Wa State voters approve "Everything but Marriage" bill, Maine votes to repeal it

[ljs]

First about Maine, the marriage law that their legislature passed was denied by voters 53% to 47%. What is odd, is that I have read a few articles saying that gay civil unions are still ok there.

For Washington state

Current votes for Ref 71-"Everything but Marriage" show it will pass.

Yes- 511,651

No- 490,948

This bill is not just gay marriage, but covers seniors who can't afford to get married.

Exerpt from support Ref 71 website

Often seniors who are widowed or divorced will suffer serious economic hardship if they re-marry. Under Social Security, there is a ‘marriage penalty’ where seniors’ benefits are put in peril if they re-marry. For example, women who spent their working years as homemakers or in traditionally lower wage jobs often have to rely on a former spouse’s work history to receive Social Security benefits because benefits are generally based on 30 years of paid work experience.

But if a senior re-marries after a divorce, she will no longer be able to rely on her former spouse’s work history to receive Social Security benefits. Once stripped of her Social Security benefits, she would face poverty and be forced to work well into her senior years to provide for her basic needs. Many seniors would also have to pay additional taxes on their Social Security benefits if they re-marry. Some elders end up sacrificing hard-earned health care, military or pension benefits if they re-marry. The domestic partnership law allows unmarried senior couples to have the legal protections they need, take care of each other, be able to provide insurance or take family or medical leave if a partner is gravely ill, and make critical decisions for one another in times of crisis, without losing benefits that for many may be their only source of income. They should not have to live in poverty in order to be together with the person they love.

Committed couples who want to take care of each other should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital, take family and medical leave when a loved one is seriously ill, and have insurance coverage. By voting to Approve Referendum 71, you will vote to ensure that all families are provided the same protections under the law.

Police officers and firefighters who risk their lives to protect our communities need domestic partnership laws if they are hurt or killed in the line of duty, so that their families are taken care of by their pension or workers’ compensation.By voting to Approve Referendum 71, you will vote to ensure that all of our communities' first responders’ families are provided the same protections under the law.

BTW, there are currently over 12,000 registered domestic partners in Washington state (I'm not one of them:))

[The Evil Genius]

First about Maine, the marriage law that their legislature passed was denied by voters 53% to 47%. What is odd, is that I have read a few articles saying that gay civil unions are still ok there.

For Washington state

Current votes for Ref 71-"Everything but Marriage" show it will pass.

Yes- 511,651

No- 490,948

This bill is not just gay marriage, but covers seniors who can't afford to get married.

:applause:

I hope it spreads.

[ljs]

:applause:

I hope it spreads.

I do think its great- unfortunately I moved 10 miles across state line into Idaho. pretty sure Idaho wont' be approving this anytime soon, although I've never had any issues in town.

I keep joking with my gf that we need to move back over to Washington so we can get married. She just looks at me funny and says "hell no." (she just isn't into marriage)

We have living wills, are each others life insurance beneficiaries- I'm just worried that even with those documents, if she was in the hospital or died-her family would fight long and hard to keep me away. Not worried at all about my family.

[jpyaks3]

Its going to be a long slow movement but it will eventually gain steam. This is just another step on the road, hopefully there will be more progress in the 2010 elections.

[Thiebear]

So you can't look forward to you wife getting remarried and leave you the hell alone?

What has this world come to...

[HailYeah]

Its going to be a long slow movement but it will eventually gain steam. This is just another step on the road, hopefully there will be more progress in the 2010 elections.

Civil Rights issues tend to get worked out in this country eventually. The struggles are often very long, painful, and tedious. Eventually though, equality wins out. I have no reason to believe this issue will be any different. Its just a matter of time.

[jpyaks3]

Civil Rights issues tend to get worked out in this country eventually. The struggles are often very long, painful, and tedious. Eventually though, equality wins out. I have no reason to believe this issue will be any different. Its just a matter of time.

Agreed. We may not get it right the first time or the second or the tenth but eventually we will get it right.

[ace8842]

ZERO for 31, when voters get to vote on gay marriage. It's only the mainstream media that convinces us all every time that more people are for gay marriage, though it is entirely untrue. I'd say 60% nationwide oppose it. All the celebrities and money in the world doesn't seem to matter...I am glad traditional marriage won. I don't believe gay marriage is a civil right and to include it as such, you would have to include polygamy under the same guise of civil rights...(doesn't harm anyone, etc). Gay marriage in Mass and CA has led to homosexual indoctrination in public schools paid for by taxpayers tax dollars, to kids as young as early elementary school. Why are these kids taught about transgenders and bisexuals in 2nd grade? Also, hate crimes laws, and product of the gay marriage movement, leads to hate speech laws (we've seen this in Canada and certain European countries)

[TimmySmith]

That whole senior SS thing was a crock and had nothing to do with marriage. It had more to do with the state not wanting to change it's SS laws.

[mjah]

ZERO for 31, when voters get to vote on gay marriage. It's only the mainstream media that convinces us all every time that more people are for gay marriage, though it is entirely untrue. I'd say 60% nationwide oppose it. All the celebrities and money in the world doesn't seem to matter...I am glad traditional marriage won. I don't believe gay marriage is a civil right and to include it as such, you would have to include polygamy under the same guise of civil rights...(doesn't harm anyone, etc). Gay marriage in Mass and CA has led to homosexual indoctrination in public schools paid for by taxpayers tax dollars, to kids as young as early elementary school. Why are these kids taught about transgenders and bisexuals in 2nd grade? Also, hate crimes laws, and product of the gay marriage movement, leads to hate speech laws (we've seen this in Canada and certain European countries)

The only useful thing in this entire post:

I don't believe gay marriage is a civil right

It's amazing how many thinkers from all over the political spectrum agree that it's a horrible idea to use a citizen vote to protect vs. take away civil rights. Just one example:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities."

The speaker? Ayn Rand. And I sure as hell don't quote her very often.

The only issue is whether or not you think it's a civil right, period. Not how many citizen votes have been cast, or how many fear-mongering BS phrases you can use -- like "have to include polygamy" or "homosexual indoctrination."

Imagine the horrors that would have been enabled, if states had held a special election in late 2001 to determine whether or not Muslims in this country should have their civil rights curtailed in some substantial way. I don't doubt for a second that the voters of several states would have passed such a measure.

Basic rights shouldn't be subject to direct citizen vote.

[ljs]

That whole senior SS thing was a crock and had nothing to do with marriage. It had more to do with the state not wanting to change it's SS laws.

The SS law is federal, not state. its not a crock, its true-there really is a penalty on your benefits if you are collecting SS and get married.

[Larry]

1) Any kind of information about what the law actually says and does?

2) From that description, I have to say that what I'm seeing is "I want to pick and chose which laws think I'm married, and which one's don't." Frankly, I have a problem with people being married according to this law over here, but not according to this other law over there.

IMO, people are either married, or they aren't.

[Larry]

It's amazing how many thinkers from all over the political spectrum agree that it's a horrible idea to use a citizen vote to protect vs. take away civil rights. Just one example:

Actually, my take on that BS is that, no, Marriage isn't a civil right. (Although I'll point out that the USSC has ruled that it is, and that the 14th's "equal protection under the law" applies to it, when they struck down state laws against interracial marriages.)

But having the government treat you the same as everybody else, even if your neighbor doesn't like you, is.

[Predicto]

The Maine vote is sad but not surprising.

The majority rarely evidences much interest in protecting minority rights.

[Larry]

The SS law is federal, not state. its not a crock, its true-there really is a penalty on your benefits if you are collecting SS and get married.

Uh, I haven't checked, but I'd bet that the "penalty" is "you no longer collect SS based on your deceased spouse's work history, now you collect based on your new spouse's history".

But I'll freely admit that I don't know.

[mjah]

Actually, my take on that BS is that, no, Marriage isn't a civil right. (Although I'll point out that the USSC has ruled that it is, and that the 14th's "equal protection under the law" applies to it, when they struck down state laws against interracial marriages.)

But having the government treat you the same as everybody else, even if your neighbor doesn't like you, is.

Good point. I should have thought a bit more deeply about which rights I was really discussing. Equal protection/treatment is definitely the important and rights-compatible aspect of the issue. To your point, there was (for example) no "11th Article" proposed for the Bill of Rights to protect marriage by any definition.

I'd like to see government get out of the marriage mess, get into civil unions, and leave the definition of marriage to religious groups as a spiritual and symbolic augmentation of the certificate you get from city hall.

[Popeman38]

I've said it before and I will say it again, the state/fed should not be in the marriage business. A man/woman and a man/woman should do what they want. The state/fed should only care about dependents (I mean children). There should not be a tax break for two adults who decide to live together, unless we extend those tax breaks to roommates in college too. Marriage should be a union between two people at a religious/family level, and the state/fed should simply file the "license" away for beneficiary/next of kin reasons.

Then, all this hullabaloo about nothing goes away.

[Koolblue13]

I still don't believe there are gays in Idaho.

[NavyDave]

Civil unions and or domestic partnerships with all of the perks that NORMAL marriage has aparrently isn't good enough since those into that activity want it to be seen on the same moral footing as Normal Marriage, which it isn't.

[Koolblue13]

Civil unions and or domestic partnerships with all of the perks that NORMAL marriage has aparrently isn't good enough since those into that activity want it to be seen on the same moral footing as Normal Marriage, which it isn't.

To you anyway. Makes no difference to me. I don't care if two women want to get married, as long as they are the same race.

[The Evil Genius]

To you anyway. Makes no difference to me. I don't care if two women want to get married, as long as they are the same race.

Speaking of which. It was nice to see the bigoted judge in Louisiana get forced out of his job.

[Koolblue13]

Speaking of which. It was nice to see the bigoted judge in Louisiana get forced out of his job.

Sure was.

[JMS]

This why the founding fathers founded a Republic rather than a Democracy. Because the Founding Fathers fundimentally did not trust the people to be able to mitigate the teirany of the majorty over minorities.

Which is why Gay marage is coming, because to do otherwise is a violation of the law.

[JMS]

Civil unions and or domestic partnerships with all of the perks that NORMAL marriage has aparrently isn't good enough since those into that activity want it to be seen on the same moral footing as Normal Marriage, which it isn't.

:doh: Actually it's the civil marage liscense these folks want. It's the paper that the government issues to marrage couples, the marrage liscense. The reason why civil unions aren't acceptable is the same reason the supreme court and civil rights movements rejected separate but equal. By definition separate is never equal.

Not that civil unions even approach the thousands of rights a marrage contract grants to Hetero couples.

Denying civil marrage liscense to gays is bigotry, and hateful.

[Perky72]

You know what's really pathetic? That this is obviously a discrimination-by-class issue, that the federal government should be fixing (or in today's politics, the liberal party), yet the government is ignoring it or worse, sticking by the status quo. So it ends up being left to ordinary citizens to deal with in referendums, and is relegated to a state's issue rather than a Constitutional protection issue. It's a total cop-out by the Democrats, who should be rallying behind full legal gay marriage. And who should've filibustered DOMA. Pathetic!

Civil unions and or domestic partnerships with all of the perks that NORMAL marriage has aparrently isn't good enough since those into that activity want it to be seen on the same moral footing as Normal Marriage, which it isn't.

1. Due to Defense of Marriage Act, a couple marrying in a state that grants full state rights (such as California) cannot have that marriage recognized if they move to a state that doesn't. So, that's not like "normal" marriage.

2. Also legislated via DOMA, a same-sex couple receives no federal benefits that opposite-sex marriages do, even if they were in a civil union, and even if a state like Massachusetts grants them full state marriage rights.

No civil union in the US has all the same perks as a federally-recognized marriage.