Say WA? Evergreen State ping
Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 09/03/2009 7:40:04 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
OLYMPIA, Wash. (BP)--Voters in Washington state this November apparently will get to decide whether to keep or overturn the state's same-sex "everything but marriage" law, which grants homosexual couples all the legal benefits of marriage and which conservatives warn will lead to the legalization of full-fledged "gay marriage" in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at sbcbaptistpress.org ...
Why can we not just have the state BUTT OUT of marriage altogether?
Because "the state" (that's US) has a vested intrest in insuring the continuation of our society, and in insuring that the next generation is brought up correctly. That means that we give a special status and special help to a man and a woman who are trying to produce and raise a child. It's been that way since the dawn of time. I've heard other people say that the church should just BUTT OUT of marraige. Those people sound just as childish as you do.
what about couples without children (by choice, age, etc.)?
The bill being challenged essentially extended all economic benefits and legal rights to domestic partners without calling it marriage. This referendum, to repeal the legislation, has precipitated a demand by a gay marriage group for the list of all the names of people who signed the petition to get the issue on the ballot. The explanation for needing the names was so they could call them up and ask them to expalin their decision to sign the petition. This was a blatant attempt to harrass and intimidate supporters of the referendum. Although my feeling on the underlying statute is fairly indifferent, I sought out and signed the petition solely because of the threat. I’m mad as hell and I’ll vote in favor of the repeal this fall. Like prop 8 in California, it has drawn out the pink terrorists in force.
Since this doesn’t explicitly mention “marriage,” it may pass (by a narrow margin). Turnout is important in this case.
They can serve as a guide, role model and source of advice for people who do want to get married and have children.
The “for the good of society” argument is what tyrants always use to justify poking their nose (and gun) in somebodies business.
I always thought government was there to protect the right of the individual, not “society”.
“Do for the children” is another one of those arguments. There is nothing now stopping homosexuals from having and keeping their own children if they can find some way to work it out. So, marriage has very little to do with “the children”.
What marriage does have to do with is tax breaks, benefits, and other social manipulation that the government uses to shape our behavior to their liking.
If you get rid of all the government social engineering having to do with whether you are married or not, the reason for state involvement in marriage evaporates away and it can get back into the church where it belongs.
Up until the late 19th century you got married by going to a preacher and have him marry you in front of witnesses. The marriage was entered into the church records and that was it. Everyone knew you were married and the government had nothing to do with it. There was no license and there was no signature by a county clerk required.
if they are poor role models and give faulty advice, do we take the economic benefits away?
In 1924, the Simpson Act passed along with a whole group of related bills. The Simpson Act closed the floodgates of immigration that had been open since the Founding. For over a century we had a continent to fill up, and now the frontier was closed. Congress provided quotas for immigrants that gave preference to people of northern European stock.
With the Simpson Act came a related bill that laid an unfunded mandate upon the states to keep a record of all births, deaths and marriages. The Federal Reserve was the agency that pushed this bill, although I have no idea why.
So concerning the way things were before 1924, seowulf was correct. In 1924, the church register was replaced by a state bureaucracy because of a federal law.
http://www.hookedonphonics.com/
Might want to turn of Michael Medved for a while too.
I have a sneaking suspicion it had something to do with progressive income taxes and control of the work force.
Okay. Just to clear up my confusion, what are you and seowulf advocating? Specifically, what is it that you want our society to do? Specifically, what changes do you want made? In detail. Also, I want at least a couple of COMPELLING REASONS why we should do whatever it is that you two want done. Convince me.
I think you are confusing “government” and “society.” I give society much more latitude to act. I believe government’s powers ought to be severely limited.
1. Pure flat tax. No deductions, no child tax credits, no more using the taxes to manipulate people.
2. Stop tying health insurance to employment. Allow the employer to pay higher wages (untaxed) to buy individual insurance or, if the individual doesn’t want insurance, make the wages taxable.
3. Make marriage a purely religious sacrament again. Your pastor, rabbi, guru, whatever should not be an agent of the government.
4. As far as the marriage contract goes, make it a normal civil contract between two individuals which spells out exactly what will happen in the case of divorce or death as regards assets and children. I would suggest the contract meet the approval of the church in which you’re married.
5. Everyone mind their own business.
As far as R-71 goes, I will vote for it if it’s on the ballot because it is a better outcome considering the circumstances we have. Things could be better than that though.
On second thought I'm being stupid by allowing this opening to the manipulators.
Just pay the higher wage, tax it, and then let you spend your money on whatever you want; insurance or booze and smokes if you want, and live with the consequences.
I forgot #5, mind your own business. It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking you know what's best for your neighbor.
Thank God for this opportunity.
If we didn’t have the Referendum process in this state just think how much worse it would be here.
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.