to have run its course. Have a pleasant day.
96
@ SB, "See, unlike the left, generally conservatives look past the next 5 minutes or 5 days or even 5 months when we think about government policies."

If that were true, you wouldn't support all the destructive policies conservatives support.

Aw, wait, don't leave yet! It's only 10:50 in Rome! You still haven't answered the "logic fallacy" question I posed to you.
97
Make that 9:50. It's not late at all.
98
89,
My real marriage and that of my heterosexual neighbors is fine (or not fine) regardless of whether a gay man or lesbian can corrupt the term to include their chosen relationships.
So gay marriage won't affect other straight marriages.

The point isn't the exceptions, it's the rule that we use marraige as a way to socially channel powerful urges like sexuality and parenthood. It isn't a plaything for the radical left to throw about while making false claims about equality.
But if gay marriage won't affect straight marriage, then why is this be an issue? You're contradicting yourself.

What this will do to marriage as a concept in a generation or two is more the concern than what it will do to my marriage today.
So you believe your Super-Christian! powers allow you to see into the future? Do you really believe that people will stop wanting to get married and having children because gay people can get married? (Again, you said gay marriage won't affect straight marriages, but maybe you meant it won't affect the marriages of superior beings like yourself?) People didn't stop getting married when interracial marriage was legalized. (Interracial marriage is a behavior of choice, and like race, people cannot help what sex they were born.)

Look at countries which view marraige with the contempt you folks do and you see declining rates of marriage among young people. All for what? So that a person who chose a lifestyle can evade the consequences of that lifestlye? Yes, very mature.
Which countries? Can you provide links to such data? Can you link gay marriage to your claims with valid data? Perhaps it was interracial marriage that caused them to have a low regard for marriage. Do you feel I should just take your word for it because you are superior to me?

99
I can be mildly arrogant at times, and impatient with obvious and preventable errors of fact.
As with your earlier "apology" to Kim, you have a gift for undermining any would-be display of humility or even a baseline of rational self-doubt. Of course, we can always take comfort in the fact that you've yet to demonstrate, illustrate, or in any way factually support your assertions regarding these "preventable errors." How are we to learn if you don't take the time to teach us? And if you fail to teach, how are we to assume other than that our own understandings of fact are correct?
You've had some bad experiences with Christianity, probably when told that the sexual urges you feel aren't physically or spiritually healthy. Sorry you couldn't handle that. Truth, like medical care, can be initially painful.

Given that no empirical evidence suggests that the Bible represents any more accurate a view of human origin or metaphysic than any other ostensibly revealed text, and given, also, that one does not choose what appears to be intuitively true with regards to experiential evidence, your "Truth" is on rather dubious ground. Were you able to point to an empirically demonstrable harm to any given sexual urge your inclined to oppose, your position might have credibility. As it is, it looks like you're dodging debate with superior philosophers.
Nor did I say that God loves anyone from me to the Pope any more or less. Which I actually wrote, if you'd bothered to read it.

Given my response to your assertions, and your lack of response to mine, it could be suggested that at least one of us is "bothering to read" what passes for writing in your mind to a degree that is clearly no reciprocal.
Grace is available to anyone who seeks it on the same terms.

On what basis would anyone seek grace from a being he or she does not believe exists? On what basis would one believe in what does not appear, according to the evidence available to any given person and that person's epistemic capacity and core temperament, to be true?
But mostly it's the quiet reasonable sounding 'inclusive' argument that works the best. We're not trying to destroy marriage/Christianity, we're trying to make it more 'inclusive.'

Interestingly enough, you attacked someone just the other day for referring to your argument(s) as "reasonable sounding," suggesting that such a label is all but an admission that one doesn't have an argument against the posit. Can I assume that you'll apply this reasoning universally? Or are we to choose between the other two possibilities--that, at worst, you're a duplicitous ideologue; or, at best, you're a mediocre intellect feigning authority in matters you can't begin to comprehend?
Problem is, in your inclusiveness you make the term so broad as to be meaningless.

Who's to say at what point expansion of a definition is meaningless? If marriage already includes, has already included, arranged marriage as well as chosen marriage, single-couple marriage as well as polygamous arrangements, who are you to say that this change, and this change only, is the one that sinks everything?
100
95, You are the one telling everyone else who should be allowed to get married, and who should be denied marriage based on your unprovable religious beliefs. Gay people aren't telling you who you should marry, but you have no problems telling them that.

Oh, by the way there are many, many gay Christians, (Some of whom I love dearly) and they go to church every Sunday. (I know, I know, they're not real Christians, right? I mean, God doesn't appreciate their faith as much as yours, right? If only they had your superior interpretation of the Bible!)