July 25, 2006
WA Supremes To Issue Gay Marriage Ruling Tomorrow
Like others, I had suspected this might wait until after November. But AP is reporting the Washington State Supreme Court has announced it will issue its gay marriage ruling tomorrow. At stake - among other things - is the 1998 Defense Of Marriage Act approved by the state legislature. As I've said here pretty recently, if the court kicks DOMA back to the legislature or strikes it down, conservative voters and activists will be compelled to energetically work for election of pro-DOMA legislators, perhaps partly because because the super-majority requirements are so high for legislative approval of a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (a public vote is required, too). A January poll by Stuart Elway found 55 percent of Washington voters opposed to gay marriage, and interestly, 65 percent accepting of homosexuality. Elway correctly called the definition of marriage a "bright red line." More recently, the Seattle Roman Catholic Archdiocese has affirmed its opposition to legalized gay marriage, and to the possibility of being forced to permit gay weddings in its churches. If the social enginering impulse of Seattle Democrats is indugled even partially by the court with respect to DOMA, that could put the party's control of the state legislature - not to mention the seats of some justices - at serious risk. Becoming the Massachusetts of the Northwest may well be a death wish for Ds here.
UPDATE: Via our comment string on this post, Christopher Dean Hopkins at The Olympian sends word the paper will be holding a live online chat on the ruling Thursday at 11 a.m. with gay marriage supporter and Democratic State Sen. Ed Murray of Seattle, and opponent, Republican State Sen. Dan Swecker of Rochester. You can submit questions here, although perhaps you will want to wait until the decision is issued tomorrow.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 25, 2006
01:59 PM | Email This
1. I certainly hope the justices do not strike down the DOMA and allow for gay marriage. However, with such a liberal slant to our political atmosphere, I'm not holding my breath.
2. This upcoming ruling tommorrow is certainly going to make the supreme court races much more intense.
3. ...or maybe they are protecting their seats by upholding DOMA by releasing it before the election.
The Olympian will be holding an online chat on this topic at 11 a.m. Thursday with state Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and state Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester.
Submit your questions here:
Here's what my gut is telling me. These hypocrites are going to uphold DOMA. They'll even go so far as to wax eloquent in the opinion about the "responsibility" of the judiciary to "defer" to the legislature.
The numbers for Alexander and Owens apparently are dropping. They have the opportunity here to maybe pick up some votes from conservatives while not costing their base any money. This is the kind of case that will give them the opportunity to drone on about how they are not judicial activists. It all comes down to the money - upholding DOMA won't cost their base any money, so they'll probably go for it.
If however this was a situation where the legality of something like an exercise of eminent domain or a local tax was being contested, they'd make darn sure whatever the statute said did not hold them back from giving the government any new authority it might ask for.
6. Matt Rosenberg: You know damn well there is no possibility that a ruling overturning DOMA would force Catholic churches, or any other churches to permit gay weddings in their churches. The 1st Amendment freedom of religion and free association provisions would prevent that from happening. You're just trying to manipulate and inflame your readership. You despicable bigot.
7. It appears likely that the Court will overturn the state DOMA. The extremely long wait (15 months) suggests a divided decision with multiple opinions. Without a voter-directed amendment process, the opinion is likely to stand for some time.
It's too late for that.
Time for some new judges!
It does become a slippery slope though.
At what point will we have churches forced to perform 'gay weddings' in order to maintain their tax-exempt status.
Enough is enough!
I suspect that in the largely moderate to left leaning state of WA that this is really not that big of an issue for most voters. I personally see this as far more about establishing new political power for a particular class than it is about marriage. Most rational people can see that whether or not two other people want to get married really has no effect on them at all. I could really care less about who gets married to who, and I don't view it as an afront to my own marriage or anything of any concern to me at all.
However I do consider it an afront to my freedom to have either the courts or legislature creating a new class based on ambiguous characteristics. In fact, it's incredibly bad policy for governments to be carving out any new law based on gender, color, sexual affiliation, etc. The whole point of the many long years it took to end slavery, institutionalized racism, women's suffrage, etc. was to recognize the fundamental equality of all. That's what "all men are created equal" means. To then go and say, yeah, everyone is equal, but apply it based on some trait is to revert to racism. It's the same kind of thinking that drives affirmative action policy.
I don't want to see special rights given to special classes of people for any reason, and especially not when it's because of their color, gender, or their declared sexual orientation (I assume we won't be testing people to see if they are gay.) But as far as who marries who, I could care less.
It is very unusual for the any member of the Supreme Court to comment on any facet of a case under consideration, including the timing of the decision. But I understand Justice Owen did exactly that, telling a reporter that the decision would be issued before the election.
It is very unusual for the Supreme Court to release a decision on Wednesday. It releases 99.99% of its decisions on Thursdays. The only exceptions that I can think of are when the Court felt a need to rule immediately after argument, which it did not do here. Has anyone heard an explanation of why the Supreme Court is releasing this decision on a Wednesday?
These facts suggest the Supreme Court is treating this decision like it is some kind of momentous, unique event. Therefore, I predict the Court will affirm the trial court decisions striking down the DOMA.
I predict it will be 6-3 decision. I believe that there will be an unusually large number of concurrences/dissents written by individual justices.
I hope I am wrong. If I am right, I hope the justices who vote in the majority suffer for it in the next elections. We shall see.
Matt, you should look into the brief from the Catholic church a little more closely. I had the opportunity to read it this morning, and it didn't really advance the fear that same sex couples would have to be married in churches, though it did express concern that its religious view of marriage would no longer be law. The fact of the matter is that no church is forced to marry people that they don't want to, be they people of different faiths, races, marital histories, or people in same sex relationships. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and that protection is not in question.
I am interested to see how the case comes out tomorrow, and hope that the justices recognize that in spite of the poll numbers and popular sentiments, the question is whether or not it is consistent with the Washington State Constitution to deny legal rights and benefits to same sex couples while extending them to opposite sex couples.
13. JB has it completely wrong. Equal rights/rites are not special rights. Civil marriage is a contractual relationship, and has nothing to do with sex, children, or sexual orientation. If DOMA is overturned (as it should be) then two men or two women could enter into civil marriage because it met their personal needs. Obviously, this is unlikely unless they were committed to each other, but the why's are irrelevant.
14. If the Court rules against DOMA, is it presumed that the justices voting with the majority are in legal error? Many of the comments posted here seem predicated on the belief that there is an absolute correct answer to this question, and that any judge finding contrary is not only wrong but motivated by political / ideological bias and agenda. Why is that? Have we reached a point today where we can no longer trust legal professionals to adhere to their oaths of office? When a lawyer argues, or a judge rules, he or she is ethically bound by a sworn duty to serve as an officer of the Court and protect and defend the Constitution. These are not oaths to be taken lightly. Simply because a ruling bothers one politically does not mean that the ruling itself, within the form and practice of law, is incorrect. Frankly, the reason so many states are moving towards constitutional bans on gay marriage is because the various "DOMAs" across the country cannot withstand 14th Amendment scrutiny -- most are unconstitutional as a matter of law. I think it is irresponsible to attack justices on the Supreme Court simply because they rule unpopularly. Can you imagine what would happen if the Court became a mere rubber stamp for the whims of the masses and the will of whatever majority was in power? Tyranny.
I predict that DOMA will be struck down. And as goes California so goes Washington. For example: This year references to Mom and Dad, Mother and Father, etc. were struck out of the learning materials used by the schools as a result of gay activists. I guess children will be led to believe that they were born from biological parents. Being one and/or being two.
There in lays the problems of the slippery slope of special rights and gay marriage. The gay activist want to change our society in total.
So much for Mother's Day and Father's Day. Their goals go far beyond saying " I do". Canada, our neighbor to the north prosecuted ministers for speaking out against gays. It seems that the church is being prosecuted in Canada.
The slippery slope is very disruptive to what we hold in high regard, our way of life.
16. I would suspect that Matt from Olympia is correct in his analysis, and would love to know the basis for the 6-3 decision prediction. This decision will be far reaching for gay people in the state of Washington and across the country, regardless of the opinion. If the state DOMA is overturned, it will have a minimal impact on heterosexuals or the so-called sanctity of marriage. Separation issues between church and state are possible, but would likely be minimal. I suspect that some organized faiths who receive charity outreach funds/resources from our paid taxes would be in trouble; similar to former problems the Boy Scounts have had, being declared a religious but discriminatory organization following the 2000 Dale decision. A DOMA-overturn may also force Starbucks and other companies to change their domestic partnership policies. For instance, to obtain 'partner' benefits, a Starbucks gay employee will likely be required to marry their partner, rather than have a non-legal, unrecognized, relationship that can change from month to month. Certainly, big business overheads would be lowered. Time to invest in businesses that offer domestic partnership programs?
17. 3 to 1: It'll be overturned then Christine will place onerous restrictions on giving money to Supremes campaigns giving the labor unions clout to keep the current judges --
Marriage is more than a contractual relationship. Marriage is an acceptance of two people ( a man and a woman) of thousands of years of tradition which contribute in a positive manner to the human race. A contractual relationship or agreement between two people is currently available which would provide most if not all of the legal ramifications sought by gays or room-mates. There must be a profound difference or else the gays would not want it. And yes it is about the children. See my previous post on the changes to text books in California. And yes it is about gays wanting, strike that, craving acceptance from society on their sexual choices. So, Gary it is about sexual choices. Or else their would be know problem, as gays have the same rights as others regarding marriage. And quite frankly, creating another special group causes all sought of problems in society.
19. My only question is why is it that we must change our history and traditions so that less than 2% of Americans (less than 2% of Americans are Gay or Lesbian) can have their way when they already have civil unions that give the same rights?
My 6-3 prediction is based on a combination of the "unusual facts" described in my prior post, together with a general knowledge of the attitudes of the Justices, based on a fairly constant perusal of their opinions. I do not have any inside information.
As usual, with any constitutionally-based court decision, it really comes down to two questions:
1. Why is it that the Court, rather than the Legislature, gets to decide?
2. What should the decision be?
In my view, the first question should be dispositive. There is no basis for the Court to assume the right to decide this issue.
If the court overrules DOMA, it will presumably do so on the basis that it violates the equal protection clauses of the state or federal constitution. But those clauses were enacted, and have been in place for many years, without there being the slightest evidence that they were generally understood to require the state to permit homosexual couples to marry.
And there clearly are differences between heterosexual marriages, and homosexual ones. The former produce biological children. In general, they provide a more stable environment for the raising of children. Heterosexual marriage has been specially recognized by virtually all societies throughout human history.
Therefore, there is a legitimate basis for the Legislature to distinguish between heterosexual marriages, and other forms of relationship.
21. Snuffy wrote: "The slippery slope is very disruptive to what we hold in high regard, our way of life." I agree. The gay marriage debate is disruptive, but primarily in that it prevents focus on matters of national security, economy, immigration, and job quality. Civil rights decisions have historiclaly knocked down the warning barriers at the top of slippery slopes. Affirmative action? We have already gone down the slope with gay marriage as a country, but haven't noticed that it is already too steep to get off. In fifty years' time, our grandchildren will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and ask, in Spanish, why people were so hateful and bigoted toward gay people.
Dave and others, I can imagine. It is called freedom and democracy. What business does the government have in dictating what a business pays an employee. Realizing that minimum wages laws actually destroy jobs for teenagers and other climbing the ladder to more productive and rewarding positions, I would say that minimum wage is actually counterproductive. Alas, the legislators have voted it in and continue to increase it.And employers must comply.
What business has the government in creating a special minority class of people. First of all who are the minorities in the class. Are they Europeans from Spain? And exactly what is a black person? What about "white Africans"? And why can't a person deny service? There are reasons other than race. However, the race card thumps all others. I remember when busing was introduced to break up segregation. Now segregation is being introduced to improve education. And how did the minorities benefit from the special class. Bill Cosby reminds us that they are the big losers because the family has been broken up. In all to many black families, dad is no longer at home. Interesting. Creating another special class of people based on a criteria more difficult to discern - sexual orientation imagine or real, creates serious challenges for society and largess for attorneys.
It seems that history proves that the special class created by the whims of court or legislation usually suffers the unattended consequences of the experiment.
Yes I can not only imagine; but remember when life was a bit more simpler.
23. Here is a thought....The reasoning behind the DOMA being struck down is that it violates equal rights. Ok if this is the case, then why is it that in KC county workers will have to pay higher insurance premiums for having "high risk" lifestyles yet if you are Gay or Lesbian you dont have to pay a higher premium (that lifestyle has been deemed high risk by many doctors and scientists)
24. True Soldier asks why must we "change our history and traditions so that less than 2% of Americans (less than 2% of Americans are Gay or Lesbian) can have their way when they already have civil unions that give the same rights?". The percentage of gay people in this country is open for debate. I believe 4% identify openly as gay. Who knows how many people are in the closet, and how many are bisexual. I think the statistics will always be fuzzy there. Still, we are talking about 12 million citizens living in the United States. And perhaps 1 million illegal immigrants. True Solider incorrectly states that gays have civil unions that give the same rights. That condition does not exist in this country, even in Vermont. State-based civil unions, and gay marriages for that matter, confer only those rights that are state-derived. For instance, hospital-visitation rights are conferred. Filing a federal tax form as 'married' is not allowed under the federal DOMA.
25. In fifty years from now people will wonder why, as marriages will be performed for three or more people of different ages representing an instant family, being one and being two and child one and child two. So much for generation gap. And another performed for animal 1, animal 2, and being 1. regardless of the language spoken, the nonsense remains the same. And the terms grandchildren, along with Mom and Dad, would have been stricken from acceptable vocabularies. Hail the new age when all are equal, except pigs are more equal than others.
It's nice to think that way, but unfortunately that's not the way our activist court nor the gay rights movement sees the issue. For them it's not about the innocuous equality of marriage for whatever the perceived small benefits are from the contractual relationship, but instead the overall growth of specific rights for the LGBT class as a whole. It's the same as in the affirmative action movement which is especially strong in university admissions. It's not enough the blacks and other minorities have equal opportunity to higher education, for the affirmative action movement, it's about specifically tipping the scales in favor of certain colors as a way of addressing imbalance to absolute percentages by color.
They should be no gay rights, only equal rights. If gays want to marry, I don't care, but there are many who view this as the first step towards explicit laws and protections for gays as a class, and in that sense, it's a step in the wrong direction.
We'll have to see one what grounds it is overturned if that is what happens. That's going to be very telling.
That is about 12 million illegal aliens and about 2% gay. If you want to file a joint return (excuse the pun) then form a LLC. If fact a LLC is much better than marriage as it allows for breakup without divorce. Most, if not all legal ramification sought by gays are readily available under our enlightened laws without being married.
29. I was young when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loving v. Virginia (1967). Being born and raised in Virginia, my parents were in disbelief that blacks would be allowed to marry whites. The Loving decision overturned black/white DOMA laws across the country (it was still illegal in several states to marry a person of the opposite sex). This was well after the major civil rights cases had been decided and shelved away, but this was an example of a good and proper decision (in today's light, but not in 1967). Affirmative Action was arguably the worst fallout of the Civil Rights 50's/60's period. It made us liable for our grandparents' mistakes.
30. Legalizing gay marriage may open the door to crazy behavior. People, for instance, may wish to marry their pets. Unfortunately for them, animals have no legal standing and cannot sign a marriage contract. I think the polygamy question is a valid concern, but the states' interests in preventing polygamy have been based on likely inbreeding problems and social unrest (not enough spouses for everyone; see China). I like the prior characterization 'slippery slope'.
31. Very good point Former Resident.
32. Snuffy writes, "a LLC is much better than marriage as it allows for breakup without divorce. Most, if not all legal ramification sought by gays are readily available under our enlightened laws without being married." I agree that LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations) appear enticing. Hets and Homos should give them a whirl. In terms of legal ramifications, few 'ramifications' are available under our enlightened laws without being married. NONE of those are 'readily' available. There are roughly 1200 federal benefits conferred by heterosexual marriage. States typically confer 300 to 500 unique benefits. A lawyer can help homosexual couples gain some of these benefits (e.g., a legal agreement to inherit 401K savings without contest, which would automatically be conferred to married couples), but lawyer fees put many of these 'paper' protections out of the reach of middle-class homosexual couples. We should eliminate no-fault divorces to protect the sanctity of marriage (e.g. Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage; very little sanctity there).
If the Supremes are stupid, they will rule against the people's will and legalize it - and be contrary to the other courts that have recently ruled, or they will kick it back to the legislature if they decide to heed the will of the people. I'd say its even money, with a slight edge to the former.
I have not seen any evidence in the past that they are concerned about slippery slopes or deterioration of our culture. They have to decide for themselves which way the political winds are blowing, while once again shredding the State Constitution.
Let's see BILL, why was it that Catholic Charities shut down its adoption service in MA? Though there has never been a law passed there legalizing marriage between two men and two women bureaucrats' rulings following the MA S.C. ruling led the church to shut down its adoption services before the MA sued them. They either had to place kids in gay or lesbian homes or be sued.
Open up the sanctuary or be sued. The sanctuary at Saint Mark's is a public good. It is a historical and spiritual setting of great meaning to our coming marriage.
It will not be long, if the court makes new marriage law in WA, before leftist tyrannts starts using such 'logic.'
35. In response to Gary47, Jeff B wrote, "They should be no gay rights, only equal rights. If gays want to marry, I don't care, but there are many who view this as the first step towards explicit laws and protections for gays as a class." I agree that the word 'gay' should not appear in any legislation, and that 'gays' should not be a special class. At the same time, we have to guard against Snuffy's future Orwellian world of genderless doublespeak, and that would be doubleplusungood. Gender and sex should be handled carefully, to defend rational conversation, but allow equality. It will be hard. However, Massachusetts hasn't exploded yet. And they still have one of the lowest divorce rates in the country.
36. Jericho wrote, in response to Bill, "why was it that Catholic Charities shut down its adoption service in MA". This is a good example of separation of church and state in action. Catholic Charities were performing a state function, which was to place children with adoptive parents. Churches are not allowed to place children under their own authority, but may act on the state's behalf to do that. The Church made the correct decision, and closed it's doors rather than allow children to be adopted by 'confused' people. Similarly, the state made the correct decision by forcing this issue. Although Catholic Charities performed a valuable function for heterosexual parents, it placed gays in a special class, preventing them from using a state function for which they paid taxes. It would be the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan running an adoption agency for the State but forbidding non-whites to apply. I apologize for the KKK analogy, but I get confused by the pointy hats and pretty dresses worn by members of both organizations. Yow!
What would be great (but won't happen) is if the court were to strike down state-sponsored marriage entirely, for hetero- as well as homo-sexual couples. Granting special rights to some couples on the basis of how they arrange their private lives is a violation of constitutional privacy protections and an abuse of government power.
I know most conservates want the state to continue to sanction traditional marriages, but I am curious: if you were to the culture war and be faced with a choice between state that sanctioned gay marriages and a state that did not marry anybody, are they any of you who would choose the no-marriage state? (Keep in mind, we're not talking about preventing people from holding church marriage ceremonies. It's just that those ceremonies would have no legal consequences. And we're not talking about preventing people from entering into marriage-like contracts. It's just that the state wouldn't dictate the terms of those contracts.)
38. David Wright's argument is unusual and interesting. That ruling is legally possible, but unlikely. If the Court were to rule in that fashion, all formerly married citizens would lose all of their federal marriage benefits. States define marriage for application of federal law with the singular exception of gay marriage (which is why the federal DOMA is on shaky ground if not floating on turbulent quicksand). Contracts would be expensive and incomplete, at best. 5-year term partnership agreements? That would be a hoot. I do not think state interests would be served in eliminating marriage for both orientations. I would note that religious marriages are nonbinding already. The state confers 'church' ability to perform that state function, and the rules vary from state to state with regard to the process (religious ceremony, followed by town hall marriage license, and so forth). The state could take that 'special right' away, but they cannot prevent a church from performing ceremonies. Is the Preist allowed to wear a prettier dress than the bride?
Matt from Olympia,
For the most part, I agree with your comments. Gerry Alexander is the swing vote in this case. If DOMS is struck down, it will be a 5-4 vote. If it is upheld, the vote will be 6-3. Susan owens would clearly prefer to toss out DOMA and would do so if in a 5-4 majority to toss out DOMA.
If the pro-homosexual marriage side is going to lose, she may very well go along with the majority because she is up for re-election this year.
Fairhust, Bridge, and Owens are almost sure bets to vote against DOMA. I would guess that Charles Johnson might be leaning towards tossing out DOMA. Sanders, Jim Johnson, Chambers and Madsen are almost sure to vote in favor of DOMA.
Alexander owes Gregoire and may pay her back by voting against DOMA.
There you have it, 5-4 against DOMA or 5-4 or 6-3 for DOMA.
With NY and GA supreme courts ruling against homosexual marriage recently, it will be more difficult for the WA SC to vote in favor of homosexual marriage.
Interesting, but it will never happen. While I agree that there would be hypocrisy in a typical heterosexual marriage in the case of equal rights, there are some benefits of hetero marriage that cannot be taken lightly. First, it does encourage a traditional nuclear family to some extent, although in recent years that is dubious. But to whatever small extent children have better experiences growing up because parents honor the marriage contract, that is a good thing for society. Not that the same could not happen for gay marriage with adoption, etc., but that it's a heck of a lot more likely for hetersosexuals.
And there is a population issue to some extent. Taken to the extreme as it is in Russia today for example, the lack of a solid marriage and child oriented culture is drastically lowering their population. And then there's the general morality and prevention of disease that marriage encourages.
All these things would also be possible under an LLC, or a civil union, etc. but the point is that the institution of marriage promotes some useful societal behaviors.
In short, it's really not the marriage issue that we should be worried about so much as the expansionist, statist, soft Marxism of class warfare promoted by the LGBT rights movement.
Can some of yous please help me...?
I do not understand dis Gay / Lesbian marriage thing. If yous are a Gay Man...why would yous want to marry a Lesbian???
The Supreme Court considers two lower court rulings, both of which have invalidated DUMMA. They did so on somewhat different legal grounds, but for essentially the same reason: when the state hands out privileges, it must do so equitably. Arbitrarily declaring that one set of persons cannot have a privilege is discrimination, pure and simple. If Mr. Rosenberg cannot understand that, then I pity him.
I like Mr. Rosenberg's wishful thinking, about a conservative backlash against this. Tim Eyeman sad pretty much the same thing about overturning the civil-rights bill. Also amusing is a church which has protected child rapists fuming about being forced to perform same-gender marriages. As other commenters have rightly noted, the First Amendment absolutely forbids any state from mandating such a thing to any church. If Mr. Rosenberg does not know this, then he is unfit to comment on this issue; if he does know it, then he is a liar.
As for becoming the Massachusetts of the Northwest, the Bay State has the lowest divorce rate in the union; why would any self-styled "defender of marriage" have a problem with that?
Gotta go-- my gay friends need a witness.
forced acceptance--it never works; like the smiling-on-the-surface 'participants' in a mandatory corporate diversity 'training' class; do they go home fully re-educated? put plainly, live & let live--golden rule for everyone to follow; and--keep your preferences to yourself--we don't really care;
stop changing established definitions & traditions every few years; a giraffe will never be a frog--no matter how many special interests wish it so nor call it a civil right to be a frog; stop forcing the hand of traditions and most peoples' tolerances with forced acceptance via government fiat; to me, that's where the resistance comes from--forcing eveyone to be accepting and lovey-dovey--ain't gonna happen; even with those with no axe to grind; to me, the forcing is the offense;
Good Lord - I hope this thing passes.
We have much more important things to worry about!
The media intentionally clouds this sissue by using the terms "gay mariage" and "same sex marriage" interchangably. They are NOT the same thing! Marriage does not discriminate based on "sexual orientation"!...let me repeat that again...marriage does not discriminate based on "sexual orientation!" Two adults of opposite gender can get married, regardless of their sexual orientation, preference, or proclivities. Two adults of the same gender cannot get married regardless of their sexual orientation, preference, or proclivities.
The "discrimination" therefore is against "same-sex couples" whether they be gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or whatever. It is none of the states business what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Nowhere on the marriage licence form does it ask you to state your sexual orientation, or sexual proclivities.
So to try to strike down DOMA you need to argue that not allowing same gendered couples to get married is somehow arbitrary. I would argue that the state not only has a right, but also a duty and an obligation to be concerned for the welfare of any children or potential children that may be raised in a marriage. And since every social study has shown that all things being equal, children are better off (and society is better off) when they are raised by their biological mother and father than any other child rearing scenario. so for the state to promote a parenting scenario that is inherently less than the ideal, as being the equivalent of mom and dad, not only would the state be doing a huge disservive to children, but also society as a whole.
What makes it the state's business and my business you ask? when you voluntarily enter into a civil contract with the state it becomes the state's (and my) business. You don't like it, don't get the state involved. Do what you want to do.
Look, children are the most vulnerable members of our society. they cant vote and they dont tend to contribute money to political campaigns. The court should not put political correctness ahead of the welfare of the children in Washington.
Sexual orientation has no place in this debate, or "gay marriage" or sex or bedroom activities of any kind. Its just a distractionary argument.
The fact of the matter is...we already have "gay marriage!" always have. This is why I cringe whenever the headline "Gay Marriage" flashes across the tv, or newspaper.
Another headline that bothers me is "Gay Rights" as in "gay rights bill." As though without this law, gay people have no rights. I don't have a problem with adding sexual orientation/preference/etc. to the anti-discrimination law. Because whether you feel homosexuality is an orientation, a preference, a sin or a gift from God, Its not right to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation/preference whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Now I do have some concerns with the wording of the bill, and its potential to infringe on freedom of religion, but I don't have a problem with the spirit of the bill.
46. You know damn well there is no possibility that a ruling overturning DOMA would force Catholic churches, or any other churches to permit gay weddings in their churches.
You mean like those Catholic adoption groups that aren't shutting down because they are being forced to let gays adopt their children?
The First Amendment establishes that our government shall ?make no law respecting the establishment of religion.? Thus, as with all religious rituals and sacraments, government should stay out of the Holy Matrimony business and leave its celebration to religious organizations.
Further, government should enforce the Constitutional provision that restricts State law from impairing obligations of contract that establish relationships between consenting adults. In ensuring this guarantee, government can establish laws of civil union that protect citizen?s rights to form such relationships.
If gays and lesbians, or others, desire to extend their Civil Union into Sacramental Marriage, they can find a body of faith that is willing to sanctify their contractual relationship. If they cannot locate one, their freedom of religion entitles them to start a denomination of their very own.
just saw on King5 News.
You mean like those Catholic adoption groups that aren't shutting down because they are being forced to let gays adopt their children?"
Didn't hat group in Massachusetts is shutting down because they get money from the state and didn't want to change their policies to comply with state law.
FORMER RESIDENT - Shouldn't charities in the State of Utah place residents in with polygamous families that also pay taxes?
The clarity of your thought is ... not clear, Hoss.
paddy-whack - wrong as usual!
(at least some things never change ;'}
52. "Good Lord - I hope this thing passes.
We have much more important things to worry about!"
Jeremy--ok--pick your priorities; maybe this is not as urgent as a sarin gas package in a subway;
but--build YOUR house on the shore and watch the political "erosion" wash it away one day; same with this argument; erosion of our values and traditions; when 'marriage' means nothing in particular anymore, should we (like most libs) then cry to the government for recompense when our 'house' is washed away? we are trying to keep a house from eroding;
53. Well put, my friend!