Posted on 04/21/2007 3:00:41 PM PDT by Princip. Conservative
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law Saturday a measure to create domestic partnerships, giving gay and lesbian couples some of the same rights that come with marriage.
The law creates a domestic partnership registry and provides enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.
"It offers the hope that one day, all lesbian and gay families will be treated truly equal under the law," said state Sen. Ed Murray, who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature.
To be registered, couples have to share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else and be at least 18.
Unmarried, heterosexual senior couples will also be eligible to register if one partner is at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision, similar to one in California law, was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry.
Gregoire received a standing ovation from about 200 people in the ornate reception room at the state Capitol.
"This is a very proud moment for me as governor, to make sure the rights of all of our citizens are equal," Gregoire said.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
But let's be clear: she doesn't mean that unborn children have any rights at all.
Are you expecting a voter backlash? Or are the voters just a bit .... apathetic?
WTF is that: scummy-doo, and the scam artiste too?
If it’s any consolation, they’re not having kids. We (conservatives) are. The key is holding onto enough of culture while our kids grow up, to keep too many of them from getting sucked into the nihilistic vacuum.
Well said. I know about the Gargoyle of the Northwest. I cannot figure how such a rabid feminist like our governor wants to promote the gay agenda. I could never figure how the feminists have anything in common with the gay community.
I don’t want to argue with you because I think we agree on the fundamental level; of course marriage is between one man and one woman.
Nevertheless, I think your original argument is a sophism based purely on semantics. Your argument is based solely upon the interpretation of the English language, it has no meat backing it up. Your argument is valid because of a technicality; that makes it weak.
Let me provide an example. I’m a guy. Under current law, I cannot marry Mike, but my sister Jane can. Clearly, this is gender discrimination, and may even implicate constitutional equal protection concerns. Why does Jane have the right to marry Mike (and yes, the Supreme Court has basically ruled that choice of marital partner is a fundamental constitutional right), yet I don’t? Our only difference is gender?
I’m sure you see that argument as weak and inconsequential. It is a pathetic argument, but it is technically true. Therein lies my objection. There are better arguments against homosexual marriage than, “A gay man can marry a woman.”
There are many genuinely valid arguments against homosexual marriage. Marriage is an institution designed to foster the upbringing of kids, and homosexuals don’t have children. That is a legitimate argument. Don’t just say that any homo can marry a member of the opposite sex and leave it at that. It weakens the conservative cause and makes us look like dolts.
Society will certainly crumble and civilization as we know it will come to an end when homosexuals are allowed to inherit the property of their partners /sarcasm.
I am against calling it marriage, but who the heck cares if these people want to make a committment to one another and share health insurance. I mean if they would just let it be at civil unions (excluding adoption rights) there is no reason anyone should care.
My logic might have been ridiculous, but sometimes you just have had enough of this small group’s noisy agenda and wish to give it the dispespect that it deserves.
“No offense, but I think that is a pretty weak argument. By the same logic, one could argue that “gay marriage” doesn’t extend special rights to homosexuals because every heterosexual has just as much right to gay marry as a homosexual.”
It’s not a weak argument. Man + woman = baby. Gay marriage is a radical redefinition of marriage. Man + man = at best years of immediate gratification and nothing for the future. Giving people benefits for fornication turns marriage into something like prostitution. Maybe that’s what radical feminists have in mind. The government pays people for having sex with one special person, and traditional marriage is redefined out of existence.
Marriage today is taken to mean adult entitlement, and sometimes that includes using heterosexuals to get children. I hope I live long enough to see all this focus on libertine sex self-destruct. Historically, periods of “sexual liberation” don’t last that long because society does not function well when morals become as loose as they are today.
This is bulladugger! Gregoire just wants more money in taxes. After the celebrations are over, these people are going to pay. Since when has any government body cared about rights?? They only care about money.
“Society will certainly crumble and civilization as we know it will come to an end when homosexuals are allowed to inherit the property of their partners /sarcasm.
“I am against calling it marriage, but who the heck cares if these people want to make a committment to one another and share health insurance. I mean if they would just let it be at civil unions (excluding adoption rights) there is no reason anyone should care.”
Hold on - sharing health insurance costs in connection with people who have AIDS? Let’s suppose one domestic partner works for a medium-sized company that offers health insurance for “domestic partners”. Now the company has a choice. Do they cut back on health insurance for all employees because of the “domestic partner” with AIDS? Do they eliminate health insurance altogether? Do they charge all employees more for health insurance because of the domestic partner? Remember that we all end up paying eventually.
As far as civil unions go, you know that gay rights activists are not going to stop there. I’ve posted this quote before, and I’m posting it again:
Michelangelo Signorile, “Out” magazine, Dec/Jan, 1994, page 1-D.
He advocates:
“fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the nation of “family” entlrely.”
Last time I checked heterosexuals can get AIDS too. Your argument is illogical and absurd at best. I might have some respect if you weren’t taking an economic “queers are going to cause the price of our health insurance to rise” point of view. If that is your best shot and reason to deny civil unions, you are standing on awful shaky ground.
Let’s try a different approach. According to the US Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm , the CDC estimates that approximately 63% of all AIDS cases in the US occur among men who have sex with men. Do I hate or condemn men who have sex with men? No, I do not. I’ve made many mistakes in my life. The main point is to learn from your mistakes and to try to improve yourself.
I see that there are public health issues that arise from men who have sex with men, and that some people want us to celebrate this life style regardless of the consequences to public health. Raising public health concerns might get you branded a “racist” and a “bigot”, after all. Yes, of course (anticipating your possible argument?), heterosexuals spread various STDs, but within the US, AIDS has largely been spread by homosexuals.
In the early 1980s, there were 3 groups infected with the virus: homosexuals, Haitians and hemophiliacs. There aren’t that many Haitians or hemophiliacs around; thus the virus has largely been spread by homosexuals. This does not mean that I would deny medical care to infected people. I wrote what I wrote because I was under the impression that you had not thought about some of the possible long-term ramifications of such a radical redefinition of the family. A “live and let live” philosophy is too careless an approach to take when we’re talking about radically redefining marriage.
On another note, boys are much better off when they have fathers. Again, this is a generalization. I’m sure that boys have successfully been raised without fathers. I have to ask, however, why adult desires are given top priority in these discussions about marriage now.
Easy divorce has gotten us used to denying children either a mother or a father for the sake of adults. I see gay marriage/civil unions as an extension of easy divorce. There is no way we could have gone from a situation where divorce was rare straight into a consideration of civil unions or gay marriage.
Every gay family with children is a step family. Every gay family lacks either a mother or a father by design. Unless we’re talking about a union of second cousins, the child cannot be related to both partners.
When easy divorce was being debated, some said that it would be good for children because they wouldn’t have to hear their parents fight. I also remember reading an article about how it would be good for kids because they would have more toys, two rooms and more brothers and sisters to play with (a materialistic argument). It took 30 years to find out that it is not in the best interests of children at all. Children have their own needs which are entirely seperate from the wishes and desires of adults.
There are those who assume that gay marriage would be good for children and that civil unions do not degrade the meaning of marriage. Civil unions, however, further seperate marriage from procreation. They are “marriage lite”. Heterosexuals would undoubtedly enter into civil unions, thus further eroding the status of traditional marriage. Civil unions are, again, all about adult desire, as is gay marriage.
If you give various benefits to people who are living together and caring for each other regardless of whether or not children are involved, then why not give benefits to people who are taking care of elderly parents or other relatives? The government gives benefits to married couples because it is in the interests of the government to support the next generation. Without the next generation, we cease to exist. Not all married people produce children, but the majority do, and the rest do not radically challenge the traditional definition of marriage. Are we giving benefits because of the next generation, or are we giving benefits because adults care for each other? Why should adults get government benefits for caring for each other? It’s a nice thing to do, but why finance it? Should the benefits only be given for adults having sex with each other?
This has been a rather rambling answer, but gay marriage/civil unions, as you know, never existed before the present time. It is wise and prudent to consider why this is so.
Based on your viewpoint and public health issues, I am wondering how you feel about smoking?
It’s a seperate issue. It pertains to health, but the gay rights issue touches on a lot of issues - health, the law, education, religion, money. You could also throw psychology and sociology into the mix. It’s a lot more complex than just a bad habit (smoking).
I have seen some of this already in the probate courts where a geographically seperated family suddenly discovers the “friend” was an alleged sex partner.
Especially at such time of bereavement, the family is very quick to reject the claim.
Now how will they know? will there be a homosexuality test when one room mate dies?
Since this is only for homosexuals, how will they administer the sexual preference test?
and the homosexual rule the schools and the homosexuals are pushing to declare teach conservative principles are child abuse.
As hitler said, who carea about you as long as I control the schools.
Well, I can't speak to the legislators; but, there is serious disagreement about whether that woman actually won the governorship.
A poll of WA state voters soon after the election held a good majority of the residents of WA state did not believe that Gregiore had actually won the seat she now holds.
You think this is bad, she has done nothing but raise taxes on us since taking her oath of office, after running on a "I won't raise your taxes" platform.
>No second term, she’ll just have to find a new dog.<
In today’s Faith and Freedom poll, “Do you fell the WA legislature represented your views this 2007 session”?
No 92.6%
Yes 7.r%
Total votes: 64785
That should read: no 7.4%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.