NCW rejects ‘everything but marriage’
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
How we voted
• Chelan County
Approved 6,221 (38.98%)
Rejected 9,737 (61.02%)
• Douglas County
Approved 1,921 (32.61%)
Rejected 3,969 (67.39%)
• Grant County
Approved 3,913 (29.07%)
Rejected 9,547 (70.93%)
• Okanogan County
Approved 2,645 (38.91%)
Rejected 4,153 (61.09%)
Though it was winning statewide, the state referendum to expand the rights of gay couples and senior domestic partners never got a foothold in North Central Washington.
Voters in Chelan, Douglas, Okanogan and Grant counties handily rejected the referendum — nicknamed the “everything but marriage” measure — that would grant registered domestic partners additional state rights currently given only to married couples.
The measure faces at least 60 percent rejection by voters in all four counties, with more than 70 percent of Grant County voters giving a thumbs-down to the referendum.
Statewide, voters are approving the referendum by a slim margin. With more than 1 million votes counted Tuesday night, just over 51 percent had approved the measure.
“This is a remarkable statement by the voters of Washington,” said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, the group fighting to keep the law on the books. “They have a history of being fair-minded and compassionate, and they’ve proven that once again.”
Levinson said that if the vote trend continues, “we’ll be making history in our state in moving forward toward full equality for gay and lesbian families in our state.”
Voters in easern Washington aren’t part of that history-making statement, however.
“On this measure, you can see the divide in thinking runs right along the Cascades,” said Fredi Simpson, Chelan County GOP chairwoman. “Cross into eastern Washington and you find voters who have strong beliefs in this matter. As pretty much expected, they rejected it.”
The east-west divide showed the measure passing in the traditionally more liberal, urban counties of northwest Washington, including King County, which holds about a third of the state’s voters. Across eastern and southwest Washington, voters were overwhelmingly rejecting the measure.
Opponents remained optimistic that they could close the gap, but warned that if the law was approved, gay marriage would be the next step.
The expanded law would add benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support for same-sex partners and some senior couples.
The referendum addresses approval or rejection of a law already on the books, Senate Bill 5688, which was supposed to take effect July 26. If rejected, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships with fewer benefits to gay couples would remain in place.
The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. Under state law, senior couples can register as domestic partnerships as well.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
World photo/Don Seabrook The Chelan High School football ... 2 comments
Sy Stepanov’s “Wenatchee River in Mid October,” a ... 3 comments
Ballard’s holiday display last year. 2 comments
An apple tree is encased in ice Sunday ... 6 comments
Douglas County deputy Evan O’Malley carries guns away ... 6 comments
From left, Patrick Allen, 10, Rozanne Lind, and ... 1 comment
Comments
Want to comment on this story? Registered users can use the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
LDS (Darlene Spargo) says...
I must take issue with your statement: "Voters in eastern Washington aren’t part of that history-making statement, however." If 30-40% of Eastern Washington residents hadn't voted for R71, it wouldn't have been passed. The same is true with 1033. The Cascade Curtain is not as impenetrable as people here like to believe.
November 4, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Actually, it's not about East and West, it's about urban and rural. If you look at the voting map for this measure on the Secretary of State site, you'll see that. People who aren't connected with the land, seasons and earth tend to be more connected with their thoughts, issues and ideas (I include myself in the second group--I wouldn't last long if I didn't have electricity and grocery stores). Urban areas tend to be more liberal--that's generally just the way it goes.
November 4, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gator (J Bone) says...
I agree that the issue is not about East vs. West, but, as I see it, the issue is increasingly becoming what Seattlites want vs. everyone else. Is it any wonder that Northern California has been trying to become its own state for twenty-some years? People in Northern CA are sick of yielding to every whim of people who live in Los Angeles. But, then, the problem is that all the pull (i.e money and power) is also in L.A., so nothing ever happens. And, as a lifelong Eastern Washingtonian, I see the same thing here.
November 4, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
In addition to your ideas, Nicole, I suspect the lack of diversity in more rural areas has a lot to do with it as well. When you are surrounded by more viewpoints and types of people, it's easier to identify with and empathize with them. It's much harder to condemn or deny rights to a neighbor than a stranger.
November 4, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gator (J Bone) says...
Hey Resi, I couldn't tell if your post was meant to paint rural people in a positive or negative light, but I do agree with you, that "It's much harder to condemn or deny rights to a neighbor than a stranger", but would also like to point out that "neighbor" relationship also leads to much more civility, good will, and the general "niceness" that you see in a small town vs. the rude, only-thinking-about-themselves attitude of city people. You are far less likely to "give the bird" to someone driving down the street if you know you will see them again around town. Anyway, sorry to get off-topic.
November 4, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
I don't intend to paint one as better than the other, J Bone. They both have their merits, but I do tend to think that people from smaller towns are less often faced with diversity; thus, they may not always see certain types of people as they view their neighbors.
.
In cities, I believe people can be much more guarded and impersonal at times; however, those living in more diverse environments tend to be more inclusive of those different than themselves.
November 4, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Of course, I forgot to mention that a higher concentration of gays and lesbians are in the urban areas of the state too. This obviously affects the vote as well.
November 4, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Correct, but it's a cultural mindset more than anything--as you said, Desi, it's about friends and neighbors. This kind of change comes slowly. I'll be curious to see the final tallies.
November 4, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
Theres no question that those that come frond the more "rural" areas tend to exercise more closed- minded, critical views than those in urban areas. We may be more "friendly" with our neighbors here...but that is of course only as long as they are white, and sure as heck not gay. This area is way too rooted in old, prehistoric ways of thinking to embrace the kind of diversity necessary to accept another human beings right to engage in a lifestyle that has no effect on us whatsoever. Footloose, anyone?
November 4, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
I vehemently disagree with "Cactus'" blanket assessment of all rural types as being akin to refugees from the set of "Deliverance." In fact, there ARE gay and lesbian couples throughout the region, in smaller outlying towns than even Wenatchee, who are well received by their neighbors, are productive members of the community, and have no particular issues as to how they perceive their treatment in the area.
But intolerance goes across the board--the whole gun debate, or property rights, or any of a myriad of issues you could pick could be used to brand any given community in a negative light were one so occupied with finding regional fault.
November 4, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hyhybt (John Sergent) says...
From what I've seen, there's a bigger disconnect in rural communities: a tendency to think of Tom and Bill down the street as your neighbors Tom and Bill, whom you know very well and think the world of, and still have an idea of "the gays" in general as, at best, those weird people in video from a Pride parade.
November 4, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
Well...if you personally don't fall into that category, then that is one thing...but as far as "the community" goes... my opinion isn't based on just my opinion.. the fact that 61% of Chelan, 67% of Douglas, 71% in Grant and 62% of voters on Okanogan county prove my point. These aren't on the fence numbers, either. These are majority numbers....representing people incapable of leaving their religious beliefs out of politics, and instead forcing them onto others. Ok I'll be fair... only 70% of the people in our area are closed minded, prejuducial and intolerant. I truthfully dont mean to offend the other 30%. To the rest of you 70%, I challenge you with this single argument to yoru thinking: Give us ONE good, valid reason, other than "cuz our preacher says so"...that you use to oppose this. Good luck.
November 5, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gator (J Bone) says...
Jerry, I'm not saying I disagree with you on your last post, but, who are you to say that "cuz our preacher says so" is not a valid argument? I personally am not on overly religious guy, but I fail to see how you views of "equality" are more important than a religious person's views of "morality". They are both simple, individual opinions. Just askin'...
November 5, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Actually, it's not about East and West, it's about urban and rural.<
And by definition the West is far more urban than rural dontcha think? The East is definitely far more rural than urban me thinks. So there you have it. The east must secede from the west. Wear your confederate hat proudly and let us form a more perfect union with Idaho...soon to be renamed Washdaho. The governor there is promising each family here "a spud in every pot" and a neoNazi to do yard work while on work release. Surely an offer we can't refuse.
Oh, and the reason Grant county voted so heavily to reject R-71 is that it contains a very large voting bloc of Mormons. Think demographics.
November 5, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kaylavw (K VW) says...
As usual, everyone jumps on the most controversial part of every subject. There is more to this bill than just same-sex marriage benefits. This is also about opposite-sex relationships, who choose not to get married.
-
Many people get pregnant, intentionally or not, who are not married, or CHOOSE not to be married because of its lack of integrity these days. I have friends who are not married, and stay-at-home-moms, who are not covered under their significant other's insurance because of their choice.
-
This is just as big of an issue as same-sex relationships--possibly even more important beause I would guess there are more unmarried, stay-at-home moms than unmarried, non-working gay or lesbian moms/dads.
November 5, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Cactus said, "Ok I'll be fair... only 70% of the people in our area are closed minded, prejuducial and intolerant."
Wow. Way to be closed-minded, prejudicial and intolerant of those you don't understand, Cactus. You're just as much "Us vs. Them" as anyone on the other side of the issue. You don't care to know anyting about the 70% that you condemn wihtout a thought because that just might cause you to have to rethink your prejudicial view of them. Close-mindedness goes both ways.
November 5, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>or CHOOSE not to be married because of its lack of integrity these days.<
What makes you think that "marriage" these days lacks integrity or is somehow any different from marriage at any other time in our history? Do you honestly believe there was greater marriage integrity in the past? Better yet, if choosing to live together today is somehow a better choice than choosing to get married, then why don't we as a society do away with marriage all together? Hint: Because the majority of people still want to be married. That said, we'll see if this new law changes that statistic in our state going forward. If you can gain all of the benefits of marriage without having to get married, then what's the point? Let's just live together and have our cake and eat it too! Social mores are very much a function of state law, but very much like deer in the headlights, most people just don't see it coming until it's too late. I am keenly interested in seeing how this will effect private sector employers who must now consider additional benefits of all kinds for people who simply claim that their SO boyfriend/girlfriend, boyfriend/boyfriend or girlfriend/girlfriend must now be considered on the same legal level as a husband or wife. I think this is a sham and will surely cause all kinds of unanticipated social and economic issues--not the least of which will be higher costs passed on down to all consumers in the form of higher prices anywhere and everywhere for all goods and services. As a society we will now all pay for boyfriend/girlfriend, girlfriend/girlfriend and boyfriend/boyfriend claims on health insurance benefits and employee benefits of all kinds now being reflected in higher prices that we, the end-users, must now pay for all goods and services purchased in this state.
November 5, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Cactus wrote: >Give us ONE good, valid reason, other than "cuz our preacher says so"...that you use to oppose this. Good luck.<
I oppose it on economic grounds for one. Apparently you seem to think that these newfound benefits will simply be pulled out of thin air? Who do you think will be paying for all of these newfound benefits? How can people be so incredibly uninformed? Where do you think the money to pay for R-71 benefits/entitlements will now come from???? Do you honestly believe that employers will pay for it all and that those big, greedy corporations need to share more of their profits with us little people??? Well, think again! WE THE LITTLE PEOPLE WILL NOW PAY MORE EVERY TIME WE PURCHASE ANY GOOD OR SERVICE RETAILED IN THIS STATE.
I'm sure you've all heard of "trickle-down economics" and how that supposedly doesn't work? Well, when you hear of trickle-down taxation you better believe that one works and it works very well every single time you pay retail for any good or service. People just don't see it hidden in the price because it doesn't come with a disclosure label attached to it, but you better believe it's factored into the retail price you pay every single time. That said, R-71 will now raise prices on virtually everything brokered in this state because everything brokered in this state is made up of employees somewhere in the manufacturing process before you, the consumer, ultimately pays retail for it.
November 5, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
>I oppose it on economic grounds for one<
.
I thought you said you agreed with my earlier point that economics have no place in a discussion of rights.
November 5, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Mav said, "Who do you think will be paying for all of these newfound benefits?"
Don't you know, Mav? The Prez can just keep printing money. It'll spend just the same, right? Right?? ;)
Those of us who work every day for a living get the priviledge of paying for those who don't. It's Obama's grand redistribution of wealth plan--not his or his friends' wealth, of course--we must have a wealthy intellecutal class to take care of all us little people who are like children and don't know how to take care of ourselves.
Meh.
November 5, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>I thought you said you agreed with my earlier point that economics have no place in a discussion of rights.<
I believe what I said is that you made a good point and to not let it go to your head.
The question was: ►"Give us ONE good, valid reason, other than "cuz our preacher says so"...that you use to oppose this".◄
So I gave him one good, valid reason along with some additional food for thought. May he be liberally warmed and filled and conservatively reminded every time he walks out of Wal-Mart.
November 5, 2009 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Liberals don't shop at Mao-mart, mav. We buy local, union-made products from from mom and pop stores.
http://www.catamount-grange-hearth.or...
November 5, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Those of us who work every day for a living get the priviledge of paying for those who don't. It's Obama's grand redistribution of wealth plan--not his or his friends' wealth, of course--we must have a wealthy intellecutal class to take care of all us little people who are like children and don't know how to take care of ourselves."
.
Sigh. When you talk about "paying for those who don't", you're thinking about the pennies that go to welfare for poor people rather than the Franklins that go to corporate welfare, aren't you? There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country over the last 3 decades from the poor, middle class, and moderately rich to the extremely wealthy. But "wealth redistribution" is nothing more than a frightening term like "socialism" that's very effective in scaring people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's truly amazing how the super wealthy in this country have fooled so many into fighting to keep concentrating more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
November 5, 2009 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"So I gave him one good, valid reason "
.
No you didn't. Economic concerns have no place in a discussion of civil rights. It doesn't matter if it costs more money to uphold people's Constitutional rights, we Americans do it because its the right thing to do.
November 5, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
A buddy of mine once said, "Republicans too often vote rich and live poor."
.
Can't say it's 100% accurate, but it seems to hold true more often than I'd like to admit among my friends.
November 5, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gator (J Bone) says...
Again, Norm, as I commented to Cactus earlier - it is your OPINION that "economic concerns have no place in a discussion of civil rights". Economic concerns have shaped civil rights for thousands of years - for better or for worse. Why is it that liberals always break out the "close-minded" card, until it comes back on them - and then, suddenly, their own close-mindedness is re-named as some P.C.-esque term, designed to establish guilt in the opposition, like "but we need equality and diversity", etc., etc.
November 5, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Oh, dear, I made Norm sigh. Righfully so--I was ranting, not thinking. I must hold myself to the same standards that I hold the ranting liberals.
November 5, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Suppose the state could save $25 by revoking your right to free speech, J Bone. Would that justify revoking your rights? would $25 million?
.
Yes, economic concerns may have shaped civil rights for thousands of years, but many of us have evolved past the cave-man days. One signal event in that evolution was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. None of those rights are for sale for any price, nor should they be. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in Afghanistan - I hear they're in about the 14th century right now, and they definitely don't have civil rights for gays there.
.
As for the rest of your post, I challenge you to show me anywhere on this site where I've used the phrase "close-minded". You can't do it.
November 5, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Righfully so--I was ranting, not thinking. I must hold myself to the same standards that I hold the ranting liberals."
.
Now don't go back on what you've said if that's what you really think. You expressed that thought in an unoffensive way, and its an import idea to discuss.
.
Money/wealth is liquid; ie. it flows. That's what happens in markets -money flows back and forth, around and around. Obama's exact words there (I assume you're referring to not-Joe the not-plumber's first 15 minutes of fame) were "spread it around". So I ask you, why do you (apparently) consider that to be a bad idea? Why do you (and apparently many others) see increasing the already extreme concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands as a good idea? Is it because the only way you can imagine to reverse that process - to take the concentration of wealth within the US back to where it was in about the 50's, when an average worker could support a family, buy a house, pay for health insurance, and live relatively comfortably, where top executives didn't make much more than 50X the pay of lower level employees, and where financial companies (insurance, banking, investment traders,etc.) didn't siphon off such a huge proportion of the total wealth to play with in the casino economy - is through a Soviet style government? Because its not.
.
Labeling something as "socialist" or "wealth (re)distribution" or even "liberal" is all it takes to frighten many people away from many very good ideas - to prevent them from even thinking about such ideas, because the magic words have been invoked, and those people and ideas who have been labeled with those magic words cannot be listened to. You've been told its your duty to put your fingers in your your ears and shout over any idea or person who has been labeled with the scary words to ensure that you won't hear or consider them. Why would anybody follow such orders?
November 5, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Suppose the state could save $25 by revoking your right to free speech, J Bone. Would that justify revoking your rights? <
Eeegad! Another red herring in waiting! Look Norm, this was never about free speech in the first place. It was all about winning entitlements heretofore reserved for married couples. Free speech is a civil right, but winning entitlements outside of a legal marriage commitment should never be considered in the same context as free speech.
November 5, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Liberals don't shop at Mao-mart, mav. We buy local, union-made products from from mom and pop stores.<
Oh how un-American can you get in slandering Wally World in such an asinine way! After all, it is one of the greatest American success stories of all times. Your hero BJ Clintoon championed NAFTA and all of the subsequent rounds of GATT which ultimately led to the WTO. Wal-Mart fits hand in glove with all of that legislation and you cannot deny it! Your loser-mind friend Dick Gephardt was the last of the liberal protectionist genre and he couldn't have won the nomination even if his election campaign had been funded by the Fed!
November 5, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
I don't intend to disagree just on principle but I legitimately don't see how you expect it to have a differing economic impact on the rest of us? For example... two same-sex people are in a lifetime partnership. One isn't working, but is on her partners insurance. -Ok-. But explain to me how that is any different than a hetero couple, where the unemployed husband is on his wife's insurance policy? How is there a difference? The point I was trying to make, and that I still stand by, is that you can NOT say our area is "open minded" or "diverse", when those who lead alternative lifestyles are discriminated against, treated with prejudice, and put in a different category of rights as "the rest of us". Fyi...economically, there are same-sex couples out there who contribute more economically than some married folks. It does happen. Keep in mind we are the same country that also once thought it was ok to restrict someones rights and deny their liberties because they were black (racial discrimination)....as well as for being a woman. We moved past that, how is this different? And as far as religion goes, I don't believe that exercising prejudice, discrimination and intolerance is the way to lead people to god. (REAL christianity is NOT supposed to be an exclusive club, just for straight folks...but thats a whole other subject that is too off topic to go in to)
November 5, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>I don't intend to disagree just on principle but I legitimately don't see how you expect it to have a differing economic impact on the rest of us? <
The overall impact is incremental and cumulative and it continues to grow every time a new layer of legislation like this is added to the already cumbersome and pre-existing layers of bureaucracy that define our state of Washington. All you have to do is take a road trip to Idaho and observe the huge discount in gas prices there as compared to here and eat in a very nice restaurant there and observe similar menu discounts as compared to here. Everything costs much more in this state and we all simply accept that truth without really knowing why it exists. So when you say you don't expect this particular legislation to have an economic impact on all of us, what you are simply failing to see is that there already exists a huge relative tax burden on the people of this state simply because we choose to live and work here.
Eastern Washington is economically compatible with Idaho, imo, and the combination would make a good fit, but it won't ever happen.
November 5, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
You sure used a lot of words to not say anything there, mav.
.
And regarding your previous post: be careful about making assumptions. I think Bill Clinton should be doing a life sentence.
November 5, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
unreligious (Bobby unreligious) says...
I always find it amazing when people make the argument that we can not afford to give these benefits to the small number of Gay people out there. Then why can we afford to give them to the huge number of straight people? If your really concerned about the cost then work to deny these benefits to everyone, not to the few.
November 6, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.Enough said.
November 6, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Norm, it troubles me when people hate the rich simply because they're rich. Just about anyone with drive, a good business sense, and the passion about their product/service can make good money in the U.S, can even become wealthy. Why should they be condemned for that? Why should they get hit harder with taxes than anyone else? Simply because they had the audiacity to become rich?
This idea that everyone is entitled to some lavish lifestyle, or the sense that "if I can't have that kind of lifestyle, no one should" is odd to me. Granted, American business and advertising pushes for us to want it all. That doesn't mean we can all have it all. I don't want to start a business. I enjoy being an employee and letting someone else pay me and deal with all the headaches of a bottom line. Again, why should those who have built weath have to pay more just because they're wealthy?
Plus, we have no idea how those people are spending their money, what charities they strongly support, etc. I just see this government as thinking they know better how to spend the wealth than the people do.
November 6, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Bobby, you make a good point and the truth is we never should have given these entitlements to ANYONE to begin with! Like I said, the additional layers of tax burden are incremental and cumulative and, unfortunately, there is no going back. Government will never take away what it has already given--even though it should. Instead, we continue to add to the already burdensome debt and undeserved entitlements that EVERYONE must pay for whenever they purchase anything in this state. The alternative is to move out of state, which is why many eastern Washington people retire to beautiful locations further east in Idaho and Montana.
November 6, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Nicole- Part of it is they do not have the intelligence to understand that the more rich we have the better for all. They think that the rich person is taking from all (the rest) instead of uplifting all the rest.
Luckily, Ronald Reagan understood this and surrounded himself with the proper Admin. to create the biggest 25 year economic boom the World has seen. And the only way to really understand it is to look at quality of life in the Seventies compared to now. It is hugely different, from the quality of car we drive to the type of home we live in, to the amount of information at our fingertips.
November 6, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
>Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.Enough said.<
This Referendum wasn't about marriage...at all. And as another poster reminded us, this isn't just about same-sex couples. It is neither right, just nor fair to say that a hetero couple, who stay together for 10, 20 years etc and build a life together..should not have the same rights as a married couple, who have been together for a few years. Very few people have the mental fortitude to sustain and work at a long term relationship these days...and devotion between ANY two people should be rewarded. Titles (i.e, husband, wife, "life partner" etc) should not dictate what rights a couple has...time and effort should.
November 6, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Basically, this piece of legislation created a "common-law" type of credential for anyone who says they are committed to somebody else. Sure, that includes gays and straights alike. All you have to do is register with the state and go about your business entirely independent from the other person if you so choose. Then when you find a more perfect SO, you dissolve your other registry and form another one. Maybe the newer one has even better bennies--woohoo! Only in America can we legislate such compassionately mis-guided reforms as this one will ultimately prove to be.
November 6, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
"All you have to do is register with the state and go about your business entirely independent from the other person if you so choose. Then when you find a more perfect SO, you dissolve your other registry and form another one. Maybe the newer one has even better bennies--woohoo!"
.
Sounds like many marriages I've seen.
November 6, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Art, your comments on wealth baffle me somewhat. How is the consolidation of wealth into fewer hands beneficial?
.
Regardless, this thread is not about that topic anyway. The voters of this state have seen fit to promote equal rights for all.
November 6, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
"Sounds like many marriages I've seen."
Dissolving a marriage results in divorce. What will they call this new and improved kind of divorce where there never was a marriage in the first place?
November 6, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Actually, Resident, only a little over half of the state's voters have "seen fit" to choose to accept this measure. But I'm a big proponent of the voting system, so we'll just wait and see how this benefits/changes our culture in the decades to come.
November 6, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Dent- There is no consolidation of wealth. It is called the creation of wealth. You need to quit feeling sorry for yourself and read before posting.
Creating wealth creates more jobs, increase in production, increase in money supply. You do know what money supply is, correct?
November 6, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
The voters were wise to vote this in; it would have been put into law eventually anyway and is the only position leaning towards equality on the table.
.
Despite your insulting tone, Art, I will reply to you. The squeezing and reduction of the middle class is the exact idea of which I spoke: a consolidation of wealth into fewer hands. The top 1% of American society holds more wealth than the bottom 95%. This has never occurred before in American history with no sign of the trend getting better for the middle and lower classes. In fact, because of the costs of health care (as one factor), the situation is visibly worsening quickly.
.
Capitalism can be a very useful system for creating wealth, but it can also become too free and begin to reach a point where the consolidation of wealth is harmful. This is where regulations come into play, and the recent collapse of the market can in part be blamed on their removal.
November 6, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
No need to reply as you are not even close to conceptualizing the subject I put forth.
Again , you are on some hate mission against the Rich (do not throw out that moronic 1% hold 95% unless you are making a point). I will try this on simpler terms for you- The more rich there are the better it is for all. The more millionaires the better. It means our economy is growing and prospering. Not to mention the incentive created by seeing wealth. The growth in the number of millionaires is a good thing. It is not "contraction" or taking someone else's piece of the pie. The pie is growing.
November 6, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Yeah, Art, those "moronic" facts are inconvenient.
November 6, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
Nobody is going to get rich or, be prevented from getting rich just hecause this measure did or didn't pass. I think thats taking things a bit out of proportion for this referendum, possibly to the point of being on a tangent. Its really not that big of a deal, folks.
November 6, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Union (Paul Parmley) says...
Norm,
Glad that your there. You make rational sense in all the postings I've seen and it is not simply a matter of sharing the same viewpoint. You are coherent and there is a large presence here in NCW that appreciate your daily verbal battles. Keep up the good work and know that your voice is not only appreciated but greatly needed.
Paul
(who has no fear of posting his real name)
November 6, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hyhybt (John Sergent) says...
"I always find it amazing when people make the argument that we can not afford to give these benefits to the small number of Gay people out there."
+++++I *think* the argument is supposed to be that the system will be abused by non-couples pairing up just for benefits. Leaving, of course, the supposed reason this would be more common than it is already with marriage unexplained.
"Dissolving a marriage results in divorce. What will they call this new and improved kind of divorce where there never was a marriage in the first place?"
+++++If I remember rightly, it's called something like "dissolution" and works very much like divorce. Could be wrong on that, though, not actually being from Washington.
November 6, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
Give us ONE good, valid reason, other than "cuz our preacher says so"...that you use to oppose this. Good luck.
No luck will be necessary.
I invite you to watch the short video on youtube, and you will have your,"one good reason".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NejRd5...
November 7, 2009 at 12:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Justaperson (Justa Person) says...
Your continuing arguments are pointless. The votes are in, the counting is continuing. The referendum is passing at this point.
November 7, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ynkeeraidr (Brad Whitehall) says...
mtg0722,your"one good reason" is watching Uncle Festus and Aunt Jenny teach us about farm animals? They forgot to show the 1 bull impregnating 15 females. Using the "farmhouse logic" , that must be acceptable. There is a slight difference between (most) humans and animals. Humans have the ability to reason, and solve problems. Also, in my opinion, the term "gospel truth" is an oxymoron. No , that does not mean a stupid oxen!
November 7, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Thanks for the kind words, Paul.
November 7, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Nicole wrote: "Norm, it troubles me when people hate the rich simply because they're rich. "
.
It troubles me when pointing out the fact that the super rich - again, I'm talking top one percent here, not the merely wealthy - have been able to use their power and money to direct a higher and higher percentage of the wealth we all contribute to generating into their own pockets is characterized as "hating the rich simply because they are rich". It has absolutely nothing to do with hatred of any sort. What it has to do with is concern for economic justice for the vast majority of Americans who work very hard and get a smaller and smaller portion of the wealth they contribute to creating.
.
" Why should they be condemned for that? Why should they get hit harder with taxes than anyone else? Simply because they had the audiacity to become rich?
.
Nobody is condemning them for their productive economic activity, what we condemn them for is when they accumulate wealth through a variety of dirty tricks - gambling with people's pension funds where they know that if they win, they get the payoff, and if they lose, they get bailed out, buying preferential treatment from Congress, and so on.
.
"This idea that everyone is entitled to some lavish lifestyle, or the sense that "if I can't have that kind of lifestyle, no one should" is odd to me"
.
Yes, its quite odd to me as well. Because literally nobody is making that argument. Its a gross mischaracterization of our actual arguments.
.
" I just see this government as thinking they know better how to spend the wealth than the people do."
.
You've been taught well by your corporate masters. Sure, our government is a long, long way from perfect, but one significant feature that makes it better than government by corporations is that its democratic. We all have a say in what it does and who runs it. I am utterly confused at how the people who like to think of themselves as super-patriots have such a visceral, unthinking hatred of government. Our government is the collective voice of We the People. Again, its far from perfect, but if We the People isn't the essence of America, then what is? The Grand Canyon? What is it you love when you claim to love America? The vast majority of money that you're not getting for your work is not taxes that go to the government, its taxes that go to the super-wealthy - the owners and executives of large corporations. And they should pay more taxes because they derive more benefits both from government in particular and from society in general.
November 7, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Art wrote: "Dent- There is no consolidation of wealth. It is called the creation of wealth. You need to quit feeling sorry for yourself and read before posting."
.
Wealth is created by {resources + capital + labor}, not by capital alone. Over the last 3 decades, the share of benefits that go to capital has been increasing, while the share that goes to labor has been decreasing. The result has been that more and more of the wealth we all contribute to generating has been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Even if you feel compelled to argue against that point Art, at least try to understand what it is that you are arguing against rather than continuing to argue against what you have been told the "other side" says.
November 7, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
"one significant feature that makes it better than government by corporations is that its democratic. We all have a say in what it does and who runs it"
.
On paper, and in general concept, maybe. In reality, the truth is no, we don't "all have a say" in what happens in politics. At least not much, or an equal say. I mean sure, we as a collective power can vote, but truth be told, the opinion of ONE interest group..with alot of $$$ put behind their opinion, has more influence than 1,000 voters. Average people dont run our system anymore...people with lots of money to buy their buy supporters do. Its just the truth.
November 7, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeremiahTyler (Jeremiah Tyler) says...
This is all about the economic concept of rent-seeking. This is typically done by corporations through lobbyists. However, it is becoming increasingly more prominent by small groups of individuals seeking special dispensation. The hate crimes bill is no different.
To those who say we "can't put a price on civil rights", grow up. This has been about money from the start. They just paint it with the brush of civil rights to stir up the morality debate. The government puts prices on civil rights all the time; an example is with ADA laws. You don't have to make accomodations to the handicapped if you can show it is a business hardship. The same logic should apply to these bills on a larger scale. It is an economic hardship the state can't afford.
November 8, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
francis (benny hill) says...
Has anyone thought of the new hepa laws,as another cause for this new law.Hell i couldn't even see my own mother on her death bed because my dad has always hated me so he never gave me the code.As my mother suffered mentally for his anger toward me for dropping out of the Catholic church.These stupid laws are the cause for these new needed laws.
November 8, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Liberals always expect people with money to pay for those without.I say go get a job and pay for what you need yourself.Its not the job of the government or tax payers to take care of you.
November 8, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Ron, you aren't even on-topic.
November 8, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
If you read through the posts Resi they went off topic some time ago.
November 9, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Well then, when did anyone in this thread advocate paying for everyone without putting anything into the system?
November 9, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Yeah, we kinda went off topic a long time ago.
.
"Economic Justice." Wow. I'd like to know what that even means. Does it mean that everyone should get the same amount of money? Or does it just mean that everyone should get at least a certain amount of money so that no one is poor?
.
I don't trust the government, Norm, because the government is purchased. Most politicians have a price, as Cactus stated. Not to mention that they are the ones who provide the loopholes for corporations and the super rich. But neither of these groups are filled with soley evil people. There are good souls everywhere that seek the best for their fellow man. That's the hard part about our society. We have to take the good with the bad. We can only hope the people we elect actually attempt to represent us.
November 9, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
"Economic Justice" to the Libs must mean making a job as hard to attain as getting in to Harvard.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/06...
We will have to take the bad for now. Unless these commies grow a brain and realize the Govt. can not create demand, only private enterprise can, and they push some tax cuts through.
November 9, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
There may be a way the government can create jobs,
The Government could cancel and/or rescind all or some of the green cards that have been issued, as well as cease all further issuance. With unemployment reaching 10% it’s something to look into. We have an obligation to our citizens first.
If I was paying attention in Economics 101, it is basic Supply and Demand, reduce the supply, demand and price increase.
November 9, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Economic Justice." Wow. I'd like to know what that even means. Does it mean that everyone should get the same amount of money?
.
No, of course not. That is another of the long list of common mischaracterizations put forward by people who oppose any measure to raise the living standards of people in poverty. Look at the rest of the sentence where I used that term: "What it has to do with is concern for economic justice for the vast majority of Americans who work very hard and get a smaller and smaller portion of the wealth they contribute to creating."
.
"I don't trust the government, Norm, because the government is purchased. Most politicians have a price, as Cactus stated."
.
I don't trust the government either. The difference between our positions is that I also do not trust corporations. When politicians are bought, the politicians are of course guilty. But the people who bought them are also guilty. That's why both politicians and corporations need to be regulated by strong laws with strong enforcement provisions and by regulators that do not have a revolving door with the companies they're assigned to regulate.
.
People are going to find ways to cheat on any system that can possibly be created. But focusing exclusively on the poor who cheat the system is like being a shopowner who worries himself to death about kids shoplifting jolly ranchers while mobsters are in the back room cracking open the safe and taking the payroll. Corporate welfare is an exponentially larger problem than welfare cheating by the poor. Deal with the safe-crackers first, then worry about the shoplifters.
November 11, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"On paper, and in general concept, maybe. In reality, the truth is no, we don't "all have a say" in what happens in politics. At least not much, or an equal say. I mean sure, we as a collective power can vote, but truth be told, the opinion of ONE interest group..with alot of $$$ put behind their opinion, has more influence than 1,000 voters."
.
Yes, of course that's true. Our democracy is far from perfect. But corporations are much farther from true democracy than our government is, plus they're the ones with enough money to buy favorable treatment from government. For one current example, just look at all the money the health insurance industry is pouring into lobbyists right now to keep real health care reform from happening.
November 11, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Liberals always expect people with money to pay for those without."
.
No, liberals want to keep those with money (which is roughly equivalent to power, as Cactus pointed out) from using that power to trample the rights of the poor. For example, when poor people negotiate salary/benefits as individuals, they have no bargaining power, so they get almost nothing in exchange for their work When they organize and bargain collectively, they can get a fair wage for thier work.
November 11, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MADGSXR (MAD GSXR) says...
ADAM AND EVE....NOT.......ADAM AND STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 12, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
MY OTHER CAR IS A MERCEDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 12, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Here's an excellent article for you, Nicole, that explains exactly what I'm talking about with the term "economic justice": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leo...
Here's an excerpt:
"From WWII until the mid-1970s U.S. productivity rose year after year as did real wages. The two seemed forever linked. The steady rise of manufacturing real wages created the new middle class. It was the heart and soul of the post-WWII boom. But, starting in the mid-1970s, the two trends decoupled as we deregulated finance and changed the tax code to allow money to flow upwards the the top income groups. Productivity continued its rise, but real wages stagnated and then declined. (See Chapter 2, The Looting of America.)
The gap between these two trends lines represents real money -- more than three trillion dollars a year by 2007. Where did it go?
It went to create the new billionaire class. It went to the uber-rich on Wall Street. It was the fuel for the fantasy finance boom and bust. The gap in incomes and wealth grew and grew to proportions not seen since 1928-29. There is no evidence that suggests that rising real wages for the average person causes a depression. But there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that an extreme distribution of wealth creates tremendous financial instability."
November 12, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Eeegad! Not Arianna Huffington yet again!
November 12, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
This has somehow managed to stay (for the most part) a rather insightful, educational and pleasant discussion. Not very common on these forums...and especially for such a sensitive subject. I think thats worth many thanks to all those who have participated. Not many discussions are as pleasant to participate in as this one has been.
November 12, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
From Norm's Huffingtoad link:
>The very last thing we need right now is to cut workers' wages and turn over more booty to the billionaire bailout class. That should be clear to all by now unless you have succumbed to billionaire bailout logic.<
Yep, let's overthrow the plutocracy of the American rich! We can form another vanguard of the working class. Let us have yet another Bolshevik Revolution and convert to Communism. We can all enjoy full employment and never have anything of our own. Sounds good to Norm. Only problem is even in Communism there were still the elite within the Party that had enormous wealth at the expense of the working class. So much for a level playing field.
No one likes to take a pay cut, but it's better than losing your job. If the market is offering less, then everyone along the production chain has to adjust or face potential layoffs. To point to Wall Street fat cats and their bonuses as a justification for why YOU should not have to lose your job or accept a pay cut simply doesn't wash in the real world. Besides, a lot of those so-called fat cats are now ruined because they were on the wrong side of the trade and that's something that Les Leopold fails to mention. Leopold is a lineal thinker and this is straight from his economic's professor; ►as workers produce more goods and services per hour, their wages must rise.◄ Well, maybe, and ONLY if someone is buying all their goods and services. If they aren't buying, then your premise is like a rotten egg leaning against a curb on a very hot day just waiting for someone to kick it into the street.
November 12, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"Yep, let's overthrow the plutocracy of the American rich! We can form another vanguard of the working class. Let us have yet another Bolshevik Revolution and convert to Communism."
.
Hmm. I was unaware that postwar America, from ~the 50's to the 70s was a Communist country. You mean Ike was a Bolshevik? I did not know that.
.
"To point to Wall Street fat cats and their bonuses as a justification for why YOU should not have...accept a pay cut simply doesn't wash in the real world."
.
So post-war America was not only Communist, it didn't even exist in the real world? Curiouser and curiouser.
November 12, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
A little Mark Kelly goes a very long way, Norm.
November 12, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Les Leopold hooks up with Barney the Frank and together they talk about looting America. You can help them by purchasing Lester's book:
http://www.writersvoice.net/2009/07/l...
November 12, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
francis (benny hill) says...
shaaapoopy:)
November 12, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
francis (benny hill) says...
You guys are goofy...
November 12, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
I'm guessing the last two posters are Obama voters!
November 13, 2009 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
When you tell kids it is ok to be homosexual you cut all the boundries.
There are few things more tender and sacred than the loving relationship between husband and wife. Homosexual relationships are nothing like that, they are "use and be used". Statistics prove less than one percent of gays stay in a committed monogomus relationship for more than a year. They don't want the vows of marriage, why should they have the equal rights.
November 14, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
1. So don't tell your kids its OK to be homosexual, Tim.
2. Saying "statistics show" X is absolutely meaningless. Link to a source of statistics if you want to use them in an internet discussion.
3. If they don't want to get married, they wouldn't be fighting for the right to get married.
4. This law doesn't legalize gay marriage.
5. They should have equal rights because that's how we roll here in America. It's written in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment: {wiki says}: "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1]
6. If you don't like equal rights for homosexuals, you can move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
November 14, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Tim, you don't know what you are talking about.
November 14, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nicole (Nicole Morrison) says...
Tim, just because you may have found statistical data that seems to indicate that monogamy is practiced by a lesser percentage of homosexuals than heterosexuals does not validate your argument that they do not deserve equal rights or marriage.
November 14, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
plunk (Patricia Plunkett) says...
Tim I had those rights as a child, I could marry anyone I loved, get any job and live any where I wanted, until I realized I was gay. I "lost" those rights. Now partner of 13 years can't get info about me in the hospital and we have to use the leagl system to try to keep our assets safe. How can you assume that our relationships are "use and be used"? How is doing my best to help my partner be her best be "use and be used"!
November 15, 2009 at 4:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
You and your partner are obviously evil people, Patricia. The government should decide who can be together and who can't. With liberty and justice for some.
November 15, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Just type in "Homosexual Marriage/Union statistics", you find all sort of things.
Just The Facts
The Facts By The Numbers
• Since 1971, at least 47 states have had to battle in their courts those who would
redefine marriage out of existence.
• Activist judges have overturned marriage laws in 9 states (California, Hawaii, Alaska,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington, New York, Maryland and Iowa). Several of
these states had laws similar to that of Minnesota.
• Voters in 27 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. Voters approved these measures by an average
margin of 72%.
Marriage Acts (DOMA) on their books.
• The rates of homosexuals that choose to ‘wed’ in jurisdictions that have legalized
same-sex unions are extremely low. In Massachusetts, a total of 9,695 homosexual
‘marriages’ have been consummated since 2004, the vast majority of those taking
place within the first six months when gay marriage was a novelty. Even more telling
are the Canadian statistics. In the city of Toronto, which boasts of having one of the
world's largest homosexual populations, only one Canadian homosexual couple had
"married" thus far this year.
This is just a sample. There are many more statistics for and against. I don't know how to bring you direct links, sorry.
November 15, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
1. Again, Tim, without a link to your sources, your "facts" are unverifiable, and therefore meaningless.
2. A phrase like "redefine marriage out of existence" indicates that your source is a source of spin, not of facts.
3. Same with the phrase "activist judges". Objective facts don't come with colorful adjectives like "activist".
4. If not many homosexuals get married when that option is legally available to them, then what's your beef?
5. Again, this law does not legalize gay marriage in Washington state.
6. Providing direct links is easy. Copy the web address from the page you want to link and paste it into your reply. This website automatically converts web addresses into clickable links. Like so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pr...
November 15, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Norm, I did my research and read the findings. I would obviously oppose gay marriage regardless of statistics. There are arguements that the statistics are altered, I didn't want to be accused of manipulating the statistics so I told you how I looked them up. There are many web sites to chose from, I'm sure you will find the one who says what you want to hear.
Are you saying that any sex is ok as long as no one gets hurt? Wow, what doors you do open with that! I don't want to offend people with the list of immoral sex acts that many enjoy, although I have stated some in the past.
Homosex is wrong and this vote in Washington is just a step toward gay marriage. Gays don't necessarily want marriage they want to be legitimised and they think this will do it.
You who open doors to immorality cause the distruction of socioty and freedom.
November 15, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Well, then, if we all seem to agree that such statistics - even if verifiable and accurate - don't matter, why did you bring them up at all? What I am saying is that beyond the issue of mutual consent - which covers pedophelia, since minors cannot consent - I don't want the government to have the power to determine whether sex is OK or not. That determination is and should remain a personal decision. I spend no time fantasizing as you apparently do about sex acts that I find unpalatable. You and everybody else are free to determine whether you think homosexual sex is right or wrong or indifferent; I simply don't want the state to make such decisions and use its coercive powers to enforce those decisions. Your apparent belief that the government should use its coercive powers to enforce what should be personal decisions is a rather Orwellian use of the term "freedom".
November 15, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Norm said: "I spend no time fantasizing as you apparently do about sex acts that I find unpalatable."
Norm, I will never respond to a discussion with you again. You have less respect for others than you accuse me of.
This statement is simply slanderous and has no basis in fact. You had no right to assume or accuse me simply because I follow a stricter line of morality than you.
November 15, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
Norm,
I seem to run across your postings on just about every subject, we are so fortunate that you seem to be an expert on virtually everything.
I agree with Tim, and if you would stop you’re yammering for just a second you might just see the point Tim is trying to make.
None of us wants to have freedoms and liberties taken from us, but there are actions, mutually consentious or not, that are morally and ethically wrong. Historically, as a society, we have deemed it so and for the majority of us in the Eastern Washington, we still agree.
Gay people exist, we get that. It is not against the law, we get that too. However, those of us who have children, our job and our desire, is to raise our children with a sense of right and wrong. We show them what is acceptable and what is not. I have not and will never tell my child that homosexuality is right. In my opinion, and 60+ % of Eastern Washington agrees with me that homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior.
What Tim is trying to say is that, we as parents tell and teach our children one thing and now liberals are telling them, with the passage if this legislature, that homosexuality it is acceptable. Therein lies our problem.
Gay people have the right to live their lives any way they see fit so long as it is within the law, however, they should not have the right to be accepted by society to be anything other than what they are, abnormal. In the privacy of their homes, what they do is none of our business, but we don’t want to see it, we don’t want to hear about it, and we do not have to accept it.
November 15, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
As someone who considers himself moderately conservative, I have no problems with gay people and their struggle to attain equal rights. In fact, I believe that by fighting for their rights, mine are protected even more.
.
Historically speaking, the majority is not always right, so using a statistic of majority does not always convince me of right or wrong. Popularity does not equal righteousness in my view.
.
I do not believe you have to tell your children to believe in a lifestyle with which you disagree, but I also do not believe people should advocate for inequality under the law. To me, this goes against the basic principles of this country. For me, this vote was not one of my personal acceptance of a lifestyle but one of legal equality.
.
As a side note, many people on these message boards do not seem to understand the difference between a dialogue (implies give and take and openness, an exchange of sorts) and a diatribe (implies a one-sided attack). This would go a long way towards some understanding on here.
November 15, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
plunk (Patricia Plunkett) says...
Tim, do your facts include the people who got married in Oregon just to get the application fee returned.
And the "choice of lifestyle" argument... When did you decide to be straight?.. Just this morning? Do you decide every day when you shave?
It's not a choice, because I felt this way as early as six years old, before I knew about the birds and the bees. If you saw all the pictures of me as a kid ( in cowboots and hats- pouting in dresses) you'd might understand.
November 16, 2009 at 3:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Tim wrote: "Norm, I will never respond to a discussion with you again. You have less respect for others than you accuse me of.
This statement is simply slanderous and has no basis in fact. You had no right to assume or accuse me simply because I follow a stricter line of morality than you."
.
My statement was a reply to this statement of yours: " I don't want to offend people with the list of immoral sex acts that many enjoy, although I have stated some in the past." along with your first post on this topic in which you brought up the idea of discussion of homosexual sex in schools, which you alluded to again with "although I have stated some in the past." My use of the verb "fantasize" did not indicate that I imagine you would want to participate in such things (note the word "unpalatable"), but that you do seem to think about such things - if only to disapprove of them - far more than I care to. Whether or not you reply to me in the future, is of course your own decision.
November 16, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Plunk, alot of girls don't like dresses and still remain hetro.
I'm sorry for your confusion, but alot of us are confused and even "pre-disposed" to some life style. I can see me heading for alocoholism at age twelve. Decissions to do the right thing are hard when you crave something that makes you feel better or complete. I have to make the decission to stay sober most every day.
My goal here is not to ridicule someone for their strugles, but to tell others we are not helping the situation by accepting it. To me it would be like defending my right to stay drunk, I would still be drunk. Or saying it's ok or natural to cheat on my wife or divorce her if she bores me (just and example, not a confession). Some things are wrong and don't become right by legitimizing them.
November 16, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"What Tim is trying to say is that, we as parents tell and teach our children one thing and now liberals are telling them, with the passage if this legislature, that homosexuality it is acceptable. Therein lies our problem."
.
This law - and the further issue of gay marriage, which is not addressed in this law - refers to legal rights recognized by the government, nothing more. There are plenty of actions that are perfectly legal that most people find immoral. Adultery, for example. The fact that adulterers are not subject to criminal penalties nor loss of civil rights does not mean that anybody must teach their children that adultery is acceptable, nor does it mean that the government is promoting such a view. It merely means that the government stays out of citizens' personal lives to the greatest extent possible.
.
"Gay people have the right to live their lives any way they see fit so long as it is within the law, however, they should not have the right to be accepted by society to be anything other than what they are, abnormal."
.
Who you choose to accept or not (and what you teach your children about acceptance) is your own business. The government, as per the 14th Amendment, must grant everybody the same legal rights. These are separate issues.
November 16, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alwysoptimistic (Stephanie Yanez) says...
I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR POSITIONS, THIS IS MINE: Speak the truth, be responsible for your life, strive to create value in all things, ACKNOWLEDGE-APOLOGIZE-MAKE AMMENDS-RECOMMIT, LIFE IS A JOURNEY NOT A DESTINATION, take care of yourself so you can take care of others, and finally DON'T CRITICIZE CONDEMN OR COMPLAIN because that is what you will create.
November 16, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
The liberal agenda of supporting homosex will bring with it a plague of immorality that WILL bring down this socioty. Someone sets the rules, the standards to live by. No rules, no socioty. This country was great because it was good. A self governing people cannot survive without a moral code. We used to get that from the bible.
You say it is ok to do what you want if no one else is hurt. What you don't see is that moral people are hurt by immorality. So we all move behind closed doors to do as we please, that seperated us. Now people what to bring that immorality out of the closet and we are divided. We have lost the sense of community and we are rappitly disolving into a state of division from which we may never recover.
People like Norm are propogaters of the division and spread the disease. He goes around the web site creating division.
November 16, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
They would be separate issues if gay couples were already accepted, but they are not. In this instance the government doesn't have to do anything; this is not about the loss of rights, no one is fighting to keep rights, this is about gaining status and acceptance. If the government must do as you say, then this would have been handled through the court system. Civil rights already enjoyed and status hoping to be granted by gay couples are not the same topic, they should not be referenced together.
On a side note, adulterers once caught, rarely maintain their marital status for long.
November 16, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"This country was great because it was good."
.
Ah, the good old days, when America was moral. Back when slavery existed; the legalized rape, torture, murder, and theft of labor from a huge portion of the population. Literally buying and selling human beings like so many farm animals. When we used biological warfare - blankets with smallpox - to slaughter the people whose land we wanted to steal or starved them by slaughtering their food supply - buffalo - and leaving it to rot when plain old bullets didn't work fast enough. No immorality there, or at least no more than a trifle. These days, we've got REAL immorality, like adults choosing to have sex with people we don't approve of and expecting to have the same legal rights as anybody else. You're right, Tim, things are getting so much worse these days. Have you heard the music the kids are listening to?
.
"People like Norm are propogaters of the division and spread the disease. He goes around the web site creating division."
.
Yeah, can you believe the nerve of that guy? He actually disagrees with Tim! What a divider! What a disease spreader! Ack!
November 16, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
"In this instance the government doesn't have to do anything; this is not about the loss of rights, no one is fighting to keep rights, this is about gaining status and acceptance"
.
Every struggle for civil rights in this country - from the ending of slavery to the right to vote for non-whites and women to ending segregation has been about getting recognition for previously unrecognized rights.
.
"On a side note, adulterers once caught, rarely maintain their marital status for long."
.
What, without the government treating them differently from faithful spouses? Inconceivable!
November 16, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alwysoptimistic (Stephanie Yanez) says...
Hey Norm, Hey Tim, I'm calling you out. LIVE AND LET LIVE.
November 17, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Good for you, Staphanie. Neither one of us is threatening the other; we disagree. I don't know what to tell you other than if you don't like reading people's disagreements, then you can choose not to read them.
November 17, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alwysoptimistic (Stephanie Yanez) says...
I can take it, it's just boring. None of you are liberating in any way. Just humdrum scrooges. You think that calling another person a disease isn't threatening, then you must not be threatened by the disease, so why are you so worried about the diseased people having rights? I doubt you're threatened by the idea of yourself having rights, just the people who don't agree with you. But you're not threatening, or being threatenend? I highly doubt it. Boring!
November 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
1. My solution to things I find boring is not to read them. I suggest you try that approach.
2. I did not call anybody diseased; I was called a "spreader of disease". I do not feel threatened by that statement, nor do I want anybody to defend me.
3. I am arguing here in favor of other people's rights, not my own.
November 17, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alwysoptimistic (Stephanie Yanez) says...
Look, everyone has the potential of spreading disease. So be careful what you write. I will be careful what I read, I already am. I'm better off not reading at all than reading only the newspaper.
November 17, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Stephanie, you make a good point. Norm and I tend to cancel each other out. I do try hard to say something on the issue and not just bash others opinions. It's never pretty when people go on the defencive. History will prove one or both of us wrong, but by then I won't care.
Blessings,
Tim
November 17, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
“Every struggle for civil rights in this country - from the ending of slavery to the right to vote for non-whites and women to ending segregation has been about getting recognition for previously unrecognized rights.”
Gays already enjoy the same rights that all of us do, right now. They can marry a person of the opposite sex, so can I. They can’t marry a person of the same sex, neither can I. same rights.
What they want is extra rights; they should not be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying. I am single and I can’t reap the same benefits as married couples, same rights.
Pretty simple stuff here Norm, even you should have no trouble grasping this.
“Who you choose to accept or not (and what you teach your children about acceptance) is your own business. The government, as per the 14th Amendment, must grant everybody the same legal rights. These are separate issues.”
It’s not just about whether I choose to accept or not, it’s about the 60-75 % of moral Americans and what they chosen to accept. We have decided what the definitions of marriage are.
We have placed restrictions to marriage, we as a society concluded that incest is harmful, and therefore one cannot marry anyone in the same family. We have also decided that polygamy is harmful; a person cannot marry more than one person at a time. We have decided that there need to be age requirements on marriage, if one is under 18, not acceptable, therefore, not allowed. We have also decided that same sex marriages are wrong and also not allowed.
Again, let me be really simple and clear here for you Norm, gays are not being denied the right to marry; they just cannot marry each other. They have simply “chosen” not to get married, and therefore should not enjoy the same rights and privileges of traditional married couples.
November 17, 2009 at 10:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...
Here is some interesting reading that proposes that the 14th Amendment does not pertain to gay rights. I am inclined to agree with the notion.
“The United States Supreme Court does not declare that the constitution says something, it does not actually say that. To phrase it another way, if the court does not rule something unconstitutional, it is constitutional, and until the courts decide that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman violate the fourteenth amendment, they do not.”
“That is the de facto position we find ourselves in. Until the courts decide that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, all we have are arguments – and there are a number of arguments used that side-step the constitutional issues brought by the fourteenth amendment.”
. “If you are not a woman or a minority, the United States Supreme Court historically does not extend fourteenth amendment protection to you. The official term for groups protected by the fourteenth amendment protection is “suspect class.” The courts occasionally recognize the physically and mentally disabled as a suspect class, but it does so with far less vigor than women and minorities. Suspect class status has not been granted to sexual orientation, despite several anti-homosexual laws being brought to the courts attention.”
“Separate but equal. In states that provide civil unions, the fourteenth amendment is bypassed by the legal doctrine of separate but equal. Despite what you learned in history class, the Supreme Court still holds this to be a valid doctrine.”
“Pursuant to section five, congress has passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It has been argued (in a very convoluted and circuitous way) that congress has the right to do this.”
http://www.secularconservative.net/ci...
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_...
November 17, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Well said Micheal!!!
November 17, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Actually, I've read almost everything here (except mgt0722's last 2 posts--too long) and I don't see Norm being anything but civil. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's being slanderous. You all come in the same voice to my ears.
.
Norm, you surprise me with the link to Ariana. I've just finished one of her books which several parts I disagreed with vehemently, but mostly, I liked her train of thought. So I will read the link you posted when I have time. Thanks.
November 19, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
"Actually, I've read almost everything here (except mgt0722's last 2 posts--too long) and I don't see Norm being anything but civil. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's being slanderous."
I just sit around thinking of disgusting sex acts acording to him. If that's civil to you then that explains why this passed because the meaning of civility has changed. And the fact that you didn't read the last two post by Michael speaks volumes to your bias.
I am a little behind the times but I just read where the gay community was planning their next step to get marriage legitimized for gays the day after the election. That means their whole campaign for 71 was a sham, which those of us who voted against it knew all the time.
November 20, 2009 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tim (Tim Lamb) says...
Norm says: " I spend no time fantasizing as you apparently do about sex acts that I find unpalatable."
Very civil norm. I guess I didn't understand you were just being civil.
November 20, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
You missed his point, Tim.
November 20, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Well, Tim, Norm was responding to what you said: "I don't want to offend people with the list of immoral sex acts that many enjoy, although I have stated some in the past."
.
I believe his point was that he personally doesn't spend much time thinking about what other people do sexually and then made an assumption that you do. In a heated discussion (as this one can get because people are passionate about their beliefs), things can be said that are not thought to be deeply hurtful, but are then taken that way. I agree, that his was a snarky comment, but I see it as Norm's impression and certainly didn't let it color my view of you.
.
Also the reason I didn't read mgt0722's last posts was because I had read almost the whole thread and my brain was exhausted. I may go back to them later.
.
My bias? :) You don't know me very well, m'dear. I was against this measure after reading the "for" statement in the Voter's Pamphlet because it was bad legislation and completely destroys the original purpose of the "domestic partnership" arrangement. I promise you, widows' and widowers' benefits will now be scrutinized because they are, essentially, married now, not domestically partnered. There is no difference. That was the point of the measure.
.
Eventually the state will stop issuing marriage licenses; they'll change the name to something else so they don't lose the income, and the function will simply become a legal partnership. The "marriage" part will be left to the churches. Our democracy continues to mutate and change to fit our slim-majority rules values. But I won't knock it. The slim majority could've been in the other direction, holding just as much sway.
November 20, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )