Log In | Register
OLYMPIA, Wash. — Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.
Nation & World | Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill | Seattle Times Newspaper
Seeded on Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:39 PM EST
Article Source: The Seattle Times
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (13)
Opening another can of worms. So how long before divorce rates between these groups is 50% or higher, adding to the societal messes we already have... Perhaps it's time to ban marriage altogether, since it seems to be 'meaningless' to so many... eventually?
- 1 vote
#1 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:47 PM ESTOr you could just get over it.
If straight marriage, with its high divorce rate, hasn't brought about the end of civilization, why should we believe gay marriage will?
- 4 votes
I don't see it as an "all about me" issue as so many others do.
I see it the way I stated it in my comment above---divorce rates are rampant; people shouldn't marry for the 'wrong' reasons---wanting benefits and 'financial transactions' when the honeymoon is over.
I don't have anything to "get over" ---sometimes we need to think about more than just 'today.'
- 1 vote
douglasq---the second part of your comment wasn't there when I commented.
I don't know what will bring about the "end of civilization."
My point was more in-line with the hypocrisy of taking marriage vows. If it was 'more' normal (or societally accepted) to stay married "for better or worse," then I would acknowledge the honest "mistakes" of abusive relationships or other, and not be saying any of this. However, societal attitudes have done a 180, and now it's 'more' societally acceptable to marry for the wrong reasons (sex or money--it appears), and then divorce when things get a little less than blissful. There are repercussions to the whole Nation with unstable values. We just don't need more issues with failed marriages keeping divorce lawyers as the 'winners'.
Other complications and burdens to the taxpayer have been brought up in the past, re: repercussions of blending some of these new unions. i.e. gay/lesbian marriage joining a polyamory group with inclusive marriage, then if children are involved from various partnerings, then divorce happens... who should get the child/children, support issues, etc. could lead to the need of state services, not to mention how the child would deal with all of that. "Sometimes we need to think about more than just the 'moment'."
- 1 vote
I feel it's about the right to choose. Gays now have a choice in Washington.
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:09 AM ESTYou have the right to your opinion, and as Voltaire may have once stated to the effect, "whether I agree or not, I will defend your right to have one."
He also stated,
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
Voltaire
- 1 vote
I'm not against what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I am against using a societal construct that was purposefully designed for a man and woman, that to my knowledge is not a part of our Constitutional 'rights'...being 'reinterpreted' as such, for the purpose of receiving benefits.
I am against using a societal construct that was purposefully designed for a man and woman, that to my knowledge is not a part of our Constitutional 'rights'...being 'reinterpreted' as such, for the purpose of receiving benefits.
Slavery was a societal construct. Should we, as a nation, have held on to that one, too? How about prohibitions against interracial marriage? The same religious organizations that are currently protesting same-sex marriage came up with that oldie-but-a-goodie. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding the race or ethnicity of two prospective newlyweds. Should we have allowed laws against interracial marriage to stand unchallenged?
- 2 votes
You are diverting from my original point which was to go against any notion that 'marriage' (homo or hetero) is NOT a Constitutional right; it's a societal construct. If I live in a state where the true majority of the citizens want that, then I have to accept it... Please compare apples to apples. Marriage is not mistreatment; slavery is. I am not discussing forms of mistreatment.
- 1 vote
You are diverting from my original point which was to go against any notion that 'marriage' (homo or hetero) is NOT a Constitutional right;
Equal protection under the law is. Just like you cannot have traffic laws that apply to only redheads, you cannot have civil marriage apply only to straight people. It is a pretty simple concept.
And for those who say it is opening the door to polygamy, nonsense. Both gays and straights are subject to the same prohibition.
- 2 votes
There is no "law" that states we 'have' to get married. Marriage has nothing to do with equality. Someone that never marries is not less equal to someone that is married.
Perhaps marriage should only apply to those who bear children.
- 1 vote
Marriage has nothing to do with equality.
When it is denied to one group of people and allowed for another, how is that equal? This issue has EVERYTHING to do with equality.
Someone that never marries is not less equal to someone that is married.
Someone who never had the legal right to get married IS less equal compared to someone who did.
Perhaps marriage should only apply to those who bear children.
WTF!? There is so much wrong with that concept that I don't even know where to begin.
- 2 votes
Getting into 'denial' logic and various 'group' dynamics... is opening a whole new can of worms! Don't even get me started on say, American Indian 'benefits' (some might say 'rights'--I don't because we are all 'human'-- some of the government benefits they receive should apply to all of us, if we are "equal" --but let's not go off-topic--this isn't about human rights--it's about a societal construct called 'marriage')...benefits are not the same thing as 'rights'.
I brought up the correlation of marriage and children with the logic that without children---what's the point to that creation of the societal construct. Without children, we could all be "equal" :) and just have civil unions---so that folks aren't taking advantage of each other in the event of a break up.
I'm not saying that this proposition is what should happen necessarily, or that I believe in it; I'm just thinking out loud. However, I am truly concerned about my original statement --- the hypocrisy that has ensued with taking marriage vows.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
