For clergy, beliefs are at root of referendum’s intent
Friday, October 23, 2009
Fiery debate on Referendum 71 has raged for months. Nicknamed the “everything but marriage measure,” R-71 has engaged activists, family advocates, moral watchdogs and gay rights opponents and champions in a lively public discussion of civil rights and traditional values.
Perhaps nowhere has the debate been more spirited than among churchgoers, the faithful and the clergy who lead and counsel them. Some pastors view R-71 as a step toward equality, as the Christian thing to do. Others view the measure as a step toward same-sex marriage that will undermine the sacred union of man and woman and damage the very foundation of the American family.
The Wenatchee World asked several local clergy to share their opinions on the referendum. Two agreed. Their positions — one to approve, one to reject — may help you decide how you’ll cast your vote.
— Mike Irwin, World staff
How the ballot reads:
Referendum Measure 71
The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.
This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
[ ] Approved
[ ] Rejected
Rev. Bob Jackson, retired
Approve
I vote to approve Referendum 71 because I believe, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, that we are a people of “liberty and justice for all.” That patriotic stance is based upon my religious convictions as a follower of Jesus, who said that “all the law and the prophets” can be summarized by “loving God with your whole being” and “loving your neighbor as you love yourself.”
Jesus also quoted from the scriptures of the Old Testament, with which he grew up, that powerful Q-and-A — “What does God require of you?” That you do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.
How wonderful this world would be if we all lived that way, without the necessity of civil rights laws and legal requirements to treat one another with liberty and justice for all. But without such laws, unfortunately, the powers that be allow for the domination of some people over other people and the denial of equality and justice.
We have seen in some of the sadder dimensions of our nation’s story that the powers that be allowed white Americans to dominate people of color by treating them as less than equal, even less than human, and the institution of slavery is that terrible stain on our history that we’d rather forget.
Similarly, the powers that be allowed males to treat females as less than equal, and for far too long women were denied such basic rights as voting, property rights, and many other contradictions of our claims to equality and liberty and justice for all. I am proud to live in a state where we “allowed” women to vote 10 years before they received that justice in the rest of the country.
In much the same way, our state is closer to the forefront among states taking steps toward liberty and justice for a third group of citizens who have, for far too long, suffered the burden of homophobia, resulting in their second-class citizenship. Racial bigotry, sexism, and homophobic-heterosexism — all three are examples of how the powers that be have allowed one party of the populace to dominate others, and, by treating them as less than equal, have denied them the liberty and justice that we say is for all.
When I began my 40 years in the ministry, more than half the states denied the right of a person of color to be married to a white person. It took action all the way to the Supreme Court to end such injustice.
I have three children by adoption because that’s the only way I could have children, but some states still restrict adoption to heterosexual couples only. In biblical times, families often consisted of a patriarch with many wives (and a dozen concubines) — and yet many so-called Christians deny that the role and definition of family has quite naturally evolved.
The argument that if we recognize other variations of family from the one we grew up in, that somehow that will “threaten my marriage to my wife,” is utter nonsense. When I married, the state gave my partner countless civil rights — visitation of me when hospitalized, the right to make decisions for me when I was incapacitated, rights to my pension and my Social Security benefits and many, many others. Our state has secured many such rights through the domestic partnership laws that move us a bit closer to making equality, liberty and justice for all a reality.
I say it loudly, we must not take away from others those rights that we cherish for ourselves.
Please join me in approving Referendum 71.
The Rev. Bob Jackson is a retired pastor. He was most recently pastor of United Church of Christ in Peshastin, retiring in 2005.
Pastor of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, Wenatchee
Reject
The voters of this state will soon be asked to decide an issue which could change the foundation of our society. Referendum 71 asks us to approve SB5688, the “Everything but marriage law.”
SB5688 makes the rights and privileges accorded same-sex and senior registered domestic partners equivalent to those of married spouses. The proponents have made it clear that they see this as a bridge to their eventual goal, legalized same-sex marriage.
The inclusion of heterosexual senior domestic partners is clearly an attempt to win their support of the gay agenda. Seniors often avoid marriage, although it is available to them, in order to avoid the consequences of giving up their status as widows or widowers.
There are two profoundly serious objections to this change in the status of couples. The first is that it pretends that a very real difference is really no difference at all. Something that is not marriage is to be treated exactly as if it were marriage. The result is that marriage becomes irrelevant. It has no meaning.
The second problem is that approval of Referendum 71 would set the state of Washington on a path to the next step, the approval of same-sex marriage. That is clearly the goal of SB5688. It hopes to soften opposition and to signal openness to a redefinition of marriage. Having approved the notion that there is no real meaning to the word marriage, the next logical step is to say that it can mean whatever we want it to mean. From that point on, our schools and teachers would have to rethink how they talk about marriage and family. Likewise, county and state employees who object to same-sex marriage would have to issue licenses and record legal documents that go against their beliefs.
Thus, the arguments that these changes would only influence those who willingly accept them are shown to be false. The whole society would be involved. Current law makes available legal methods such as durable power of attorney, appointing of estate executors and many other ways to guarantee involvement of partners in each other’s lives.
Let us think twice before we start out on a road to change the oldest and most important institution in the human family. I urge you to vote no on Referendum 71.
The Rev. Thomas Kuykendall is pastor of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. He’s been pastor at the Wenatchee church for 11 years.
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.
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
The real irony could be that if this referendum fails, gay marriage could arrive more quickly. Civil rights leaders may be more empowered to act, and the courts may weigh in and force equality to be the law of the land.
October 23, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
I'll bet you enjoyed playing "Twister" as a child. :-)
October 23, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
I find it odd the Father Kuykendall seems to be saying that the state is the only thing that gives marriage meaning and relevance. This measure is entirely about legal rights recognized by the state and has absolutely nothing to do with what the church (his or any other church) chooses to recognize as marriage.
.
The obvious answer is to take the state out of the marriage business entirely - it should grant the legal rights of a civil union to whatever pair of consenting adults want them and leave the question of whether or not to sanction marriages, and according to what criteria, to churches and other private organizations.
October 23, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Current law makes available legal methods such as durable power of attorney, appointing of estate executors and many other ways to guarantee involvement of partners in each other’s lives.<
This is an excellent point. The current television ad favoring "vote approved" on this referendum portrays Charlene Strong who lost her SO in a flooding disaster. Charlene was not allowed to visit her SO in the hospital because they did not have a legally recognized relationship. So she bemoans this tragedy in an effort to sway people to vote approved on Referendum 71. It's a very slick ad full of powerful emotional triggers. Only problem is the law is not picking on Charlene and all other LGBT(lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) couples as the ad would like you to believe. Rather, the law treats all uncommitted relationships--regardless of sexual orientation--the same. In other words, unmarried hetero couples would also experience the same slap in the face under similar circumstances.
See ad here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiuCH...
Perhaps gay and lesbian couples need to consider what options they do have under current law as referenced above by Father Kuykendall. This holds true as well for hetero couples who have also decided against marriage and in favor of simply living together. Since hetero couples would also be barred from visiting their SO in the hospital under similar circumstances, this all boils down to taking personal responsibility and current law already provides options to ALL couples be they LGBT(lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) or hetero couples who have chosen to simply live together outside of marriage. Charlene Strong and her SO could have executed reciprocal Power of Attorney documents and then Charlene would have been afforded legal visitation rights at the hospital under the law. One must wonder why these two intelligent modern-day women elected not to do this? Perhaps they were simply trying to avoid the current Rosie O'Donnel/ Kelli Carpenter fiasco? I suspect so. Keep in mind that if Ms. Strong had been living with a man outside of marriage, she would have been confronted with the same considerations that would have denied her visitation rights at the hospital. The point is this: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender couples already have options under current law today if they want to have a legally recognized committed relationship under the law. The fact of the matter is that many couples today regardless of sexual orientation are making the conscious choice to live together without exercising binding legal options because they want to remain foot-loose and fancy-free. Be that as it may, none of them are afforded legal rights under the law as a result of their conscious choice.
October 24, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Currently, they do have these rights. R-71 takes rights away. A vote for this referendum actually removes protections and benefits.
.
I do not see how voting for this is anything but discrimination.
October 24, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Basically, voting to reject R-71 takes us back to where we were just six months ago, prior to Ms. Gregoirrrre's signing of Senate Bill 5688...or maybe it takes us back to 2007 because she also signed earlier measures to expand LGBT rights.
Either way, this vote leaves it all up to the people and not the legislature. That's always a good thing, imo.
October 24, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Even if the people vote to discriminate?
October 24, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Even if the people vote to discriminate?<
That's your opinion. After all, hetero couples face the same issues when they choose to live together outside of marriage. This really isn't a gay rights issue. Rather, it's a personal responsibility issue based on individual choice.
October 24, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
There is not an existing legal "work around" for many of the rights affirmed in SB 5688 that would be repealed if R-71 is rejected. A power of Attorney and a will only solves a small handful of the many issues facing committed couples who would prefer to marry but are not allowed to. The argument that R-71 is not needed is based on inadequate knowledge of the law. What about pension benefits, medical insurance benefits, etc?
Reverend Kuykendall's two objections fail as logical arguments also. His first point "Something that is not marriage is to be treated exactly as if it were marriage. The result is that marriage becomes irrelevant." How ridiculous. It doesn't make MY marriage irrelevant. NOTHING about marriage changes. The Catholic Church considers marriage to be a sacrament, will continue to view marriage as a sacrament, will continue to bestow that sacrament on those it deems worthy and deny it to those it doesn't whether due to sexual orientation or divorce. Nothing about marriage changes.
Argument two: "county and state employees who object to same-sex marriage would have to issue licenses and record legal documents that go against their beliefs." True, just as county and state employees who objected to "the intermingling of races" still had to issue licenses to inter-racial couples when the miscegenation laws were repealed. You cannot deny legal rights to citizens simply because you personally disapprove of them. That is how it must be. If you cannot follow the law of the land and uphold the Constitution you really shouldn't be in public service to begin with.
October 24, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@mavulous
You said:hetero couples face the same issues when they choose to live together outside of marriage. This really isn't a gay rights issue. Rather, it's a personal responsibility issue based on individual choice.
Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really hold, because hetero folks CAN get married and choosing not to is an entirely different issue than not having the right to be married. Personal responsibility? Agreed, hard to do when you don't have rights though - when you don't have the choice you speak of.
October 24, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Troubadour (Pat Liley) says...
I find it interesting that Mr. Kuykendall, who (presumably) has never been married, considers himself to be some kind of expert on marriage. It is also curious that he so fully supports the bill which is sponsored by a group led by a man who has been divorced twice, married three times and has a record of spousal abuse as well as a spousal restraining order! Does that really sound like someone who is strongly concerned with the "sanctity of marriage", or one who is against equal rights for "those people"?
A quick question: Can anyone, without using an interpretation of Biblical views, give a valid legal reason why same gender couples should not marry?
October 24, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really hold, because hetero folks CAN get married and choosing not to is an entirely different issue than not having the right to be married. Personal responsibility? Agreed, hard to do when you don't have rights though - when you don't have the choice you speak of.
Rachel, the argument does hold because even if they cannot get married there are the legal alternatives I mentioned that have always been available which would afford them the same legal rights that were apparently missing in the emotional ad linked above in the case of Charlene Strong.
October 25, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
Mav, there are not legal alternatives. Approving R-71 IS the legal alternative. One question, what are you afraid of?
October 25, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
Bottom line Mav? Why do they need legal alternatives different from everyone else, why do YOU have rights that they do not? Are you familiar with the 14th amendment?
October 25, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Why do they need legal alternatives different from everyone else,<
Rachel, we all need legal options whenever we navigate the legal system and all I am pointing out is that those options are available to virtually everyone. In other words, we can all arrive at the same desired destination by taking different routes on the map. Your question then is "why do they have to take a different route from others?" My question back to you is "Why not?" After all, if we all arrive at the same desired destination then there is no reason to suggest that my route is better or that your route is preferable. We all consider our options within the law and simply take it from there. What I am suggesting is that very much like hetero couples who choose to live together with no strings attached, LGBT couples are choosing to do the same thing for the same reasons. Such conscious choices may result in undesirable consequences that will affect ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation.
October 25, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>I find it interesting that Mr. Kuykendall, who (presumably) has never been married, considers himself to be some kind of expert on marriage. <
To suggest that we cannot offer an opinion on any subject unless we have had direct experience with it is absurd. For example, such a notion would rule out debating the validity of war for most all of us.
October 25, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
"Mav, there are not legal alternatives".
Of course there are! There are always legal alternatives.
"Approving R-71 IS the legal alternative".
It is one alternative, but certainly not the ONLY legal alternative.
"One question, what are you afraid of?"
I was unaware that I was afraid of something. Please offer further insight on your assumption.
October 25, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
"Are you familiar with the 14th amendment?"
Yes, I am. Can you demonstrate that LGBT couples meet the legal requirement for true minority status the same way that African Americans do? Other than that, this all boils down to a conscious choice as described in previous comments within this thread and, no, I do not believe they are being denied their civil rights in any way.
October 25, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
The only requirement for equal protection under the 14th Amendment is that one fit in the category "any person". It says nothing about "true minority status".
October 25, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
>Your question then is "why do they have to take a different route from others?" My question back to you is "Why not?" <
.
The burden of proof is on you becuase you are arguing in favor of different rights for a different category of people. The default position is equal rights.
October 25, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
Ok Mav, here's a challenge. What is the legal work around for state pension benefits?
You also seem to think that a power of attorney will allow you to be at your dying partners bedside. It won't. Google "Lisa Pond". She and her partner had them. The partner that died alone while Lisa was kept in a waiting room and no one would tell her what was happening.
I assumed you must fear R-71. Why else would you oppose it other than fear?
October 25, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Troubadour (Pat Liley) says...
"To suggest that we cannot offer an opinion on any subject unless we have had direct experience with it is absurd."
That wasn't my point. I was simply highlighting the juxtoposition of the two individuals - one with NO experience at marriage and one with several (failed) experiences both trying to uphold the "sanctity of marriage". One who WILL NOT marry and one who has married too often. A bit incongruous, don't you think?
October 25, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeffR (Jeff Reister) says...
Thanks to Mr. Jackson for his thoughtful and well written essay. It is not generating any comments because it is difficult to argue with his sentiments and logic. Nice job.
October 25, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
voter (Dennis voter) says...
http://dennishendricks.blogspot.com/
October 25, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Milo wrote: You also seem to think that a power of attorney will allow you to be at your dying partners bedside.
I believe in most all cases it should serve that intended purpose. However, in Florida the court determined the following:
"The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients’ visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit". In light of that finding the hospital could have blocked access of anyone to their trauma unit regardless of sexual orientation. Apparently further action in the courts may be pending on this issue, but there really isn't any evidence outside of hearsay that Janice and the children were denied visitation rights solely because they were gay.
October 25, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
A bit incongruous, don't you think?
Perhaps, but not that unusual. Life is full of abstracts and inconsistencies within the human experience.
October 25, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>The burden of proof is on you becuase[sic] you are arguing in favor of different rights for a different category of people. The default position is equal rights.<
No. I am simply stating that equal rights under the law already existed if one took a different route to arrive at the same destination. If you argue that LGBT couples are in fact a "different category of people" then you have to prove true minority status...something which you will be unable to do.
"The only requirement for equal protection under the 14th Amendment is that one fit in the category "any person".
Okay, if you take that approach then they did have equal rights precisely the same as those hetero couples who simply chose to live together.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rachel wrote: "why do YOU have rights that they do not?"
Because I chose to get married, rather than to just live together with my SO. My wife and I made a reciprocal marriage commitment that is legally recognized by state law and that is why we have different rights from other LGBT couples as well as other hetero couples who simply choose to live together without any legal commitment. All I'm saying is that LGBT couples could have entered into the same legal commitment in the form of a reciprocal power of attorney and including a living will or a simple will, depending on what is legally recognized by individual state law. I am of the opinion that they choose to avoid doing this for the very same reasons that hetero couples choose to live together outside of marriage.
October 25, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Thanks to Mr. Jackson for his thoughtful and well written essay. It is not generating any comments because it is difficult to argue with his sentiments and logic.<
Or it is so predictably progressive, lukewarm and fuzzy that it fails to raise an eyebrow.
October 25, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>What is the legal work around for state pension benefits?<
It varies from state to state. Some states recognize the earner of these benefits as the sole beneficiary even in the event of divorce. In other states it is considered community property. That said, there are a variety of ways to value a pension plan and make a reciprocal asset exchange within a will that would level the playing field for all beneficiaries if so desired.
October 26, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@ Mav
Your response to me asking why do YOU have rights that they do not? was, "Because I chose to get married, rather than to just live together with my SO. My wife and I made a reciprocal marriage commitment that is legally recognized by state law and that is why we have different rights from other LGBT couples as well as other hetero couples who simply choose to live together without any legal commitment. All I'm saying is that LGBT couples could have entered into the same legal commitment..."
So I will ask again, with your words this time:
Why are you and your wife able to enter into a reciprocal marriage contract that is recognized by the state that others cannot.
Your answers are the epitome of the saying, "You can't get cornered in a round house." Circle around and around.
Here is the most telling parts of your comment, "Because I chose to get married" and "we have different rights". LGBT folks can't "CHOOSE" to be married - if they could, this entire conversation would be a moot point. And that second part is the clincher and what I asked earlier! Why do you have different rights? Tough to answer without sounding bigoted. It is why no one will answer the question I asked directly.
I know you will circle around with legality, blah blah blah, but you said it yourself. You have rights that others do not and you believe that legal rights that married folks do not need to go out and spend thousands of dollars to purchase should suffice. Paying for rights is not the same thing.
I am not trying to convince you, just want you to be completely aware of what you believe without disguising it for what it really is. Bigotry. I am under no illusion that you will ever change your mind, I knew from the moment you said that Charlene Strong was "bemoaning" the tragedy of losing her partner that you lack compassion or understanding. Who would say such a thing about someone losing the love of their life? Someone who believes with their heart that, the love she felt for her partner is less than the love a hetero couple experiences. We all live, we all love Mav.
So one more time for the cheap seats:
Why are you entitled to "choose" to get married while others are denied that VERY SAME (not something similar) right?
October 26, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Why are you entitled to "choose" to get married while others are denied that VERY SAME (not something similar) right?<
Rachel, I already explained and answered this very question, but because it wasn't the answer that you wanted to read, you chose to conclude that any bigotry expressed herein was mine and not yours. Is not your intolerance of my opinion also a form of bigotry?
If you can demonstrate that unmarried hetero couples are being treated differently than LGBT couples in the eyes of the law then I will agree with you.
My contention is that there is more than one way to skin a cat and we all have to consider our options and go in whatever direction we need to go in order to accomplish our goals in life. Changing the law is one way to do that, but barring that, there will always be another way for those who really are serious about taking care of business. Having said all that, however, I am still of the opinion that pursuing the legal avenues already available to LGBT couples is being consciously dismissed in order to avoid similar messy situations that high profile LGBT couples like Ellen and Anne and Rosie and Kelli have experienced in the recent past.
October 26, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@ Resi Dent
If you vote to APPROVE REFERENDUM 71, you provide rights and protections to ALL Washington families, it couldn't possibly strip them of rights and responsibilities that they don't even currently have.
Mav is right, you were probably very good at Twister as a child. Sad that opponents of this ref. feel it is completely within their rights to confuse people, be deceitful and outright lie about what this referendum will do. Just goes to show who really has skewed values.
October 26, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>I knew from the moment you said that Charlene Strong was "bemoaning" the tragedy of losing her partner that you lack compassion or understanding.<
You're right. I should have chosen my descriptive verbs more carefully. Perhaps I should have stated that Charlene was "lamenting" the tragedy instead. Would that have been a better choice? Perhaps you could suggest an even better one?
October 26, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
...you must be getting dizzy from all that circling Mav.
It appears you still want to muddle, convolute and deflect so you can avoid stating the obvious.
I will bite: I suppose I would choose "shared her sorrow" or "shared her grief". Aahhh...but that implies that somehow we all share the same range of human emotions and if that were in fact the case, we might be exactly the same and that couldn't possible be, could it? Nope. The fact that there are those that have privilege that others do not, proves it, right?
Amazing what can happen when we reduce others to a standing less than our own - it is how tragedies like slavery, the holocaust and Darfur occur...when people are thought of as objects, with their rights stripped away. Individuals that are not allowed to act, but to be acted upon. And? FYI, you still didn't answer the question at all.
As for me being intolerant? Hmmm...well lets just break it down with some help from good 'ol Mr. Webster.
Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: \-rənt\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1735
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
Wow, well I feel completely capable of enduring your opinion. Also, I don't see where I feel myself entitled to deny anyone equal freedom or rights. Different opinion does not equal intolerance, because opinions are not the same as rights. I accept that we believe different things, what I don't accept is that your beliefs should infringe upon the rights of another.
Maybe you need to tighten your belt Mav, your bigotry is showing.
October 26, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joyful (Jen S) says...
It should not be the government's decision whom one should marry. Even if one disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn't matter.
For, isn't it written in the Declaration of Independence, that all people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? And doesn't the "all people" part include homosexuals? Or, are they simply sub-human?
It appears to me that we treat lesbians and gays as less than human. Marriage is a right that every American should be able to have, IF DESIRED. Why do we not allow it?
Partners in an unmarried, heterosexual relationship HAVE THE RIGHT to marry, they just choose not to. You cannot equate the two!
We Americans break the constitution every day by not allowing homosexuals to marry. We are going against our own law.
Any rebuttals on the decision to let homosexuals marry should have nothing to do with the Bible or one's debate over whether we are a Christian nation or not.
I thought America took pride in being a melting pot full of different values and beliefs. It seems we are being quite hypocritical, and we need to stop it.
We are all equal. We all have our own gifts and talents. What should one's sexual orientation have to do with how we treat them?
And Mavulous, I hope you don't call yourself a Christian. You're throwing stones, and since you're not Jesus, I'm pretty sure you sin.
October 26, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@Joyful
Amen!
October 26, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
>Is not your intolerance of my opinion also a form of bigotry?<
.
No, of course not. This common right wing talking point betrays a lack of understanding of bigotry and intolerance. Disagreeing with your your opinion is not intolerance - nobody is suggesting that you should have any less rights and privileges than anybody else has. Of course people who disagree with you think you are wrong, just as you think they are wrong; none of that rises to the level of either intolerance or of bigotry on either side. Bigotry is when you think some group of people are lesser in some way and that individual members of that group are deserving of lesser rights and respect than others. The idea that "all people who express bigoted opinions are bigots" is not an example of bigotry any more than the idea that "all people who run slowly don't run very fast" is an example of bigotry.
October 26, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>And Mavulous, I hope you don't call yourself a Christian. You're throwing stones, and since you're not Jesus, I'm pretty sure you sin. <
And you're passing judgment. However, posting an opinion different from your own on the Internet is hardly a sin, unless you have invented a new definition for the same to suit your own purpose, in which case you would also qualify.
October 26, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Rachel, Rachel, the condescending term you first hurled in my direction was "bigotry", which by definition speaks to your own intolerance for my differing opinion. I disagree with your take on the issues surrounding this referendum, but that's my prerogative. Frankly, your style reminds me of the "task force" mentality that did far more harm to your cause than good.
October 26, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>This common right wing talking point betrays a lack of understanding of bigotry and intolerance. <
LOL! Hey, Normie, how's law school going?
October 26, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@Mav
My "cause", since you deemed it mine, would be equality for everyone, yourself included - that would preclude me being intolerant. I do not in any way need to agree with your opinion and that doesn't make me a bigot.
Your refusal to acknowledge the very basic fact, that you believe that it is just that you have a particular set of rights, while denying those VERY SAME RIGHTS to another is bigotry and intolerance. I am sorry if that stings, but it is the truth.
Please do be aware that when you make a decision that rights can be made exclusive and can be put to a vote, you essentially slip the noose around your own neck.
*sigh* I am through indulging your mental masturbation. Justifying the denial of individual's rights isn't titillating conversation for most Mav.
October 26, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
infuzion (Andrew Simpson) says...
@Mavulous
"If you can demonstrate that unmarried hetero couples are being treated differently than LGBT couples in the eyes of the law then I will agree with you."
are you being serious?
for the eleventy-third time: take two couples, one straight, one gay. which one has the right, under the law, to marry? THAT is the root of this debate, period.
or to phrase it differently, since you'll go back to insisting that they have equal rights through different channels... here's you, in 1869:
"Blacks can still get three votes, if five of them go to the poll booth."
see the difference? it's not EQUAL RIGHTS if you have to do DIFFERENT THINGS. there are countless ways it could be phrased:
"you can go to that school, but you have to enter through the back door"
"you can have a driver's license, but you can only drive on the back roads"
"you can eat at this restaurant, but only the leftovers from other people's plates"
any of this sinking in?
October 26, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>THAT is the root of this debate, period.
or to phrase it differently, since you'll go back to insisting that they have equal rights through different channels... here's you, in 1869:
"Blacks can still get three votes, if five of them go to the poll booth."
see the difference?
Sorry, African Americans are a true minority. LGBTs are not a true minority! Now do YOU see the difference? However, if you can successfully make the case that LGBTs are a true minority, then I will agree with you that they are being discriminated against.
October 26, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Mav, how do you define a minority?
October 26, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Your refusal to acknowledge the very basic fact, that you believe that it is just that you have a particular set of rights, while denying those VERY SAME RIGHTS to another is bigotry and intolerance. I am sorry if that stings, but it is the truth. <
It doesn't sting because it isn't even close to being true. Bigotry is what spawned the successful outcome of the civil rights era and to compare your cause with that of African Americans is an insult to them. Will NAMBLA also come running to your defense and claim that their civil rights are being violated as well?
October 26, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Mav, how do you define a minority?<
Resi, a true racial minority is defined by a readily distinguished feature. For example, African Americans are a true racial minority by virtue of the color of their skin. By contrast, LGBTs are not a true racial minority and that is why their civil rights have not been violated.
October 26, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Resident (Resi Dent) says...
Ahhhh, so minorities are only based on race in your mind. That clears up the debate then.
.
Actually, a minority can be ethnic, religious, racial, sexual, etc., and these are all recognized by our governments.
October 26, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
The question of whether people's rights are being violated does not turn on whether or not they are part of a minority group; this line of discussion is entirely irrelevant.
October 26, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>That clears up the debate then.<
Sorry, I should have been more specific, but it seemed that comparisons with African Americans had been made early on in this thread and especially by Rev. Bob Jackson in his "APPROVE" argument in the article above.
October 26, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>The question of whether people's rights are being violated does not turn on whether or not they are part of a minority group; this line of discussion is entirely irrelevant.<
No, Norm. Not when they wish to draw comparisons with African Americans and discrimination with respect to a violation of civil rights. There simply is no comparison.
October 26, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Lastly, for LGBTs and their advocates to attempt a comparison of sorts with the civil rights struggle for equality of African Americans in our society is the classic "red herring". The dots between the two movements are entirely unrelated and for them to pursue that angle is and should be perceived as an affront to all African Americans.
October 26, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Different groups have had their rights denied based on different justifications. Yes, the justifications offered are different, but the result - denied rights - is the same.
October 26, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nicole (Nicole Morrison) says...
What does it matter if LGBTs are recognized as minorities? Do not ALL people deserve equal rights?
>if we all arrive at the same desired destination then there is no reason to suggest that my route is better or that your route is preferable. We all consider our options within the law and simply take it from there.<
From my own experience trying to establish a heterosexual domestic partnership, the marriage route is by far simpler and much more affordable. IMO, for those who wish to have the benefits of marriage, the preferable route would be to just get married.
>What I am suggesting is that very much like hetero couples who choose to live together with no strings attached, LGBT couples are choosing to do the same thing for the same reasons<
That is the only option for LGBT couples. It's not really a choice for those that have no other option.
October 26, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nicole (Nicole Morrison) says...
And from my own experience trying to establish a domestic partnership, marriage is by far a simpler and much more affordable route.
October 26, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Different groups have had their rights denied based on different justifications. Yes, the justifications offered are different, but the result - denied rights - is the same.<
So then you feel that it's tragic that NAMBLA has had their rights denied as well?
October 26, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Of course not. Nobody has a right to commit statutory rape.
October 26, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Well, Norm, NAMBLA would also like to change the law because they feel their rights are being denied them. I suspect in about twenty years they will also succeed in convincing people such as yourself to go along with their ideology--at least in principle. After all, "justifications offered are different, but the result - denied rights - is the same".
October 26, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
You clearly fail to see the difference between consenting adults and children. I don't. You are therefore far closer to endorsing pedophilia than I am.
October 26, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
Mav this whole NAMBLA thing of yours is outrageous and incredibly offensive. How dare you. Have you no shame at all? You have no argument whatsoever so you throw around pedophilia?
October 26, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
No, Norm. I clearly see the difference, but I also clearly see the progressive direction being taken by our society. Every trend eventually goes too far. So don't be too terribly surpised if social attitudes--including your own--eventually come to embrace NAMBLA and other peripheral organizations in the not too distant future.
October 26, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Mav this whole NAMBLA thing of yours is outrageous and incredibly offensive.<
That's what they would have said about this referendum thirty years ago, Klanker. Would you agree? Or were you not yet born back in the late 70s?
October 26, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
@Milo
Just give up, Mav is completely beyond reasoning with. He doesn't live in the same world/reality as the rest of us. He not only has his own definition of minorities, but he compares child abusers wanting the right to molest children with 2 adults who love one another. He has no interest in facts, reality or truth - he is really reaching now.
October 26, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Just give up, Mav is completely beyond reasoning with. He doesn't live in the same world/reality as the rest of us. <
Ah, Rachel Love, just google that name and be very, very careful what you click on. You're right Rachel, I don't live in your reality and I'm thankful for that. As much as you would like to believe you're mainstream, the history of NAMBLA or NAMbLA is very much affiliated with your own, or at least until you decided that their movement was a discredit to yours. Prior to that, you used to march together in all the gay parades, so welcome to the colorful history that defines and inextricably links both movements. Today you want to distance yourself from that history and I guess I don't blame you. The Internet, however, never forgets and neither should you.
October 27, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
The bottom line of Referendum 71 should never be put up for any vote period. The Bottom line of Protect Marriage Washington seems to be hate, and those who want to feel superior.
How do I know this? I am a television producer that recently had a heated show with both sides represented. Listening as the moderator was intresting.
The bottom line is that they feel it is about marriage rights, not civil rights.
This surely is a civil rights issue- thus should never be voted on in this way.
It is not just gay and lesbian's who are more less named here- but senior citizens.
The program I produced shows that the people from Protect marriage washington- fail to remmeber that over half of the marriages in our country end in divorce.
They fail to remember that many married couples can not have children- another one of their " talking points".
Im glad to have been able to do such a program- as no other media covered the story as we did in a near debate.
www.hourforum.net is the website-, get the facts, vote and yes approve 71
October 27, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RacyhelDazy (Rachel Love) says...
And why on earth would you google my name Mav? You have crossed right over into creepy.
October 27, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>The bottom line of Referendum 71 should never be put up for any vote period.<
How many bottom lines does it take to make your point? I count three and am wondering which one is on bottom? So you believe that the people's First Amendment right to petition by referendum in this state's political process should be taken away? Wouldn't that be entirely hypocritical on your part? In trying to preserve certain rights, you believe certain other rights should be taken away. Very interesting and very, very revealing--and that's my bottom line.
October 27, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
Mav-I do believe that the power of the vote is wonderful. It would be better however to vote on issues like- should the state offer healthcare bennifits to all washington families-, should the state expand light rail, should the state close the viaduct in Seattle, those are issues not on this ballot.
To say that I believe that certain "other rights should be taken away" is not what I said.
You did.
It is OK for people to reject the referendum if they feel to do that. It is never OK- to reject protections, laws and things of that nature that in fact grant equal rights, civil rights to all Americans.
We pay taxes like you do-, we enjoy the same things as you. We are not any differant.
To even say that other rights should be taken away is just nuts.
Rights, civil rights never should be up for a vote- and that is the truth.
Maybe the state should think about a vote saying " married couples in this state are not legally married because of the seperation of church and state".
Marriage is a church issue, santioned by the church.. it is only enforced by the laws of the state.
The state has no business offering marriage licence- once again, it is a church issue not a state one.
Referendum 71 is not marriage-, it is about civil rights.
October 28, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>We pay taxes like you do-, we enjoy the same things as you. We are not any differant.<
That's not true at all. If we were all the same there would be no need for Senate Bill 5688 or R-71, but thank you for at least revealing that your take on this issue is a function of your sexuality.
"Marriage is a church issue, santioned by the church.. it is only enforced by the laws of the state. The state has no business offering marriage licence- once again, it is a church issue not a state one."
Here again this is a very revealing statement and it goes to the very heart of civil law and governance as we now know it. Thank you for your honesty and clarity.
October 28, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Here is some excellent food for thought regarding those who might want to abuse the intent of R-71 and no one would ever know...ka-ching, ka-ching...:
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/20...
October 28, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeffR (Jeff Reister) says...
Richard, I think you are wrong about marriage being a church issue. The word marriage, like a lot of other words, simply has more than one meaning. To the state that meaning is legal and secular and not at all religious. To religions it means - well I guess it means whatever they want it to mean - probably something different for every religion or sect.
.
The secular nature of marriage as defined by the state is blatantly obvious to any non-religious person who has chosen to marry. I guess it's not so obvious to someone who is gay and doesn't have that option to marry. That's understandable.
.
Personally I don't see the state ever getting out of the (secular) marriage business, so I think the right thing to do is change the state constitution to make marriage apply to same sex couples. That's not going to happen for a while, so R-71 is a good stop-gap measure.
October 28, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeffR (Jeff Reister) says...
Oops! I meant Robert, not Richard. Sorry about that.
October 28, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
You are welcome, as I try to make things simple.
Marriage and the orgin of that word is Bible based- not state based.
However, since the state see's dollar signs with the term marriage- they keep that on the books.
However, it should be extended to all persons not just some.
This bill Referendum 71 is not about marriage as the kind people of Protect washington believe.
October 28, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Norm said "The obvious answer is to take the state out of the marriage business entirely - it should grant the legal rights of a civil union to whatever pair of consenting adults want them and leave the question of whether or not to sanction marriages, and according to what criteria, to churches and other private organizations."
Love it. What a well-thought idea. Way better than this Referendum.
October 28, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
Mav said: "That's what they would have said about this referendum thirty years ago, Klanker..."
Mav, his name is Milo Klanke--you do not know him well enough to throw around a nickname. He, unlike you, is brave enough to say who he is and stand behind his comments. Your behavior, on the other hand, is that of a troll--just here to rile people up.
October 28, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeffR (Jeff Reister) says...
Me again, Robert. I looked at several on-line dictionaries for the definition of marriage. Only one even mentions religion at all, and that is in relation to marriage ceremonies, not the institution of marriage.
.
"Marriage" is just the English word for an institution that exists in most cultures, including those that never heard of the bible.
.
From what I've been able to find about the history of marriage (not sure how reliable it is), the Christian church really didn't have much involvement in it until the 1500's.
.
So I really don't see the evidence that marriage is a religious institution with origins in the bible.
.
On the other hand, it might be much easier to get the state out of the marriage business and into the civil union business that to get people to understand that the word marriage is not religious. That would be OK with me, but I don't think it is likely to happen.
October 28, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Your behavior, on the other hand, is that of a troll--just here to rile people up.<
I see. Well, thank you for pointing that out in such a good natured way. Now then, Ms Villacres, why are you so down on marriage, such that you believe the state should get out of the marriage business all together?
October 28, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
Think of it for a moment; Providing the state got out of the marriage business, and rather ( the entire United states Government ), and replaced it with " civil unions" THEN this would hold more water.
The word marriage means "joining", or " to Join together". It is not based on ones sex, or anything to do with it.
In all seriousness here, Civil unions are the way that the United States can get out of this stale block-, and come to better terms with all unions.
In England- when you get married- there are two seperate things that happen.
The Civil part is done by a judge, or someone acting as such- ( that is the state part ) then you have the religious service- which calls it's self marriage or the wedding.
I have been a Pastor for many years-,and from my research on this I have found one common thread here-" civil unions".
Nonetheless, it is far more productive to demand from the United States Government changes in policy than the state.
The Fed's have more right, pull, and leaway here to change this course than any single state does.
Civil unions then are the knight in shinning armor for every American.
October 29, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
I would agree with you, Robert. This would allow churches to marry whoever they believe they should be able to marry. The legal/state part of the transaction would simply be for record-keeping and legal structure. It wouldn't be called marriage in the government's eyes--which fits well with the separation of church and state.
However, it would still potentially negatively affect the whole widows/widowers benefits thing that is protected with a domestic partnership (see my letter to the editor of today).
October 29, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
Ensevy, that is part of the rights. States do keep track of marriages-,and other legal issues between two persons so in a case of seperation and or divorce, items then can be divided.
I did not use the term " domestic partnership" but civil unions. I do understand what you ment though.
A domestic partnership is not the same as a civil union in one way. As I see it, a domestic partnership would involve two of the same sex seperate, but not equal. A civil union shows equality for every American.
Does that make more since?
October 29, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
I understand that. Which is why I'm against the current referendum. It is an attempt to change the nature of domestic partnerships. If gay and lesbian couples want civil unions, then that's what they should be fighting for, not for redefining a current, useful legal structure into something else.
As I understand you, civil unions would replace marriage in the record books, leaving true marriage in the hands of churches. That is probably the best way to do it in a republic like ours.
October 29, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
Ensevy, a True Marriage- what is it?
A joining of two persons-. Thus, the word marrige often is tossed around and least understood. Nonetheless, there are many many laws and provisions for married couples whereas same sex couples have not been granted the same.
I do support the Referendum- one reason is that it is a civil right, not a marriage right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTy_5r...
copy that URL and watch the video of the recent show we did on the referendum.
Might be worth time to see it, before casting any ballot.
It is time now in Washington state- that people just like you and me ( I think you are a most kind person ), but to voice concern, show our own faces in light of what is going on.
We do live in a republic, where laws should cover everyone, and each persons dream becomes alive.
Let me know what you think
RCSM@hourforum.net my email
October 30, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Okay, I just watched Parts 1-3 and then I also see there is a Part 7? Just how many parts are there? For those that haven't voted, I do think this is well worth watching--at least Parts1-3 were very well done, imo. My compliments to you, Robert, for a job well done for the first three parts at least.
October 30, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Enesvy (Nicole Villacres) says...
I will try to watch it tonight or tomorrow, Robert. High praise from Mav, so it must be interesting. :)
By the way, I do believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman (Mav, this may answer your previous question as well), though you do raise a good point that the term "marriage" is diverse and used in umpteen ways in the English language to mean a "joining."
That said, I wish more folks could understand that when you ask people to vote to approve of something that they believe to be wrong, you're asking a lot. You're asking people to morally deny themselves. Within those of us who have not yet been convinced that homosexuality is not immoral, there is a powerful internal clash with the other belief that, yes, we all should have equal rights. Am I giving a stamp of approval to homosexuality if I approve this measure? Or am I simply allowing more citizens the same rights as other citizens? This is a cultural mindset change in the making and it takes time.
That said, this is America (thank God!) where majority vote rules. I believe that what is voted into law is law, the will of the people, and I will abide by those laws.
October 30, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HourForum (Robert Christian) says...
Thank you Mav for your comment- and Ensevy. There is a total of eight parts as youtube only allows ten min' segments per part. So, the entire program which is one hour 11 Min's long- had to be divided into parts or chapters for YouTube.
Nonetheless, Thank you for your most kind remarks. As moderator of that program, I wanted to have the viewers see both sides at the same table. Presenting their opinions, views, and goals.
We did our best.
The Program was recorded in HD, so it looked better.
Now
Ensevy, no by approving or voting to approve the referendum, you in fact are not saying that you approve of gays and lesbians. You are however saying-, that those couples should be protected as married couples are- and let's not forget the senior citizens who also stand to loose out here. The matter at hand is not "marriage", but it is equal rights, civil rights.
I on the program did not tell anyone to vote yes or no.. but to bring the entire issue to the viewers, and let them think about it-before voting.
Please watch the program- and let me know what you think.
October 30, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )