Gay Marriage Ban upheld in Washington State

I really thought this would go the other way, considering how liberal the state of Washington is. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Jul26/0,4670,GayMarriage,00.html

When even such a liberal state as Washington upholds this type of law, is there any doubt that the large majority of Americans want marriages to be kept between a man and a woman?

Again,to be pedantic, they are not banning gay marriage but merely preventing its government recognition.

This is a little surprising, though. I don't know all that many people, here or in real life, who are that opposed to it; where are all these votes coming from? And how are all these courts coming to that decision?

Eran of Arcadia said:

Again,to be pedantic, they are not banning gay marriage but merely preventing its government recognition.

This is a little surprising, though. I don't know all that many people, here or in real life, who are that opposed to it; where are all these votes coming from? And how are all these courts coming to that decision?

Click to expand...

Uhm, no......the laws being brought forth directly define marriage as only between a man and a woman, which bans gay marriage outright. As these laws are being upheld in court when challenged is also a sign that the laws as written are indeed constitutional.

As for where are all the votes coming from what do you mean? Some of the laws are from state congress....some are from popular vote from people in a state initiative process. Whenever such a law is on an open ballot it usually receives about 60%+ of the popular vote. Thats why they are trying to get it on an open ballot in Massachusetts, so that the people can vote on it as opposed to a judge ruling making it legal. If the people of Massachusetts actually get to vote on the matter, gay marriage could be overturned in that state.

Gay Marriage Ban upheld in Washington State

Click to expand...

Whooopeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See you in 20 pages time.

MobBoss said:

When even such a liberal state as Washington upholds this type of law, is there any doubt that the large majority of Americans want marriages to be kept between a man and a woman?

Click to expand...

As you should pretty much know, courts do not necessarily reflect public opinion. And I'm saying this as a general statement.

So, trying to say that "court finding XYZ = public will" is disingenuous.

I agree the majority opinion of the public is against gay marriage. OK. Majorities have been against all kinds of things that have later been changed. So what.

You can make new threads every time this or that state has some kind of ruling, but I have news for you. Its inevitable. May not come for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but its coming. The younger generations are not afraid of gay people nor do they harbor animosity toward them. And, when they (the younger generations) matures into their middle age, all you'll be able to do is stand there and shake your stick at them and mutter about the "gay agenda" and "when I was a kid those gays knew their place!"

Rambuchan said:

Whooopeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See you in 20 pages time.

Click to expand...

ROFL, so true!

PS: This thread makes Lance Bass cry!

.Shane. said:

You can make new threads every time this or that state has some kind of ruling, but I have news for you. Its inevitable.

Click to expand...

And you base this on what? Sorry, but I disagree with you in this regard.

Bright day
I agree with the ruling in that people should have say in such murky cases. Though I fail to see the difference between marriage and civil union.

MobBoss said:

And you base this on what? Sorry, but I disagree with you in this regard.

Click to expand...

lol, of course I don't expect you to agree.

I base it on knowledge of the evolution of other, past civil rights issues. I base it on my own personal evolution on the subject. I base it on what I observe in people around me. I base it on what people tell me. And I see it in polling trends.

For example.... Personally, I've moved from the standpoint of no marriage or civil union to being OK w/ civil union only, to being ok w/ marriage, to being for marriage.

I know a lot of people who've also moved that way. Conversely, I know NO ONE who's gone from being pro-gay marriage to against it. No one.

Just as kids today grew up w/ cell phones and text messaging, they're growing up in a culture that is way more accepting of gays than the culture you and I grew up in. The youth of today are inherently more accepting of homosexuality. Yet, I see no evidence that more of them are actually gay, which, I think speaks to the fact that giving gays rights =/= people goin' gay!

In terms of polling... The % for gay-marriage may still be a minority, but its growing and has been for years. It will continue to do so.

So, again, I think this change is inevitable.

And, to continue the idea of the disingenuity (word?) of the original post, the ruling decision was 5-4, hardly an overwhelming mandate or statement.

I want legislation that bans heterosexual marriage, so we can help stop oppression against men in this country

For example.... Personally, I've moved from the standpoint of no marriage or civil union to being OK w/ civil union only, to being ok w/ marriage, to being for marriage.

Click to expand...

I went from thinking that civil unions would be fine to thinking that they were actually married. At least in the last decade or so.

.Shane. said:

lol, of course I don't expect you to agree.

I base it on knowledge of the evolution of other, past civil rights issues. I base it on my own personal evolution on the subject. I base it on what I observe in people around me. I base it on what people tell me. And I see it in polling trends.

Click to expand...

This isnt a civil rights issue. While women and blacks were denied their constitutional rights, that was recognized and changed accordingly. But there is no "civil right" for same sex marriage in the constitution. A rather large difference in this situation and other historical civil rights issues.

As for you what you see, I see the same thing, but from my side of the fence. And I dont have polling trends on my side...but actual voting results.

For example.... Personally, I've moved from the standpoint of no marriage or civil union to being OK w/ civil union only, to being ok w/ marriage, to being for marriage.

I know a lot of people who've also moved that way. Conversely, I know NO ONE who's gone from being pro-gay marriage to against it. No one.

Click to expand...

And, to continue the idea of the disingenuity (word?) of the original post, the ruling decision was 5-4, hardly an overwhelming mandate or statement.

Click to expand...

Please. If the vote had been 5-4 to overturn, you would call my attempt at saying how it wasnt an overhelming mandate a fairly weak arguement, thus I will say this is a very weak arguement on your part. Whether it was 5-4, 6-3, or 9-0, it is still just as binding, as you well know.

Is this about the Christian practice of Marriage (I.E. Is this about church recognition of marriage) or is it about goverment recognition of a civil union between two people of the same gender?

This isnt a civil rights issue. While women and blacks were denied their constitutional rights, that was recognized and changed accordingly. But there is no "civil right" for same sex marriage in the constitution. A rather large difference in this situation and other historical civil rights issues.

Click to expand...

the definition of marriage has changed constitutionally before and will probably in the future change again.

As for you what you see, I see the same thing, but from my side of the fence. And I dont have polling trends on my side...but actual voting results.

Click to expand...

he's suggesting that over time the desire to keep homosexuals from marrying will decline. seeing as how acceptance of homosexuals has increased over the years it's not foolish to say that in another 10 to 20 years gay marriage will be made legal.

ArneHD said:

Is this about the Christian practice of Marriage (I.E. Is this about church recognition of marriage) or is it about goverment recognition of a civil union between two people of the same gender?

Click to expand...

this vote implies that the government will not recognized people of the same gender for legal rights.

Im with it is inevitable. If homosexuality is legal, you cannot defend keeping them from equality in the eyes of the law. They tried with women all over, blacks in the states, catholics in the uk etc etc.

People want equality and will push for it forever.

For a while after legalisation you might be able to play the fundamentalist card, but eventually people will all know out gays. Grown up with them, work with them, go for a beer at the weekends, borrow thier garden tools. Then it will happen.

Shadylookin said:

the definition of marriage has changed constitutionally before and will probably in the future change again.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is not definition of marriage what-so-ever in the constitution to change. So you are wrong on both counts.

he's suggesting that over time the desire to keep homosexuals from marrying will decline. seeing as how acceptance of homosexuals has increased over the years it's not foolish to say that in another 10 to 20 years gay marriage will be made legal.

Click to expand...

Somehow I dont think so.

MobBoss said:

When even such a liberal state as Washington upholds this type of law, is there any doubt that the large majority of Americans want marriages to be kept between a man and a woman?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the majority of americans want marriages to be kept between a man and a woman, but that doesn't really change my opinion on the matter. If the people of washington think that allowing same-sex couples to marry diminishes the institution, then who am I to argue?

OTOH, I have to agree with Shane: I think it is really just a matter of time before gay couples can marry in more and more places across the US. That's just my feeling on it....

Che Guava said:

If the people of washington think that allowing same-sex couples to marry diminishes the institution, then who am I to argue?

Click to expand...

I think straight people had no problem dimishing the institution.

Gay people are people just like you and I. Give them marriage or a civil union, or something.

Che was just expressing his opinion of what he thinks the courts in Washington expressed...