Same-sex marriage blocked in Washington

[FreakyLocz14]

Washington made same-sex marriage legal recently, and the law was set to go into effect this week, when a referendum attempting to overturn the law and return the definition of marriage in the state to be only one man and woman qualified for the ballot. This means that same-sex marriage will only become legal in the state when (and if) Washington voters decide the issue.

Note that same-sex marriage has failed at the ballot box in every state that it has been on the ballot in. This includes states that are widely considered to be Democratic, such as Maine's Question 1 and California's Proposition 8. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, which has a legislature that is almost 75% Republican in both houses, overwhelmingly voted in favor of same-sex marriage rights in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/07/MNAQ1OTUJB.DTL&type=politics

 

[Shining Raichu]

I thought the precedent set by the lawsuit in California over Proposition 8 would end the right for voters to decide the rights of minority groups. How infuriating. One step forward, two steps back. I hate Republicans, they had to be behind this.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I thought the precedent set by the lawsuit in California over Proposition 8 would end the right for voters to decide the rights of minority groups. How infuriating. One step forward, two steps back. I hate Republicans, they had to be behind this.

This isn't the effort of a particular political party.

No precedent has been set by the Prop 8 ruling because the Supreme Court will now be reviewing it. It's a toss-up as to how they will rule. It will likely be a 5-4 decision one way or the other.

The Ninth Circuit also narrowly tailored their decision, meaning that they applied it only to California's Proposition 8, and did not set precedent for other same-sex marriage cases.

 

[Sydian]

I hate Republicans, they had to be behind this.

Aaaaand I hate when people just go ahead and group us together like we're all the same and/or assume it's all our fault. I mean, even the predominantly democratic states didn't want this passed. So it's not something you should just point your fingers at one party, give them the stink eye, and be like "YOU!!!" Other than that though, I agree. It really shouldn't be up to the government in the first place, and it shouldn't be up to voters in general. If you're against same-sex marriage, so what? Don't go falling in love with someone of the same sex and wanna marry them. Shouldn't be their decision. There are certain things that need outside intervention I think, when it's harmful, but this isn't one of them. Government and voters shouldn't have the right to make it unlawful for a same-sex couple to get married.

-moves to Canada- Hurrr.

 

[Alice]

Figures. Part of why I'm moving to Seattle just disappeared. It was a small part, but still.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Why do citizens vote on rights? I don't get it. We don't do that here in Canada. We elect people who are supposed to be educated and informed to make those decisions for and represent us accordingly. What do you pay your government to do exactly if you're making all the decisions?

African American and women's rights wouldn't have taken off if we had left the decision up to the people.

 

[Illuminaughty]

One thing: constituents should not be able to determine whether a piece of civil rights legislation is constitutional or not. This is why we have "indirect" democracy!?!?

Also this was funded and coordinated by preserve marriage Washington, it's main contributors and affiliates are conservative/republican. Not saying all republicans are against gay marriage, but when action is taken against gay marriage you can almost always be assured that the vast majority of support derived from the republican/tea party.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Why do citizens vote on rights? I don't get it. We don't do that here in Canada. We elect people who are supposed to be educated and informed to make those decisions for and represent us accordingly. What do you pay your government to do exactly if you're making all the decisions?

African American and women's rights wouldn't have taken off if we had left the decision up to the people.

Three is no direct democracy at the federal level.

Most states and local governments allow voters to pass laws (and often, even state constitutional amendments), recall politicians from office, and overturn acts of their state legislatures.

Attempting to do away with direct democracy would be political suicide, as any politician attempting to so would likely be removed from office by their constituents.

 

[Esper]

Show me ten elected Republicans who are for same-sex marriage. Go on, try it. It's fair to say Republicans are against same-sex marriage because we mean elected politicians.

And things like Prop 8 happened because of media fear campaigns funded by, for example, groups like the Mormon church. A lot of money can make people vote for the wrong things because of misinformation.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Show me ten elected Republicans who are for same-sex marriage. Go on, try it. It's fair to say Republicans are against same-sex marriage because we mean elected politicians.

And things like Prop 8 happened because of media fear campaigns funded by, for example, groups like the Mormon church. A lot of money can make people vote for the wrong things because of misinformation.

How about Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, the majority of the Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature, and the Republican Governor of California when Prop 8 passed in Democrat California?

 

[Klippy]

Show me ten elected Republicans who are for same-sex marriage. Go on, try it.

Okay.

Dick Cheney (former vice president and United States representative)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida US representative)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (former governor of California)
Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico and current Libertarian nominee for President)
Christine Whitman (former governor of New Jersey)
Phill Scott (Republican Lt. Governor of Vermont)
Ron Paul (representative for Texas - believes it is up to the states to decide. Personal belief is marriage is between man/woman, but won't support or deny anything regarding LGBT issues)
Mitt Romney (former Massachusetts governor and current Republican presidential nominee. Supports same-sex couples getting domestic partner rights, but not marriage)
Steve Litzow and Cheryl Pflug (Washington state senators)
Wayne Gilchrest (former US senator for Maryland)

You can argue that Romney and Paul don't count, since they don't support marriage, but they at least support rights or won't play personal politics in Paul's case.

I won't disagree that Republicans are strongly against same-sex marriage, where only 28% support it nationally [1]. Republicans are also more religious than Democrats and Independents with 50% going to church at least once a week, whereas 20-25% of Democrats and Independents attend church regularly. [2] I think this plays a huge role in supporting gay marriage. If you're a regular church go-er, you're less likely to support it when the religion you adhere to doesn't support or allow it.

The problem isn't a Republican or Democratic one, however. New Hampshire showed that Republicans can support gay marriage strongly, while North Carolina showed they can't. There are all sorts of factors playing into each vote in each state and I personally support each state's decision, whether to allow or not allow it. People in NC obviously have different views than people in NH and states should have the right to vote how their constituents and people want. You may not like the results of some votes, but that's where the checks and balances of our government come into play and allow challenges to these votes to start.

I think the only way the issue will ever be settled is with a Supreme Court opinion on the matter for the entire country. That kind of undermines the state rights point I made, but I think we will be in an endless cycle of votes passing or failing and nothing substantial being decided until the Supreme Court makes a decision. It's the same thing that happened with civil rights. Nothing was changing or happening until the Supreme Court gave an opinion and even then people fought it, but couldn't stop it.

For full disclosure, I am a straight Christian Republican voter with gay relatives & friends and I am not against gay marriage. All the discussion on whether gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage is silly to me when Kim Kardashian can marry a guy for a week just to make $70 million from advertisers, then divorce him. I think children will grow up how they grow up and if they are in a loving and supportive environment, they will become loving and supportive and a responsible member of society whether or not they are raised by a gay couple or a straight couple. I don't see gay marriage as destroying the institution, but instead strengthening it if the couples are committed to each other for life like marriage is meant to be.

References:
[1] https://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
[2] https://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I think this plays a huge role in supporting gay marriage. If you're a regular church go-er, you're less likely to support it when the religion you adhere to doesn't support or allow it.

This needs to be qualified. If you're an informed church-goer then you shouldn't have a problem with it. I think the majority of the religious right either:
A) Think gay marriage would apply to religious ceremonies. It would not
B) Don't know they were legally married at the same time they got married in the Church. ...or don't even know you can get legally married to begin either, outside of the Church.
C) Don't understand the rights that they receive when they get married. Or that they are granted any at all.

Our conservative parties here in Canada merged recently, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me. I want Canada's party to split up again. But I absolutely want the Republicans to split up into branches. Libertarians, fiscal conservatives, the Tea Partiers, the religious right. Honestly, they're very different from each other. I'm tired of Left VS Right, Liberal VS Conservative, Democrat VS Republican. Umbrella groups help nobody. The differences within a party aren't highlighted, people aren't represented appropriately, and it only stems to create more polarization.

Not everyone on the right is an uneducated bigot and not everyone on the left is a Communist on welfare.

I consider myself to be on the right, but I were living in America, I would vote for the Democrats. Your country has moved so far to the right, that the Democrats now are basically 1980s Republicans.

 

[Gothitelle.]

Honestly, I don't know why it's up for a vote anyway. Yes, give them the partner rights but let the people who marry the couples decide (ie churches etc) if they want to marry same sex couples. If they don't want to or feel unconformable, then they have every right not to marry same sex couples. But there are always people who will do so. For every no there is always a yes.

Also, I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I agree with Romney on giving them partner rights but not marriage, however who am I to tell you who can you not marry? Why yes I am a conservative.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Yes, give them the partner rights but let the people who marry the couples decide (ie churches etc) if they want to marry same sex couples. If they don't want to or feel unconformable, then they have every right not to marry same sex couples.

But that shouldn't even have to be a concern because it isn't even a possibility. I'm assuming.

I am not entirely familiar with what is being proposed throughout the U.S., but if it is like what we have here in Canada then it does not extend to the religious environment. You cannot get married into a religion that does not permit gay marriage. Anymore than you can get married into a religion that you are not a part of. End of story. You can get married outside of a religious institution (like at a courthouse), legally, and obtain the associated rights.

You are married in the eyes of the law, not the eyes of God.

So, since it isn't an option, why would a priest or anyone else have to fret about what to do in a situation they will never be presented with?

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Honestly, I don't know why it's up for a vote anyway. Yes, give them the partner rights but let the people who marry the couples decide (ie churches etc) if they want to marry same sex couples. If they don't want to or feel unconformable, then they have every right not to marry same sex couples. But there are always people who will do so. For every no there is always a yes.

Also, I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I agree with Romney on giving them partner rights but not marriage, however who am I to tell you who can you not marry? Why yes I am a conservative.

Please don't talk about controversial political and social issues in bright neon pink. It only makes your bigoted, intolerant ideals sound dumber. Anyway, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one. It's as simple as that.

 

[donavannj]

This isn't the effort of a particular political party.

That may actually have been the case in Washington state, though it's more a cultural divide between the very liberal western half of the state (mostly around Seattle) and the very conservative eastern half of the state at work here.

One thing: constituents should not be able to determine whether a piece of civil rights legislation is constitutional or not. This is why we have "indirect" democracy!?!?

I would beg to differ. Majority opinion polls in Minnesota indicate that the majority of constituents oppose constitutionally banning same-sex marriage. However, our currently Republican-controlled State Legislature passed legislation pushing forth a constitutional amendment vote on that exact issue, trying to get same-sex marriage constitutionally banned here. Fortunately, there was an ammendment put into effect back in 1898 that made it much more difficult for constitutional amendments to be passed in the state, requiring that a majority of votes cast in the race with the highest total vote count on the ballot had to be attained for an amendment to be passed, not just a majority of votes cast on the amendment itself.

 

[Gothitelle.]

Tho I reserve the right to type in any color I want no matter the subject, I changed the color on my options file.

But that shouldn't even have to be a concern because it isn't even a possibility. I'm assuming.

I am not entirely familiar with what is being proposed throughout the U.S., but if it is like what we have here in Canada then it does not extend to the religious environment. You cannot get married into a religion that does not permit gay marriage. Anymore than you can get married into a religion that you are not a part of. End of story. You can get married outside of a religious institution (like at a courthouse), legally, and obtain the associated rights.

You are married in the eyes of the law, not the eyes of God.

So, since it isn't an option, why would a priest or anyone else have to fret about what to do in a situation they will never be presented with?

Separation of church and state? Yeah we have the same thing as well. I meant that there was also court marriages as well but what most of the fuss is about is region based marriages. Civil unions are always up for grabs. But give them the partner rights and we are set.

 

[donavannj]

Separation of church and state? Yeah we have the same thing as well. I meant that there was also court marriages as well but what most of the fuss is about is region based marriages. Civil unions are always up for grabs. But give them the partner rights and we are set.

The thing is, most proponents of gay marriage just want to change the legal status and definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Most proponents are not trying to force the churches to change their religious definition, they're just trying to get the LEGAL definition altered, as most would be satisfied just to be seen as legally married in the eyes of the law.

Keeping in mind that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are two separate definitions, that is. Changing one does not automatically equate to changing the other.

 

[Gothitelle.]

The thing is, most proponents of gay marriage just want to change the legal status and definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Most proponents are not trying to force the churches to change their religious definition, they're just trying to get the LEGAL definition altered, as most would be satisfied just to be seen as legally married in the eyes of the law.

Keeping in mind that the legal and religious definitions of marriage are two separate definitions, that is. Changing one does not automatically equate to changing the other.

If it's the legal status, then okay. As long as they aren't forcing others to change their views or faith when it comes to same sex marriage. I don't know how seeing two people of the same sex affects people negatively and don't know why it does (I could pretty much understand to an extent) but to me, it doesn't.

 

[Klippy]

This needs to be qualified. If you're an informed church-goer then you shouldn't have a problem with it. I think the majority of the religious right either:
A) Think gay marriage would apply to religious ceremonies. It would not
B) Don't know they were legally married at the same time they got married in the Church. ...or don't even know you can get legally married to begin either, outside of the Church.
C) Don't understand the rights that they receive when they get married. Or that they are granted any at all.

Our conservative parties here in Canada merged recently, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me. I want Canada's party to split up again. But I absolutely want the Republicans to split up into branches. Libertarians, fiscal conservatives, the Tea Partiers, the religious right. Honestly, they're very different from each other. I'm tired of Left VS Right, Liberal VS Conservative, Democrat VS Republican. Umbrella groups help nobody. The differences within a party aren't highlighted, people aren't represented appropriately, and it only stems to create more polarization.

I suppose there's a point to that, but I don't think you can narrow down what people think to just those three. Some religious people just don't agree with gay marriage based on their beliefs. Homosexuality in many religions is a sin or wrongdoing, so homosexual marriage would go against that as well, whether it has anything to do with religious ceremonies or not.

I think most religious people understand that a marriage ceremony is done to signify unity between the couple and God (or whatever deity they worship), not a legally binding agreement. Anyone can get married in church and understand they are not legally married, so unless I am completely ignorant of the intelligence of religious people, I think that point is moot.

On to your other point, there will never be a separation or disbanding of the two major political parties in America. It's how the system works here and it won't be changed. I agree that it creates a very large rift between people of the two different parties however. Left v Right doesn't quantify the amount of opinions a person can have to choose a party to support. You might support gay marriage, but be against abortion, so does that make you more of a liberal/Democrat/left or a conservative/Republican/right?

The effectiveness of Left v Right is that you are given a clear choice between the major points of each party and you must settle for which aligns more with your viewpoints. You have to compromise your views to help support someone that still appeals more to you, which is what politics should be about anyway. Compromising to come to a beneficial agreement for all. It's why New Hampshire rejected the gay marriage repeal. Republicans in their state Congress knew they needed to compromise this issue because their constituents demanded it. It's how the system should work. When people aren't willing to compromise, you get what our current Congress is doing and that's blaming each other for every problem and getting nothing done. 8% approval rating and they seem to think they're all doing an okay job.