Washington state Senate passes gay marriage bill

But if the government wasn't involved they couldn't gouge you when you apply for a marriage liscense. I know it's only $50 but still. I have found that when money is involved the government ALWAYS has it's quick hand near the plate.

Personally I don't see a reason for "marriage" in the legal term anyways. These contracts can be entered into on a case by case if they want legal assurances. Hell, in some states you are considered "legally married" even if you never got married via common law. So in some cases you can't get married (as defined by the law) if you want to and in some cases the state marries you off against your will! They should do away with legal marriages completely; but the lawyers and tax collectors will not let that happen :)

mweaver

your argument on government involvment in our lives holds no water.

you do not need government saying its ok for you to marry.

this is all about taking money from the poor and control over the masses.

its only natural that they want to start milking gays too.

you do not need government saying its ok for you to marry.

this is all about taking money from the poor and control over the masses.

It's funny you should bring up money. If a person were to die, leaving millions of dollars in cash and properties, who should inherit it? His family, who disowned him because he chose to share his life with another man? And who he has not seen in almost 20 years? Or his partner, who has been with him, for better or for worse, for the past 25 years?

Property rights play a significant role in marriage, and MUST be regulated by law, whether state or Federal.

Regards

as libertarian pointed out there are already ways to connect people without that piece of paper.....common law marriage?

that is what wills are for....and courts.

its not that hard.....lol its amazing to me that people actually think that there is no life besides that of government control.

government hs no business in marriage of any kind.

PP, whatever his will says.

Marriage not required. You've heard of people leaving millions to their pets?

.....common law marriage?

Common law marriages are being recognized by fewer states every year. Presently, only eleven states allow common-law-marriages.

that is what wills are for....and courts.

Wills can be contested by the family. As far as courts are concerned; if there are no laws regarding marital property, there is no court case. Courts may handle ONLY matters of law, not every disagreement under the sun.

Regards

its not that hard.....lol its amazing to me that people actually think that there is no life besides that of government control.

It's amazing that you equate government acknowledgment to government control.

You've heard of people leaving millions to their pets?

Yes. I've also heard of families contesting such a will, and winning.

Regards

Wills can be contested by the family as long as they have a reason the court considers valid. Let's not get carried away here. A person of sound mind's will will not be altered by the legal system.

Do you have an example of a will being successfully contested solely because of the gender of the designee?

The only way they win is to prove the person was not sane when they wrote it. More money "goes to the dogs" than gets taken away.

Ian

can you get married without government approval?? license?? answer is no...that is government control.

educate yourself on the subject.

wills can be contested.....good....that means we still live in a free society.

it should be the same for any married couple...gay or not.

married..if one dies...they break out the will...if any problems...heads off to court.

not that big of deal. its called freedom.

Do you have an example of a will being successfully contested solely because of the gender of the designee?

Vasquez v. Hawthorne 99 Wn. App. 363,994 P.2d 240,2000 Wash. App.

Regards

PP, no "WILL" in that story. It was about community property and SPECIFICALLY states there WAS NO WILL.

(4th par, 3rd sentence under "Facts)

Regards

People vote up incorrect facts?

Sports fans?

PP, no "WILL" in that story...

I apologize, I'm in the office today, and I just shot that one off. My bad. I'm pretty sure I have a link to a more applicable case, I'll post something later this afternoon.

People vote up incorrect facts?

It still supports half my point. :-) Divide the number of votes in half, if it makes you feel better.

Regards

Ha!

Have a good one. No harm, no foul. (my Sports Fan comment was directed at those who "wish" what was said is correct, and a huge part of the American political problem, imo)

Have a good one. No harm, no foul.

It's just as well, I'll have to concede the point. The case I was thinking of was local, and no info exists on the Internet. I can't post the information myself, at least not enough to support my point, without violating a few privacy regulations.

Chalk it up as anecdotal. Again, I apologize.

Regards

(How did every one like my rightwingnut zealot impersonation?)

Glad you put that or I might have been suspended today.

Yep. We've known of the potential dangers involved since 1984.

Dogs and cats living together...

Biblical proportions, I tell ya, BIBLICAL.

Egads!

Glad you put that or I might have been suspended today.

The dogs and cats thing shoulda given it away.

The dogs and cats thing shoulda given it away.

You would think that, but unfortunately I've heard that argument before.

Make that 2 of us proud to be Washingtonians!

Three!

I agree; it is very sad that out of fifty states, so far only seven are willing to treat all people equally.

what is sad is that all states violate our rights to marry who we want when we want to by regulating our right to marry.

that is more sad.

Marchall, feel the same way about polygamy?

Marshall-apologies

I feel the same way about polygamy as I do about gay marriage; provided all parties involved are mutually willing & otherwise legally able to enter into a marriage, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. The only problem I see there comes from handling legal rights in a multi-spousal marriage (property ownership, visitation rights, tax status, division of assets & child custody/support assignments in a divorce, etc.); that would either require additional legislation to handle, or else would result in some pretty sticky court cases.

as long as it is a voluntary contract between two or more adults....I have no business telling them what or why they cannot do it.

its their business not mine.

Iconoclast, Marshall, agreed.

Who is minding the children?

Who is minding the children?

Hopefully, the parents. And by "parents" I mean the people who have taken the responsibility to raise the child.

Being a parent and producing offspring are not the same thing.

Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society.

"Across history and cultures . . . marriage's single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law."

David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage.

A life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible's prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That's why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children.

Two points:

Gay couples can adopt, elect surrogacy or in vitro fertilization, etc.; i.e., they can have, and can raise, children, and the children they produce and raise are no different than children produced and raised by heterosexuals.

Second, not all heterosexual couples have, or can have, children, and yet they can, and still do, get married.

The arguments from 7.3 lose on both grounds. If that premise was in any way remotely true, infertile heterosexual couples would not be allowed to marry, and child-rearing would be a pre-requisite for a marriage certificate.

Gay couples can adopt, elect surrogacy or in vitro fertilization, etc.; i.e., they can have, and can raise, children, and the children they produce and raise are no different than children produced and raised by heterosexuals.

Some major studies and Psychologists disagree.

Second, not all heterosexual couples have, or can have, children, and yet they can, and still do, get married.

True...so?

The arguments from 7.3 lose on both grounds.

Sure when you invent the premise.

Some major studies and Psychologists disagree.

Some "major studies and psychologists" can be cited for both sides of the issue. At the end of the day, every professional researchers' bias/agenda in every field cannot be wholly removed from their work.

True...so?

marriage's single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father.

Well, if the "single most fundamental idea" of a marriage is to raise children, then a marriage without children is, by that definition, pointless. Which is why, operating under the incorrect assumption that gays cannot or do not raise children, some have argued that preventing gays from marrying follows from that. If that is true - that the "single most fundamental idea" of a marriage is children - and if not having or not being able to have children is a reason to prevent marriage, then the same should apply to heterosexual couples who cannot or do not have children.

Sure when you invent the premise.

I "invented" nothing. You introduced the premise. I refuted it.

I "invented" nothing. You introduced the premise. I refuted it.

No

Yes.

The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships.

How can this statement be interpreted in any other way than that the only meaningful purpose of marriage is to raise children?

People enter marriage because they want to enter into a committed relationship and gain the benefits and responsibilities of that relationship as recognized by the state.

Many people then have children.

The argument that the marriage of those couples who do not have children (for whatever reason) is less valuable to society than those who do is ridiculous. Furthermore the argument that children raised by gay parents are less valuable to society is equally ridiculous. A few references from a quick web search:

w w w.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

w w w.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

w w w.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

w w w.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

I have to admit, though, this is pretty difficult to refute:

No

Independent Voter, are you referring to the same David Blankenhorn who testified at the Prop H8 trial in California as an "expert witness" on behalf of the proponents of Prop H8, and whose testimony was thoroughly refuted and debunked, and he himself was completely discredited as an "expert"? THAT David Blankenhorn?

An example:

Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. Doc #295 at 13-14. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.

David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure. Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification as an expert. For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.

Blankenhorn received a BA in social studies from Harvard College and an MA in comparative social history from the University of Warwick in England. After Blankenhorn completed his education, he served as a community organizer in low-income communities, where he developed an interest in community and family institutions after “seeing the weakened state” of those institutions firsthand, “especially how children were living without their fathers.”

Blankenhorn has edited four books about family structure and marriage, Tr 2728:13-22, and has co-edited or co-authored several publications about marriage. Doc #302 at 21. Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, Tr 2733:2-2735:4, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, Tr 2735:15-2736:9, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it,” Tr 2736:13-2740:3. See also Doc #285 (plaintiffs’ motion in limine). Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” Doc #285 at 25, and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports, id at 26. The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

I would also presume that you are referring to the same Jeffrey Satinover who claims that there is no such thing as "sexual orientation," and therefore there should be no civil rights extended for something that does not exist.

It might be helpful if you found some reliable, credible, unbiased, peer-reviewed sources in the future.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, why don't we ask a child who was raised in a gay household if it was good for him or not? (Raw link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q) Apparently Newsvine doesn't want to let me embed the hyperlink into text.

Regardless, just over a year ago, Zach Wahls, a 19 year old Eagle scout, college student, business owner and the son of two mothers, spoke to the Iowa legislature about how the prospect of gay marriage did NOT hurt him in any way whatsoever.

I must admit that my biggest concern is that next we'll see a group trying to force churches to allow gay marriages in their churches...

It's something of a concern to me as well, but I don't believe it will become a problem, as claims of discrimination should fall under ministerial exception. No church should be compelled to perform a ceremony contrary to it's established principles.

Regards

That churches won't be compelled to perform ceremonies against their teachings is part of the bill. As far as I'm aware, it's also part of the law in Iowa. I can't speak for other states, but I would imagine it holds elsewhere, as well.

I can't speak for other states, but I would imagine it holds elsewhere...

Mmmmm, true enough, but Jim still raises a fair question in that, later in life, or further down the road, some might try to take this issue into that direction.

Regards

There's potentially something there. There was a case in Hawaii where a US District Judge denied a request by a church to prevent same-sex ceremonies and receptions from being conducted on church grounds.

w w w.hawaiireporter.com/judge-wont-block-new-hawaii-civil-union-law/123

Not quite the same thing, but in the same ballpark.

I fail to see how a church's refusal to perform same-sex marriage would be prohibited under the equal protection clause, but I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar.

This kind of proactive pitch is already being heard:

Christian Wedding Photographer Won't Compromise Faith If Gay Marriage Legalized

Critics of gay marriage warn it will lead to a flurry of lawsuits alleging discrimination. But as Olympia Correspondent Austin Jenkins reports, Washington law already requires that these businesses serve same–sex couples.

A church that takes money to perform a wedding "is doing business". Thus this will be an issue, especially in eastern Washington which is much more "conservative".

Richard, WA wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but in the same ballpark.

That case is a public accommodation issue.

That case is a public accommodation issue.

True enough, but I can see a case made such that just as government property is generally not allowed to display religious materials because it represents an endorsement of a particular religion by the state, the church should not be required to accommodate activities on its grounds that it opposes because it could be construed as endorsement by the church.

I'm not saying the church is necessarily right - just playing devil's advocate.

There's potentially something there. There was a case in Hawaii where a US District Judge denied a request by a church to prevent same-sex ceremonies and receptions from being conducted on church grounds.

The church is already protected from being compelled to perform a wedding against their established principles. My bet is that they already know this. They're just making noise.

A church that takes money to perform a wedding "is doing business". Thus this will be an issue, especially in eastern Washington which is much more "conservative".

I addressed this same issue in another post some time ago. The wedding photographer is seeking nothing less than permission to be a bigot. Wedding photography is not a church function, and as such, must abide by all anti-discrimination laws.

If she doesn't want to take pictures at a same-gender wedding, she needs to get into a different business.

Regards

Richard, WA wrote:

I'm not saying the church is necessarily right - just playing devil's advocate.

Point taken, but I think the church would have a really rough time with a religious exemption claim in this case.

Currently, churches are not compelled to perform gay marriages in states where it is legal, just as they are not compelled to perform other marriages that go against their religious tenets, such as Catholics marrying divorced people, etc. There is no reason to think that they will be forced to start performing such marriages in the future.