Again, in these tough economic times, I am glad people like Rep, Mark Liias are proposing we spend money on important things like public funding of Supreme Court campaigns.
Oh, and don't be fooled by HB 1745 or SB 5674: they do not recognize the right of all citizens of Washington state to marry, as they dishonestly claim, as they still explicitly discriminate against marriage between close relatives. Will the hateful discrimination against incestuous couples never end?
And while we're at it, let's restrict puppy breeding, too.
But to be positive, thanks, Rep. Pridemore, for that homeschool declaration public disclosure exemption. Very good.
House Bill 1724 (increasing the punishment for assault on a child in the first degree)
Introduced by Rep. Mike Hope, (R-Lake Stevens) (R) on January 28, 2009, establishes the Eryk Woodruff public safety act of 2009. Increases the punishment for assault of a child in the first degree. Provides that the act is null and void if appropriations are not approved.
House Bill 1727 (State registered domestic partnership rights)
Introduced by Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D) on January 28, 2009, provides that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. (See also Companion SB 5688).
House Bill 1731 (revising the rules for party preference designations by partisan candidates)
Introduced by Rep. Sam Hunt, (D-Olympia) (D) on January 28, 2009, clarifies how party preference shall be understood on primary ballots.
House Bill 1738 (providing public funding for supreme court campaigns)
Introduced by Rep. Marko Liias, (D-Mukilteo) (D) on January 28, 2009, establishes the judicial election reform act to introduce a pilot project to provide public funding of candidates for the Washington supreme court who demonstrate public support and voluntarily accept strict fund raising and spending limits. Prohibits the public disclosure commission from offering the public financing program until an appropriation of three million dollars is made for the program.
House Bill 1745 (concerning civil marriages)
Introduced by Rep. Jim Moeller, (D-Vancouver) (D) on January 28, 2009, recognizes the right of all citizens of Washington state, including couples of the same sex, to obtain civil marriage licenses.
House Bill 1752 (regarding the observation of election procedures)
Introduced by Rep. Christopher Hurst, (D-Enumclaw) (D) on January 28, 2009, requires major political party observers to be allowed close enough to election workers to provide meaningful oversight of the processing of ballots, including viewing individual ballots, hearing conversations between election workers, observing any modifications or duplications of ballots, and the selection of ballots for a random check.
House Bill 1755 (regarding exemptions of firearms restrictions for employees that have completed firearms training)
Introduced by Rep. Brendan Williams, (D-Olympia) (D) on January 28, 2009, includes correctional officers and sergeants from counties with a population of one million or more, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, to the lists of law enforcement personnel that are exempt from certain firearm restrictions.
Senate Bill 5631 (Counting absentee ballots)
Introduced by Sen. Randi Becker, R (R) on January 28, 2009, modifying provisions for the receiving, storing and proper tabulation of absentee (mail in) ballots for primary elections and general elections. (See also Companion HB 1623).
Senate Bill 5651 (Requiring humane dog breeding practices)
Introduced by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 28, 2009, seeks to eliminate "puppy mills" by prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having charge or custody of more than twenty-five dogs with intact sexual organs over the age of four months at any time.
Senate Bill 5661 (Regarding disclosure of home school declarations)
Introduced by Sen. Craig Pridemore, (D-Vancouver) (D) on January 28, 2009, exempting the annual parental declaration of intent to home school from the public disclosure act. (See also Companion HB 1288).
Senate Bill 5664 (Limiting the power of eminent domain)
Introduced by Sen. Don Benton, (R-Vancouver) (R) on January 28, 2009, prohibits a government from taking or damaging private land or any interest in real property that is not to be used for the construction of a public use facility or the provision of a public service necessary to protect public health and safety.
Senate Bill 5672 (Prohibiting discrimination based on source of income)
Introduced by Sen. Adam Kline, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 28, 2009, protects consumers from discrimination in credit transactions based on lawful source of income, which includes income derived from employment, social security, supplemental security income, other retirement programs, child support, alimony, and any federal, state, local, or nonprofit-administered benefit or subsidy.
Senate Bill 5674 (Addressing civil marriage equality )
Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 28, 2009, recognizes the right of all citizens in Washington state, including couples of the same gender, to obtain civil marriage licenses.
Senate Bill 5681 (Updating election laws regarding the top two primary system)
Introduced by Sen. Jim Hargrove, (D-Hoquiam) (D) on January 28, 2009, updates statutory references and definitions to the election laws to reflect the top two primary election system, which does not necessarily reflect political part identification.
The gay marriage thing is very interesting to me. I have never heard a single logical argument that would include gay marriage, but exclude sibling marriage (for the sake of argument, let's assume gay siblings, to take procreation out of the equation).
So this bill is dishonest, in that it falsely claims that "all persons in this state may enjoy the freedom to marry on equal terms," and it is also irrational, because we are told that gay marriage MUST be allowed because it is a basic human right, but there's nothing about gay marriage that makes it any more a basic human right than sibling marriage.
The "incest" slippery slope is no fallacy. There's simply no logical or rational way to exclude incestuous marriages if you allow gay marriages. The only way to continue to exclude them is by calling them "icky," which is exactly the rationale rejected as a reasonable opposition to gay marriage.
I think the whole posting of it here is a bit boring
I don't paste the whole thing here. I paste potentially interesting items.
And the problem is, most people do not know about these bills until they are passed. Fine, you read through them. Most people don't, in part because there's so many, so I read through them and pick interesting ones.
And as you've seen, some of them sparked significant discussion, so obviously, many people disagree with you that this isn't a valuable service. Including yourself, who has participated in some of those discussions.
Then again, Democrat's have never really been ones to follow the rule of law when they don't get what they consider "their way", these proposed bills are just further proof of it.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 12:39 PMO-brother, this guy was worthless on the city council.
Just another spend, spend, spend dem!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 29, 2009 01:08 PMO-brother, this guy was worthless on the city council.
Just another spend, spend, spend dem!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 29, 2009 01:10 PMO-well
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 29, 2009 01:13 PMYou are confused about the difference between laws and the constitution. The court ruled 5-4 that the constitution does not require that gay marriage be recognized. Therefore, the current law allowing only hetero marriage was allowed to stand for a while longer. But the legislature can absolutely pass a law recognizing gay marriage.
Posted by: Bruce on January 29, 2009 01:37 PM
...and their law can absolutely be reversed through the ballot initiative process by, you know, the citizens of this state that these jackasses work for. They know a gay marriage ballot proposal to the citizen's would be soundly rejected and thus, using their surrogates they do an end around the people of the state.
The question I have is, why do Democrats hate true Democracy so much?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 02:08 PMDemocrats love democracy ... when people choose what they want.
As a Republican, I do not believe in such democracy. I do believe the courts should restrict the will of the people when it violates the Constitution. However, I pretty strictly interpret what the Constitution says ...
I've heard from other sources that the WA State Constitution contains the qualifying language 'man and a woman' in reference to recognizing marriage. I haven't been able to find the exact wording on the Wa.gov website as it is fairly lengthy. Is this the case?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 02:28 PMAny questions, Bruce?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 03:02 PMThe Supreme Court (correctly, IMO) ruled that no, there is no such right, and therefore, no, the law was not unconstitutional. That's what Bruce was saying.
And there is now legislation pending to remove that prohibition in the law.
Posted by: pudge on January 29, 2009 03:19 PMThis way, these repetitive bills aren't wasting the legislatures time each session and more pressing issues can be addressed instead....like whether or not there should be licensing of g-ddamn interior decorators ;)
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 04:01 PMWell, yes, if gay marriage is legalized by the legislature, it is quite likely we'll see a "Prop. 8" initiative on the ballot in WA.
I always hate to see a group of people demanding that someone else be denied a right because of their own moral system - even though that right does not infringe on anyone else's property rights.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 29, 2009 04:24 PMIn both cases two single adults are entering into a bond with each other and each other only. In neither case can they be closely related and in neither case can they be younger than a certain age.
The 'slippery slope' argument that this could lead to incestuous marriages or polygamous marriages, or adult/child marriages is false. If this 'slippery slope' is real, we opened that door when we legalized 'straight' marriages.
This is well worth arguing over as a society, but it should at least be done honestly.
Posted by: BA on January 29, 2009 04:31 PM...and what right would that be, Andrew?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 29, 2009 04:44 PM
Andrew Brown:
Wll, I deny that there is ANY right to a civil marriage, for ANYONE. So I don't see gays as being denied "a right." That said, you could make the argument that they are being denied "equal rights," since they are explicitly excluded. But then you have to ask what marriage, to government, IS, and whether the exclusion constitutes a violation of equal rights.
My answer to the question is simple: no "civil marriage" for anyone. Create a new system based on civil marriage (call it "domestic contract" for the sake of argument). It is not a marriage, it is not based on love, it is based only on things like whether (in general) two people live together, share resources, and wnat to create a set of legal obligations and privileges between them.
If you want to be married, go to a church or somesuch. If you want a domestic contract for legal reasons, then fill out the forms at the county offices.
Problem solved.
BA:
In both cases two single adults are entering into a bond with each other and each other only. In neither case can they be closely related and in neither case can they be younger than a certain age.
No, that is not logical. Your restriction of "not closely related" is no more or less arbitrary than "not of the same sex." What makes one restriction OK, and the other not?
Age is a different thing, of course, since we deem marriage to be consensual, and we deem children to be incapable of such consent.
If this 'slippery slope' is real, we opened that door when we legalized 'straight' marriages.
Not really. It's kinda like the argument of whether Pluto is a planet. One side says, "well, it's not, because it logically doesn't meet these objective criteria." The other side says, "well, the definition we've always gone by is that a planet in our solar system is *these nine bodies.*"
Both are valid. The latter does not open up any slippery slopes because the definition is assumed to be arbitrary and subjective from the start. That's not to say proponents don't have SOME objective arguments backing them up, but in the end, it is "we don't like gay marriage, gay marriage is not part of our tradition, and we don't want gay marriage." Perfectly reasonable, but not seriously objective at all.
But the former shoots down the latter by saying, "no, that definition is not objective and logical," and therefore it must itself be subject to assault from further logical inconsistencies, and this is a pretty glaring one.
I think marriage should be a religious/personal/spiritual institution, not a government one, but that probably won't happen either.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting (at least in this thread) that there is a 'right' to anything. I'm suggesting that actively limiting the freedom of another human because of your own moral system is wrong, in cases where the property rights of no one else are at risk. It's really no different from imposing shariah law on people like us just because they are the majority. I wouldn't like that and I don't like this.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 29, 2009 09:12 PMThere. Fixed.
Posted by: Hinton on January 29, 2009 09:35 PMI've actually never used "domestic contract" until just now. I've always used "civil union" before. But I think I might like "domestic contract" better.
Anyway: I'm suggesting that actively limiting the freedom of another human because of your own moral system is wrong, in cases where the property rights of no one else are at risk.
And I am saying that prohibiting legal recognition of gay marriage infringes on no one's freedom, except for, arguably, equal rights protection, and provided that the same actual rights conferred through the marriage system -- visitation in the hospital and so on -- can be accomplished through other reasonable means.
It's really no different from imposing shariah law on people like us just because they are the majority.
I can't agree. It's very, very different, because no one is forcing you to do anything, or not do anything, against your will. It is simply the lack of legal recognition, but there's other ways to get the same rights anyway.
And this is why the right is not up in arms (to nearly the same degree as they would be about "gay marriage") about expanding the domestic partnership laws: the biggest obstacle to "gay marriage" is not that gays have the same legal rights and privileges and obligations, it is about the word "marriage" itself. They are not out to limit anyone's freedom, they simply want to protect what they see, right or wrong, as "the institution of marriage."
I think, regardless or perhaps despite the religious views of many - society as a whole is better off encouraging long-term relationships over short-term ones - in straight or gay relationships.
If the hang-up is over the word 'marriage', a different term could be used as you suggest - but that term can't also apply to 'marriage'. I think that it would just bring us back to the beginning again, because if 'marriage' becomes a "religious/personal/spiritual institution" - ANY religious/personal/spiritual institution can define a gay relationship as 'marriage' as well.
Posted by: BA on January 29, 2009 11:32 PMPlus, I think on a purely "logical" basis aren't you also arguing that the current definition of marriage is arbitrary?
I explicitly stated that, actually, yes. I wrote, "The latter does not open up any slippery slopes because the definition is assumed to be arbitrary and subjective from the start." From the perspective of the law, the definition is arbitrary. And that is OK.
If the hang-up is over the word 'marriage', a different term could be used as you suggest - but that term can't also apply to 'marriage'.
Not exclusively to marriage, no. But it can include marriage. "Partnership" includes marriage, for example. "Union" includes marriage. "Contract" includes marriage.
if 'marriage' becomes a "religious/personal/spiritual institution" - ANY religious/personal/spiritual institution can define a gay relationship as 'marriage' as well.
Sure, that's exactly the point. Marriage is something for NON-government agents to define. This is the benefit of the proposed solution, not a problem for it.
I think the logic leads down a slippery slope for government recognition of incestuous marriage, and perhaps ploygamy as well.
I think government has no business caring one whit about whom I love, or why, or how. I think government's only interest is in what resources I share with my partner, and what obligations and privileges we want to subject ourselves to, and NOT the nature of our relationship.
I think that "marriage" has a very specific meaning to many people, and that there is a strong and negative societal impact to the government changing that definition for those people.
For those reasons and more, I oppose expanding the government's definition of civil marriage.
I think a better solution is to "decouple" our two different types of marriage -- civil (from the government) and social (from our churches, etc.) -- letting "marriage" be a term defined by our social institutions, and creating a new term to be used by our government institutions.
Now, you or I want to apply for civil recognition of our unions to gain the legal status - what does the government restrict that recognition to? Just traditional marriage unions? Same sex unions? Polygamous unions? Incestuous unions?
I think decoupling social from civil unions doesn't put this to rest at all.
Posted by: BA on January 30, 2009 12:38 PMNow, you or I want to apply for civil recognition of our unions to gain the legal status - what does the government restrict that recognition to? Just traditional marriage unions? Same sex unions? Polygamous unions? Incestuous unions?
No, as I said earlier, "I think government's only interest is in what resources I share with my partner, and what obligations and privileges we want to subject ourselves to, and NOT the nature of our relationship." There IS NO government restriction to any "type" of union, because the government no longer recognizes "types" of unions.
Now, it could be that there is a restriction in NUMBER of people in the union. And certainly age restrictions, of course, and any other restrictions we might normally place on people entering into contracts (mentally competent and so on).
But that's it. There's no other restrictions based on the nature of the individuals or their relationship to each other.
Social unions - marriages, for example, are not determined or defined by the government.
Civil unions - are recognized by government.
And, I think you and I might even be in agreement that they are limited to two folks (and you can only be in one union at a time) with restrictions based on age, competency and closeness of your relationship (i.e. are you cousins...)
This seems to leave polygamy and incestuous relationships with the status they have now...no government recognition.
Further, the short list of restrictions I list above under civil unions could also be restrictions placed on "social unions" so that these particular social unions can not receive civil recognition, and in some cases would be restricted or prohibited as well. Would you go that far?
Posted by: BA on January 30, 2009 03:11 PMWhy did you add "closeness of your relationship"? I never said or implied that.
As I said earlier: "I think government has no business caring one whit about whom I love, or why, or how. I think government's only interest is in what resources I share with my partner, and what obligations and privileges we want to subject ourselves to, and NOT the nature of our relationship."
You seem to be thinking of a "civil union" as a relationship of some kind related to love or sex. NO. That is completely wrong. Government has no business caring why or how or whether I love someone. What about two old sisters who are widows who decide to share the rest of their lives together in a completely innocent, nonsexual way? They should be able to enter into these agreements too.
That is the whole point of what I am talking about: to take government's interest in my personal life completely out of the equation.
So absolutely no, there should be no restrictions based on anything except for (perhaps) the number of people (two people per union, one union per person), and (definitely) the ability of a person to enter into such an agreement (age and competency).
That's it, period. Nothing more.
A couple of cousins, or a brother and sister, or two sisters, or a father and daughter, can be recognized as a civil union. Most of the legal benefits of marriage have more to do with property than anything else anyway.
Posted by: BA on January 30, 2009 04:38 PMHow about three elderly sisters for example.
Posted by: BA on January 30, 2009 04:43 PMA couple of cousins, or a brother and sister, or two sisters, or a father and daughter, can be recognized as a civil union. Most of the legal benefits of marriage have more to do with property than anything else anyway.
Property and other personal obligations and rights, like visitation. Yes.
Hmm, I'm thinking about this further. Why a limit as to the number of civil unions one could enter into? How about three elderly sisters for example.
I am undecided on that. Obviously some limits are needed; else, you may end up with thousands of people in one large civil union (or a collection of thousands of civil unions). I am completely open to discussion and ideas on this.
In the absence of good ideas to the contrary, I'd say you start with two-people-per-union, and one-union-per-person. Just as a starting point. If someone can come up with a good system later, it can be adjusted.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2009 05:56 PM