Washington Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

[Navy Pride]

My hat is off to the Washington Supreme Court...They upheld the will of the people in that the people voted in a referenedum for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This has to be a crushing defeat for the proponents of gay marriage because Washington is one of the most liberal states in the union with a very liberal supreme court......They left in the the hands of the legislature where it belongs unlike the activist judges in Mass.......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205743,00.html


Wednesday, July 26, 2006


OLYMPIA, Wash. — The state Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.

The 5-4 decision disappointed gay marriage advocates and left Massachusetts as the only state that grants full marriage rights to gay couples.

 

[aps]

LOL I got a breaking news e-mail on this earlier today and wondered how long it would take you (NP) to post the story.

For me, this ruling sucks....big time.

 

[Navy Pride]

LOL I got a breaking news e-mail on this earlier today and wondered how long it would take you (NP) to post the story.

For me, this ruling sucks....big time.

I kind of figured you would feel that way but as you must see the voters here in the state of Washington voted for the DOMA and we are the ones who should make the decision not some activist judge which is what happened in Mass.......

If you want to change the law then go through the legislative process to do it.........

Its as simple as that my friend...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like someone finally noticed that banning same-sex marriage does NOT "withdraw privileges from one group that are granted to another". Heteros and homosexuals are both permitted to marry - members of the opposite sex. And both are forbidden to marry members of the same sex. And both are forbidden to marry various others - close relations, multiple partners, underage etc. How much more equal can your "rights" get?

Maybe a few have different DESIRES... but what has that got to do with their rights?

The homosexual advocates are doing their best to ignore the fact that humans are a species with two sexes, and that very strong emotions exist as a result: some emotions that attract one sex to the other, and some that repel one sex from the same sex. Both are very strong, part of our fundamental makeup, both have no "logical" basis, and both derive from the same source. The former creates a liking of the idea of relations between opposite sexes. And the latter creates a dislike for the idea of relations between members of the same sex.

The advocates have taken it upon themselves to stamp out, or at least repress, half of these powerful emotions in every human they can reach. They seem to present their agenda in terms like "There's no reason why anyone should be upset about same-sex relations, "marriage" etc. - after all, it isn't hurting them!" ...as though emotions this strong were somehow to be restricted by logic and reason. But for every human they seem to succeed with, hundreds more are born with the same emotions still intact.

Sweeping back the tide would be easier.

 

[SixStringHero]

LOL I got a breaking news e-mail on this earlier today and wondered how long it would take you (NP) to post the story.

For me, this ruling sucks....big time.

You swing that way?

 

[mpg]

LOL I got a breaking news e-mail on this earlier today and wondered how long it would take you (NP) to post the story.

For me, this ruling sucks....big time.

Have you read the Washington State Constitution? If not, then how do you know that the ruling sucks?

 

[Navy Pride]

Have you read the Washington State Constitution? If not, then how do you know that the ruling sucks?

I am not trying to speak for aps and I could be wrong but I don't think she is saying it legally sucks..........She is just very pro gay marriage and that is why it sucks to her........

 

[Pen]

Navy Pride, I didn't know that you are a Washington resident, as am I. Where did you come up with the idea that our SC is liberal? Didn't our governor get elected by about three votes, certified by the Republican Secretary of State?

Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban's effect on same-sex couples.

"Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state," wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.

As you stated NP, this decision is an invitation for the legislature to readdress the issue. Given that we most recently were one vote shy for an addition of gays to our equal rights amendment (thank you, Tim Sheldon), this so-called bastion of liberal ideology is years away from even that common sense extention of equality.

And I am with aps on this. It sucks big time.

 

[26 X World Champs]

My hat is off to the Washington Supreme Court...They upheld the will of the people in that the people voted in a referenedum for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Great victory for all the homophobes in Washington. Nothing like repressing about 30 million Americans from enjoying the same civil rights as everyone else to make one happy, right Navy?

Tell you what...if a Gay person is legally allowed to defend our country and to put his life on the line for his or her fellow Americans then they're good enough to marry whomever they want. Who knows Navy maybe one of the many Gay seaman out there even saved your a$s :lol:

I wonder how many pin-head homophobes who would deprive someone of the same civil liberties that they have to protect marriage have been divorced and remarried?

If the aim is to protect marriage shouldn't divorce be illegal too?

 

[Deegan]

Great victory for all the homophobes in Washington. Nothing like repressing about 30 million Americans from enjoying the same civil rights as everyone else to make one happy, right Navy?

Tell you what...if a Gay person is legally allowed to defend our country and to put his life on the line for his or her fellow Americans then they're good enough to marry whomever they want. Who knows Navy maybe one of the many Gay seaman out there even saved your a$s :lol:

I wonder how many pin-head homophobes who would deprive someone of the same civil liberties that they have to protect marriage have been divorced and remarried?

If the aim is to protect marriage shouldn't divorce be illegal too?

Shouldn't child marriage be legal, or polygamy, or triads, etc?

A limit must be placed on rational examples of marriage, I support that, not the limiting of rights. That said, keep calling folks haters, and homophobias, and see where that gets you, good luck with that.:doh

 

[26 X World Champs]

Shouldn't child marriage be legal, or polygamy, or triads, etc?

A limit must be placed on rational examples of marriage, I support that, not the limiting of rights. That said, keep calling folks haters, and homophobias, and see where that gets you, good luck with that.:doh

It is truly a weak argument to suggest that legalizing Gay marriage will lead to polygamy etc. It's one of the common scare tactic talking points that are used to justify keeping away American's civil rights.

There's so much hypocrisy in this issue when you consider how many of the anti-gay population have been married and divorced! Marriage is not sacred, it's a weak institution that get's less and less relevant every year and Gays getting married would have no effect whatsoever in contributing to the declining percentage of Americans who are getting married and who are getting divorced.

The truth to me is that there are a lot of Americans who hate the concept of Gay, they are repulsed by it, afraid of it, threatened by it and will support anything that makes Gay people suffer indignation over who they sleep with.

 

[Deegan]

It is truly a weak argument to suggest that legalizing Gay marriage will lead to polygamy etc. It's one of the common scare tactic talking points that are used to justify keeping away American's civil rights.

There's so much hypocrisy in this issue when you consider how many of the anti-gay population have been married and divorced! Marriage is not sacred, it's a weak institution that get's less and less relevant every year and Gays getting married would have no effect whatsoever in contributing to the declining percentage of Americans who are getting married and who are getting divorced.

The truth to me is that there are a lot of Americans who hate the concept of Gay, they are repulsed by it, afraid of it, threatened by it and will support anything that makes Gay people suffer indignation over who they sleep with.

If it's so broken, why do you support it?

You can't rationally allow gay marriage, while tearing down marriage as we know it, it's just not logical, it's hysterical!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

My hat is off to the Washington Supreme Court...They upheld the will of the people in that the people voted in a referenedum for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This has to be a crushing defeat for the proponents of gay marriage because Washington is one of the most liberal states in the union with a very liberal supreme court......They left in the the hands of the legislature where it belongs unlike the activist judges in Mass.......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205743,00.html


Wednesday, July 26, 2006


OLYMPIA, Wash. — The state Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.

The 5-4 decision disappointed gay marriage advocates and left Massachusetts as the only state that grants full marriage rights to gay couples.

Wait a minute! I thought that "traditional marriage was in jeopardy", thus "we need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage". Yet here we see the states handling this issue themselves.

I know you righties are usually only for states rights when it comes to state sanctioned segregation or southern nutjob judges trying to establish theocracies, but honestly, are you still going to shoot for that constitutional amendment, or are you going to leave this up the states where it belongs?

 

[Deegan]

Wait a minute! I thought that "traditional marriage was in jeopardy", thus "we need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage". Yet here we see the states handling this issue themselves.

I know you righties are usually only for states rights when it comes to state sanctioned segregation or southern nutjob judges trying to establish theocracies, but honestly, are you still going to shoot for that constitutional amendment, or are you going to leave this up the states where it belongs?

I don't think any state can change defintions, that is why slavery was abolished, because they considered Africans, Chinese, etc, second class human beings! Marriage is between a man, and a woman, period, and no amount of forced guilt is going to change that, sorry!:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't think any state can change defintions, that is why slavery was abolished, because they considered Africans, Chinese, etc, second class human beings! Marriage is between a man, and a woman, period, and no amount of forced guilt is going to change that, sorry!:roll:

That was not my contention. My question was that since it seems that the states are indeed handling this issue themselves, and being that marriage is traditionally a state issue, are you still going to support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning Same Sex Marriage, or are you going to leave it up to the states where the issue belongs?

 

[Deegan]

That was not my contention. My question was that since it seems that the states are indeed handling this issue themselves, and being that marriage is traditionally a state issue, are you still going to support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning Same Sex Marriage, or are you going to leave it up to the states where the issue belongs?

No, and I won't support a state law either, because neither would be correct, nor would they be respected, agreed upon laws, marriage is what it is!

Just as a doctor is a doctor, and a janitor is a janitor, so goes marriage. Give them their right to equal rights, but not the right to change the entire country, all so they can feel better about their decision! If you are gay, be proud, be strong, and be different, you are, and we all realize that. I refuse to tell my children this is the same union my wife and I share, I hope they will agree, if they don't, sorry.......I will continue to fight this.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No, and I won't support a state law either, because neither would be correct, nor would they be respected, agreed upon laws, marriage is what it is!

Just as a doctor is a doctor, and a janitor is a janitor, so goes marriage. Give them their right to equal rights, but not the right to change the entire country, all so they can feel better about their decision! If you are gay, be proud, be strong, and be different, you are, and we all realize that. I refuse to tell my children this is the same union my wife and I share, I hope they will agree, if they don't, sorry.......I will continue to fight this.

I am sorry, but I am not following you here. Are you saying that you do not support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

 

[Deegan]

I am sorry, but I am not following you here. Are you saying that you do not support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

No, I don't, I think the state, the people, the rational conscience in all of us will prevail, the rest is just P.C nonsense, used to divide, and it it is obviously working!

 

[Navy Pride]

Navy Pride, I didn't know that you are a Washington resident, as am I. Where did you come up with the idea that our SC is liberal? Didn't our governor get elected by about three votes, certified by the Republican Secretary of State?




As you stated NP, this decision is an invitation for the legislature to readdress the issue. Given that we most recently were one vote shy for an addition of gays to our equal rights amendment (thank you, Tim Sheldon), this so-called bastion of liberal ideology is years away from even that common sense extention of equality.

And I am with aps on this. It sucks big time.

As I said the people of Washington state voted for the Defense of America Act........They and the legislature should decide the gay marriage issue........Not judges in the judicial branch.....

That is the way we are suppose to decide things in this country.......

I am sorry your not happy with that system but I think its still the best one in the world..............

 

[Navy Pride]

Great victory for all the homophobes in Washington. Nothing like repressing about 30 million Americans from enjoying the same civil rights as everyone else to make one happy, right Navy?

Tell you what...if a Gay person is legally allowed to defend our country and to put his life on the line for his or her fellow Americans then they're good enough to marry whomever they want. Who knows Navy maybe one of the many Gay seaman out there even saved your a$s :lol:

I wonder how many pin-head homophobes who would deprive someone of the same civil liberties that they have to protect marriage have been divorced and remarried?

If the aim is to protect marriage shouldn't divorce be illegal too?

Great victory for all the homophobes in Washington.

Your forgot bigots champs:roll: If anyone has a difference of opinion then you then they must be bigots or homophobes.............And liberals say we are the intolerant ones ............I wonder if you think your hero "Slick Willie" Clinton is a homophobe to? Did you know that he signed the National Defense of Marriage Act after it was almost unanimously approved by the senate?





Proud American is right about you...........

 

[Navy Pride]

Wait a minute! I thought that "traditional marriage was in jeopardy", thus "we need a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage". Yet here we see the states handling this issue themselves.

I know you righties are usually only for states rights when it comes to state sanctioned segregation or southern nutjob judges trying to establish theocracies, but honestly, are you still going to shoot for that constitutional amendment, or are you going to leave this up the states where it belongs?

The DOMA does not mention gays.............it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman....That is how a constitutional amendment would read too..........It protects marriage from any group defined by choice..........You and champs think Clinton is the greatest thing since fried rice.......Do you know who signed the National Defense of Marriage act after it was almost unanimously approved by the Senate..........You got it and champs hero...."Slick Willie" Clinton.......

Are you for the judicial branch making our laws or do you agree it should be the people and the legislative branch of government that do it?

 

[aps]

[/B]

You swing that way?

Sometimes.

I'm married to a man. I just want gay people to have that same privilege/right.

 

[aps]

In an article in today's Washington Post, a gay woman living in Washington state stated the following (with which I agree):

"We are reeling today," said Elizabeth Reis, a Seattle health teacher who has been together with her partner, Barbara Steele, a retired researcher in communicable diseases, for 29 years. They raised four children together and have 14 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

"Courts have said you can get married if you have been married six times before," Reis said. "Courts have said you can get married if you owe your children entire childhoods of back child support. But this court says I cannot marry a woman I have loved nearly my entire adult life."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072600406.html

Amen!

 

[faithful_servant]

Great victory for all the homophobes in Washington. Nothing like repressing about 30 million Americans from enjoying the same civil rights as everyone else to make one happy, right Navy?
>snip<

Where do you get this crap from? The most accurate estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in America is about 1-2%, that means about 1/10 of the number you cite. Get your facts straight because this kind of gross inaccuracy makes it far too easy to simply blow you off.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Where do you get this crap from? The most accurate estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in America is about 1-2%, that means about 1/10 of the number you cite. Get your facts straight because this kind of gross inaccuracy makes it far too easy to simply blow you off.

I doubt that. Most estimates I have seen put the actual number at about 5%.