Washington State Same Sex Marriage legalized; Gay marriage voted in

[TheBobMood]

I'm getting tired of faggots bitching about equality and what marriage should be.

[rockthevisualarts]

@TheBobMood I have a helpful hint to help you stop getting tired. Stop watching youtube videos on equality.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@TheBobMood

isnt that kinda what they said about interracial couples in the 60s?

besides gay people are not trying to take away straight peoples rights to get married, its not like once homosexuals are allowed to marry that heterosexuals wont be able to anymore.

[Rickyrab]

someone ought to look up "Ehekarussell".

[sunsunsusie]

Why is she wearing huge clothes?

[CandyLaStar]

marriage is STILL between ONE man and ONE woman... but now gay people can get married to ! why is that so bad? gay people shouldn't be treated as equal people if you think that your just retarded!

[junkification]

@OutRunr47

BUT SINGLE PEOPLE STILL HAVE NO RIGHTS like straight and gay married people do, so what about us?

Why are SINGLE PEOPLE being punished for being SINGLE while STRAIGHTS and GAYS get SPECIAL RIGHTS for marriage?

Just because I was born single, its legal to punished me for being who I am?

WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR RIGHTS?

Now that gays and straights are getting all the special benefits that marriage brings them, every SINGLE PERSON is "THE NEW BLACK!"

Singles still have NO RIGHTS whatsoever!

[OutRunr47]

Washington state will be the 7th state in the US where Christians will be 2nd class citizens below gays. This bill like in the other pro-same sex marriage states will force churches to perform same sex weddings under threats of removal of tax exempt status and jail by the state.

[Urbania05]

Yes they eat up the whole marriage is sacred thing. And in doing so they pissed on your very beliefs. Don't be pissed at gays alone for taking religion out of marriage. Be pissed at the married man who tries to make a pass at me at the Y. Or the movie star who changes wives or husbands like they change cars. Be pissed at the broken family and the fact breeders seem to lose parenting skills upon shoving the kid out of the womb. Yes gay marriage how terrible. Give me a break.

[Urbania05]

Well straight people do enough to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Now we get a shot. At least this state is correct in doing so. I say tax married folk who are straight and get a divorce. Since they ate destroying such a sanctity.

[BeantownJim]

the further demoralization and depravity of the american family.This is disgracefull!

[amzuel420]

They can paint it any color they want and say lots of beautiful words but the fact is we are inviting God's judgement. Not because we allow gays to live in our society but because we embrace the gay lifestyle. All one has to do is look around at what has happened to our country since this has been going on. You want equality? You have the same choices as to where you will spend eternity as anyone else. Good luck.

[jbranstetter04]

@amzuel420 In George Washington's Order Against Profanity, he said:

"[I hope] that the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it [their profanity] and that both they and the men will reflect that we can little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our army if we insult it by our impiety and folly."

He understood that we were blessed. Washington understood it even more after we won the war, a war that no one in their right mind thought we could win. See below...

[jbranstetter04]

"The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing, a vice hitherto little known in our American Army is growing into fashion. He hopes that the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it and that both they and the men will reflect that we can little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our army if we insult it by our impiety and folly....."

[amzuel420]

@jbranstetter04 Agreed! And I appreciate having someone put me in check every so often. I ask God only that my words reflect Him and not myself, yet at the same time they would further His cause in saving every person from destruction no matter what baggage they carry. God knows that my own military background surely shows some of my own baggage, but like my fellow soldiers I only did what I believed in my heart was right, and I hope that will count for something...God bless

[carey579]

@amzuel420 yes you chose to go against the almighty zeus and for that you shall suffer eternity in tartarus

[amzuel420]

@carey579 Don't believe in Zuess

[carey579]

@amzuel420 well the rest of the world don't believe in jebus, so stfu

[amzuel420]

@carey579 And one day we'll find out who's right. Good luck and believe me...I wish you all the best.

[carey579]

@amzuel420 yes until then jesus freak stfu

[AceofDiamonds0]

@amzuel420

"allow gays to live in our society"? so you would have gays go live somewhere else away from us "normal" people? thats segregation, and segregation is wrong.

god has no place in a free society. if you want to be told what is right and wrong by an all powerful king, move to the vatican city.

[amzuel420]

@AceofDiamonds0 If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right. The quote should read "NOT because we allow gays to live in our society but because we embrace the gay lifestyle."

That's called "manipulating words to gain an advantage". If you notice I didn't suggest that gays live couldn't live anywhere they choose. Those were your words.

[jusitke07]

Civil Unions aren't recognized in all states and not federally recognized. Time will tell when Gay Marriage will be taken to the Supreme Court to have it federally recognized so that tax-paying Gay couples can enjoy the economic benefits that comes with Marriage along with the Straight couples.

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 It would only take a ruling that civil unions are the same in the eyes of the law as marriage is, which I believe will happen eventually. The reason it will be recognized, is for the reason, and others, that you mentioned. But I don't think it will go as far as to say that everyone is entitled to be married. I think legal civil unions will be enough to provide equal protection under the law.

[jusitke07]

That inludes affirmative churches that welcomes and celebrates Gay Marriage. No state should ever tell a religion what they can't do just because another religion says so...

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 I agree. The word marriage seems to be the issue, so to take that word away from the state and give it back to the churches would solve a lot of problems in my opinion. The states can give out civil unions so that they can give out their benefits equally under the law. Then any person can find a church if they want to be married, gay or not; freedom of religion. Then you can get a civil union, or you can draw up a private legal contract, or both.

[jusitke07]

@jbranstetter04 Churches that don't agree with Gay Marriage won't be forced to marry Gay couples. That's their religious rights. Yet these same churches, especially the Mormon Church, dictates to the State that Gay couples married in their religious freedoms won't be recognized by the State? Are you okay with that?

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 I don't understand your question. Churches will decide, as is the case today, who they will and will not marry. Churches do not dictate to the state anything.

[amzuel420]

@jusitke07 "Churches that don't agree with Gay Marriage won't be forced to marry Gay couples"

Wanna bet? Churches that have fallen for the phony tax break have relinquished control of their church to the state. Part of the agreement is, they won't get involved in political issues. What happens when the state decides that gay marriage is a political issue? Those phonys will get exactly what they deserve. They already closed a church in Columbus Ohio for petitioning against gay rights.

[jusitke07]

@amzuel420 Whoa wait a second, and yet your currently okay with churches telling the state to force other churches NOT to celebrate Gay Marriage?

[amzuel420]

@jusitke07 Where the hell did you get that? I'm saying if the churches hadn't sold out to the government for a phony tax break they weren't even entitled to, no one would be able to tell them to do anything one way or the other..

[jusitke07]

@amzuel420 In essence, no other religion (churches) that doesn't celebrate Gay Marriage shouldn't impose on the State to deny citizens Gay Marriage just because their particular religion says so...do you get it?

[amzuel420]

@jusitke07 No religion or church has any right imposing ANYTHING on the state and the state has no right imposing anything on any church, That's what the 1st amendment is all about...do you get that?

[jusitke07]

@amzuel420 I do get that, and yet Prop 8 from the Mormon Church was imposed on in the State of California? Nobody's civil rights should every be put up for vote. I'm sure for example the Mormons wouldn't like it if a certain religion forced the State to have citizens vote whether or not to ban Mormonism in that state.

[amzuel420]

@jusitke07 I'd like to get in on that vote...It'd be done deal...LOL...they'd be goin down!

[NairuOnLife]

Well, I certainly can't claim any of my facts as absolute considering I haven't studied the US constitution. I can only go by what i've heard. Anyway, I realize all you are saying. I'm concerned of the implications of it on other nations, though. If civil unions were to be established in the US as the term, would they be considered marriages in Canada? We have Same Sex Marriage across the board, already. Also, i'm wary about religion claiming the term now as it's so infused in our society.

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife Canada would recognize the unions of the states as they do now. It is a legal term. Is there a reason Canada needs to recognize them? I guess if some Americans moved up there. As you already know, we have 50 different marriage laws now, one for every state, and that would remain the same. Sometimes going by what you hear is not the best thing. A few simple searches on "separation of church and state US constitution" will do.

[davidls11]

Someday (soon) the laws against gay marriage will seem as ridiculous as the old anti-miscegenation laws seem today.

[jbranstetter04]

@davidls11 How can you compare them, as they have nothing in common.

[NairuOnLife]

Marriage is an institution under god? What happened to separation of church and state? xD Oh well, good to see equality coming to our neighbor to the south. Good on you!

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife Very good point about the separation between church and state, except that there is no such thing. Although there is such a thing as the church being protected from the government, and that is what I think you are talking about. So you are right. The government has overstepped its bounds by taking the institution of marriage from religious groups, making it their own, and then changing it into something that it never was. This is a clear violation of religious freedom.

[NairuOnLife]

@jbranstetter04 Then I suppose with that logic, we can abolish the rights of all marriage under law, considering it's a "religious institution." Separating church and state means to keep religion out of the act of creating law and legislation, not literal churches. Did government overstep their bounds when they enstated the allowance of inter-racial marriage?  I'm Atheist, does your "Religion" recognize my marriage to a hetero partner?

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife My logic is sound. "we can abolish the rights of all marriage under law"? As a matter of fact yes. As stated, marriage is a religious institution that was taken by the state. A legal civil union is something the state created. All that is standing in the way of agreement here is a name, the name of marriage. You will argue equal protection, but there equality. All men and women are entitled to marry under the same set of rules. Where is the inequality? There is none.

[NairuOnLife]

@jbranstetter04 If we completely wipe the entire legal definition of "marriage" in the US, and replace it as Civil Unions for all people, both hetero and homosexual couples, it'd be okay? That's quite a challenge, due to the fact that marriage has rooted its term not only in the US, but in many other nations around the world. If you're suggesting the otherwise, segregational suggestion of separating Hetero/SS terms,again,other nations already identify SS marriage as "marriages".

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife I think it's coming to this solution. Marriage (legal marriage) is run by the states, not the feds, so it can be changed rather easily state by state. Understand that as it is now, a church can be created and marry people in whatever name they choose. It's the state that stole the name of marriage, that is all that needs to be changed. Things will be 100% equal after that. People can form their own churches. A church can't be required to marry people; religious freedom.

[NairuOnLife]

@jbranstetter04 Do the states require churches to marry those who apply? I do remember a couple that were denied by a pastor in New York, who in turn provided them with an alternative, but they sued anyway. I certainly wouldn't sue a minister for denying to marry, especially when they provide another person to do so. Though, I don't think any case was made of it. I also would like to ask "What if a SS Buddhist couple wish to form a marriage. Is Marriage Christian exclusive?"

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife I read about a church that refused to marry black people, and I never heard about any legal action threatened. I heard that the higher up church didn't like it, but that was it. Also members were not happy. I think it worked itself out. Original Buddhist's of course did not speak English, so there would not be any tradition of the word marriage. The thing is that they could use the word marriage if they wanted to. It would only be restricted from the state.

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife I left a few things unanswered here. When the government lifted their own bans on interracial marriage, it did not affect whether or not churches had to marry people interracially; freedom of religion. What the government did was the right thing to do because they were discrimination. The laws as written did not allow a black man to marry a white woman, but a white man could marry a black woman, hence the discrimination. However, a church is allowed to...

[jbranstetter04]

...marry whomever it chooses to, to anyone else; it can discriminate. The church marriage is not a legal government contract. I do believe that civil unions will in the end be mandated by the courts based on equal protection. There are benefits given out by the state to married couples, so this is inevitable, and it is right in my opinion. But to call it marriage is another thing.

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife "I'm Atheist, does your "Religion" recognize my marriage to a hetero partner?" It may or it may not, the thing is that it does not have to. You cannot require a religious organization to recognize something that goes against its teachings. Just like the government cannot tell a church who it can and cannot not hire, as was just decided 9-0 in: Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

[jbranstetter04]

@NairuOnLife "Separating church and state means to keep religion out of the act of creating law and legislation, not literal churches." You're wrong on that point. It only says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office". That is all there is. We can vote in people to make laws based on religious belief; there's nothing wrong with that.

[jusitke07]

@jbranstetter04 Separation of Church and State is not having a certain state favor a certain religion. For instance, the State of Utah cannot force Mormon teachings upon residents who are perhaps Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 Yes, but it works both ways, hence, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If bona fide churches teach that being gay is wrong, then of course they cannot be forced by government to marry such people. It is part of religious freedom. "If the reason a religious group discriminates relates substantially to its basic tenets, it's privilege to choose members and officers is absolute"; from: Freedom of Association. Churches in the US have great leeway to do as they please.

[dunn98632]

One Man, One Women THATS IT! Not one man one man or one women one women.

Just another nail in the moral fabric of America!

[macrent2]

It is about damn time!

[jusitke07]

It's about time Washington. It's about time logics & reason wins.

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 Explain to us this logic and reason if you can.

[jusitke07]

@jbranstetter04 Easy. How does the private lives of same sex couples directly affect your private life?

[jbranstetter04]

@jusitke07 It does not affect me at all.

[ACORNSUCKS]

Queers own that state.