Washington legalises same-sex marriage

[Crow]

Referendum 74 will be on the ballot

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A referendum on gay marriage in Washington state has qualified for the ballot. The secretary of state's office announced Tuesday that Referendum 74 passed the signature-verification process that has been taking place since last week.

Sponsors turned in 247,331 signatures, far more than the minimum of 120,577 valid voter signatures required. A 3 percent random sample was done and of the 7,561 signatures that were sampled during the check, 6,877 were accepted and the rest were rejected.

The referendum seeks to overturn the measure allowing same-sex marriage in the state. That law was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year.

The law was supposed to take effect last Thursday but was put on hold once the signatures were turned in last Wednesday.

I will be voting to strike down this referendum (and approve Initiative 502 [the licencing and regulation of cannabis for adults 21 and over]). I hope that my fellow Washingtonians will join me to progress our state towards a better future. Let's not allow this election cycle to become a fiasco like California's Proposition 8 (and Proposition 19).

[Skell18]

Referendum 74 will be on the ballot



I will be voting to strike down this referendum (and approve Initiative 502 [the licencing and regulation of cannabis for adults 21 and over]). I hope that my fellow Washingtonians will join me to progress our state towards a better future. Let's not allow this election cycle to become a fiasco like California's Proposition 8 (and Proposition 19).

Good to see some senisble people over the pond, I salute you sir!

[BadAxe]

Excellent. In 30 years, this won't be an issue. We'll look back and wonder what the hell was wrong with us. Of course, I do that now.

exactly. Why the F@#K should it be up to the gov't who marries who. One, if its a religious matter, well then the gov't should stay out of it. 2. If its just a love/committment thing with no religion involved, again, the gov't should stay the F out of it. Why does it matter to ANYONE if 2 members of the same sex love each other and want to commit to each other.

Such BS that people are so presumptious that they think their opinion on the matter should matter even a little bit. People should be free to live their lives the way they please as long as they are not hurting anyone, and 2 gay people getting married are not hurting anyone.

I fail to see why this has ever been an issue to begin with. Such BS that we as people think we should make laws that define who can love who.

[Skell18]

exactly. Why the F@#K should it be up to the gov't who marries who. One, if its a religious matter, well then the gov't should stay out of it. 2. If its just a love/committment thing with no religion involved, again, the gov't should stay the F out of it. Why does it matter to ANYONE if 2 members of the same sex love each other and want to commit to each other.

Such BS that people are so presumptious that they think their opinion on the matter should matter even a little bit. People should be free to live their lives the way they please as long as they are not hurting anyone, and 2 gay people getting married are not hurting anyone.

I fail to see why this has ever been an issue to begin with. Such BS that we as people think we should make laws that define who can love who.

Here here!

[sgreger1]

exactly. Why the F@#K should it be up to the gov't who marries who. One, if its a religious matter, well then the gov't should stay out of it. 2. If its just a love/committment thing with no religion involved, again, the gov't should stay the F out of it. Why does it matter to ANYONE if 2 members of the same sex love each other and want to commit to each other.

Such BS that people are so presumptious that they think their opinion on the matter should matter even a little bit. People should be free to live their lives the way they please as long as they are not hurting anyone, and 2 gay people getting married are not hurting anyone.

I fail to see why this has ever been an issue to begin with. Such BS that we as people think we should make laws that define who can love who.

Bingo. Free men/women are entitled to do whatever they please so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. On that basis, I don't see how there could be any rational agument against gay marriage.

I think a lot of people who aren't down for it are kind of similar to people who hated black people a few generations a go (not race baiting, legitimate argument ahead), in that the fear mainly comes from the fact that they've probably never really seen or hung out with a gay person before or gotten to know one. It's easy to dehumanize or treat as "different" until you actually have a beer with someone and realize "oh shit, why am I actively lobbying to restrict this person's rights, they are just like me". I think half these opponents have just never met or talked to a gay person before so they whole thing seems foreign in their eyes.

[Darwin]

I entirely approve of gay marriage. They should by all means have the opportunity to screw up their lives and be as stinking miserable as the rest of us. If we really wanted to cruelly punish GLBTs we should require that they get married.

Note: The cranky snark above is engendered by a first marriage and not the current one.

[jxr182]

I have to admit when I first joined SnusOn I didn't expect to get a lot of support for (or really any attention to) gay issues on here... But time and time again I'm surprised to see the topic brought up on here and even more surprised to see the decency and open mindedness of everyone on here. I doubt there is even a fraction of gay members on this site, but I just want to let you guys know it's really appreciated when you speak up!

[StuKlu]

As long as the legalization of gay "marriage" doesn't lead to government forcing religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs and freedom I have no problem with it. Not sure why there is a need to call a civil union marriage, but to each his own

[jxr182]

Personally I don't think that is anything to worry about. A marriage ceremony is just that, a ceremony. There's nothing legal to it. It's the paperwork done by the couple and the minister that legalizes the actual marriage. The ceremony itself, and therefore the church's involvement in the marriage, wouldn't be part of any legislation. Of course I'm not an expert on it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[sgreger1]

Personally I don't think that is anything to worry about. A marriage ceremony is just that, a ceremony. There's nothing legal to it. It's the paperwork done by the couple and the minister that legalizes the actual marriage. The ceremony itself, and therefore the church's involvement in the marriage, wouldn't be part of any legislation. Of course I'm not an expert on it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Yah if the church doesn't want to marry someone than that is their right IMO, but the actual legla act of getting married down at the courthouse and getting your certificate of marriage is all that matters.

@Stuklu: I think the issue gays have with calling it civil unions as opposed to marriage is similar to the "seperate but equal" stuff we went through with blacks. Here though we are saying "it's equal, but let's call it something diferent and seperate that from the marriage us "normal" folks engage in. I think it's more of an issue that they want full equality, which means not making up new terms just for them, but rather allowing them into the eisting social institutions (i.e. marriage). @

@jxr182: There are several gay people on this site if I recall, though it rarely comes up, but they are here. This site is tends to learn to the right politically (it's a tobacco forum after all), but I think we have a good mix of folks here from conservative, to libertarian, to liberal, to whatever the hell Roo is

[Skell18]

Yah if the church doesn't want to marry someone than that is their right IMO, but the actual legla act of getting married down at the courthouse and getting your certificate of marriage is all that matters.

@Stuklu: I think the issue gays have with calling it civil unions as opposed to marriage is similar to the "seperate but equal" stuff we went through with blacks. Here though we are saying "it's equal, but let's call it something diferent and seperate that from the marriage us "normal" folks engage in. I think it's more of an issue that they want full equality, which means not making up new terms just for them, but rather allowing them into the eisting social institutions (i.e. marriage). @

@jxr182: There are several gay people on this site if I recall, though it rarely comes up, but they are here. This site is tends to learn to the right politically (it's a tobacco forum after all), but I think we have a good mix of folks here from conservative, to libertarian, to liberal, to whatever the hell Roo is

I agree mate, I cannot see why people are up in arms about calling it marriage. Oh the bile says this, that, the other etc, and? If two people who love each other want to spend the rest of their days with each other and get married, regardless of whether it is a man and a woman or man and a man or woman and woman, then i struggle to see how someone can object to it, there are no moral or legal grounds I can find for not allowing same sex unions to be called a marriage. The world won't end if two men or two women are married.