Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington governor signs gay ‘marriage’ bill without religious protections
Life Site News ^ | February 13, 2012 | KATHLEEN GILBERT

Posted on 02/13/2012 3:44:27 PM PST by NYer

Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire

February 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

Gregoire, a lame-duck Democrat governor who proposed the bill earlier this year, celebrated the end of defining marriage as between a man and a woman as she signed the bill on Monday.

“I’m proud our same-sex couples will no longer be treated as separate but equal,” she said.

The bill makes Washington the sixth U.S. state to redefine marriage, in addition to the District of Columbia.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Local religious leaders have been particularly alarmed about the bill because it will force facilities owned by churches that are regularly used for marriages to be offered to homosexual couples.

The bill text states that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination.

Evangelical Pastor Joseph Fuiten last month said that the bill’s “discrimination” language puts “virtually every church in Washington” under legal threat should they abide by the teachings of their faith on the nature of marriage.

“They already have equality but that is not what they actually want. They want to force the church to accept homosexuality,” said Fuiten. Washington State in 2009 passed an “everything but marriage” domestic partner bill granting marriage benefits to homosexual couples.

The bill is expected to take effect no earlier than June.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has vowed to initiate a referendum effort to bring the new law before voters to decide on the ballot.

“NOM will not stand by and let activist politicians redefine marriage, the bedrock of civilization, without voters having a say,” said NOM president Brian Brown on Jan 23. “Just as we mounted a People’s Veto in Maine and were responsible for qualifying Proposition 8 to the ballot in California, we will make sure that voters in Washington have the ability to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: fascism; gregoire; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes; samesexmarriage; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2012 3:44:40 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

Ping!


2 posted on 02/13/2012 3:45:27 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The only acceptable option is for about half of the organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to go out of business. Decent people in Washington State who want to get married may have a choice between crossing state lines and going to a facility that supports sham marriage. I would cross state lines rather than solemnize a marriage in a church that had been voluntarily desecrated.


3 posted on 02/13/2012 3:48:59 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

At least they admit they are “redfining” marriage. Marriage is not a state institution to “redefine”. Christians need to re-define their word. They are going to win the word marriage so maybe Christians can come up with a better word than just a state instituted marriage.


4 posted on 02/13/2012 3:51:08 PM PST by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I cannot find out if there are any penalties for the violation of this “law”. Any help on this point?


5 posted on 02/13/2012 3:59:13 PM PST by TaMoDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

and with the stroke of a pen, six thousands years of history around the meaning of marriage dies with another attack on being Christians and Christian values.

The left does error “not knowing the scriptures”.
Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.....


6 posted on 02/13/2012 4:01:33 PM PST by BillT (If you can not stand behind our military, you might as well stand in front of them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
I have been saying for the longest time, in areas where this blaspheme is “legal”, Churches, all of them, need to state clearly and for all to see, the term “Holy Matrimony” is the only type of ceremonies they perform. The should encourage parishioners to use the Church facilities for receptions. Homosexuals cannot hijack that term.

Actually, I would love to see them Holy Matrimony over completely, requirements and registration being at the Churches discretion NOT the state, and no need for licenses!

Get ready for the almost immediate issuance of all so called marriage licenses to ask for partner a and partner b, no more husband and wife, no more bride and groom.

7 posted on 02/13/2012 4:04:09 PM PST by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: therut

They already have one, see my above post!


8 posted on 02/13/2012 4:05:33 PM PST by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The proper religious answer is “Hell no.”

They think they can sue the churches?

People need to simply ignore this power grab. Then fight when called on it.

EFF these people...my church is NOT licensed or approved by the state and does not exist with the state’s permission.


9 posted on 02/13/2012 4:09:03 PM PST by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Thomas More Society is going to be very busy this coming year.


10 posted on 02/13/2012 4:10:47 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillT
My question on all this attacking of religious beliefs is, how is it the contraception order from dear leader is an attack on religious beliefs guaranteed us by the first amendment, but THIS, which has been happening in my state too (thanks Romney) is not? IMO, and that of many others, it most definitely is! On SO many levels. Is this ignorant gov. and her cohorts going to try and accommodate a God given right, as the pres. has tried to do, even though neither one has any power or right to rule on never mind accommodate ANY God given right? When do we hear from ANY Republican that these fools on the left did not give us our rights God did, they don't accommodate them!! What they do do is infringe upon them, be it religious exercise, or freedom of association!
11 posted on 02/13/2012 4:14:16 PM PST by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Whether you believe in God and His creation, or if you believe in Darwin and science, both created man and woman the same way.


12 posted on 02/13/2012 4:15:43 PM PST by From The Deer Stand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I hope this perverted bill goes back to hell where it belongs, but if you read the text of the law at the link, Section 7 actually says that religious organization DON’T have to provide accomodations, not that they do, unless they are selling them. It does use the phrase “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage,” but to say the opposite of what the article says, unless I’m missing something.


13 posted on 02/13/2012 4:16:41 PM PST by Hilda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017372664_marriage30m.html

doesn’t apply to churches proper, apparently...but don’t have a moral objection,...you are screwed.


14 posted on 02/13/2012 4:20:55 PM PST by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good thing Social Issues will not be a big issue this election year...~rolls eyes~


15 posted on 02/13/2012 4:22:34 PM PST by frogjerk (OBAMA NOV 2012 = HORSEMEAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“I’m proud our same-sex couples will no longer be treated as separate but equal,” she said.

PERVERTS are NOT Equal to normal decent citizens. Not now not ever......


16 posted on 02/13/2012 4:22:44 PM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"...celebrated the end of defining marriage as between a man and a woman as she signed the bill on Monday."

Sucks that our Constitution is still in place, including the Establishment Clause, doesn't it, bitch?

17 posted on 02/13/2012 4:23:04 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


18 posted on 02/13/2012 4:25:42 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Graewoulf; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of time; Warthog-2; Tzar; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


19 posted on 02/13/2012 4:26:34 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Sounds like pretty good grounds for a serious "beat down", either in person or in court ~ (I prefer court but in this sort of situation I don't mind paying good money to watch the other kind).

A decent judge would vacate this law in its entirety as a violation of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments.

20 posted on 02/13/2012 4:35:48 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson