Washington likely next to OK gay marriage

snyper wrote:

The Bill has lots of fleas, though.

Judged:

1

1

1

fedupwiththemess wrote:

They will still be play marriages.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
That's only your irrelevant opinion.

Judged:

1

1

1

fedupwiththemess wrote:

They will still be play marriages.

Judged:

1

1

1

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>Not just me pal..last I checked a lot of folks feel the same way I do. That is why states haven't passed it already.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually states HAVE passed it already, which is why we can legally marry in 6 states. Washington will be #7 this week. Maine will likely be #8 this November, with Maryland & California still pending as well.

Judged:

1

1

1

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>Last I checked there are 50 states...passed only in 8? Please. A LOT of folks feel just like me.

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
One state at a time, until the SCOTUS eventually overturns all remaining bans.
About 50% of the population does indeed feel just like you, but about 50% of the population supports marriage for same-sex couples. Depending on where you live, it may be 70%-30% or 30%-70% or somewhere in between.
The problem for your side is the overwhelming majority of your supporters are old people who are dying at a rate of 1.5 million per year; they're being replaced by 3 million pro-equality voters every year.
It's simple demographics. It's only a matter of time before even the most conservatives states will have a majority of the population supporting marriage equality as those younger voters replace the current anti-gay older generations.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
One state at a time, until the SCOTUS eventually overturns all remaining bans.
About 50% of the population does indeed feel just like you, but about 50% of the population supports marriage for same-sex couples. Depending on where you live, it may be 70%-30% or 30%-70% or somewhere in between.
The problem for your side is the overwhelming majority of your supporters are old people who are dying at a rate of 1.5 million per year; they're being replaced by 3 million pro-equality voters every year.
It's simple demographics. It's only a matter of time before even the most conservatives states will have a majority of the population supporting marriage equality as those younger voters replace the current anti-gay older generations.

Judged:

1

1

1

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>Whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong will never die out. GODS word will NEVER die out and those young folks still know right from wrong. Sorry pal.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean? From what I've read, it's the standard marriage equality bill similar to what passed in NY, NH, & VT. There are exceptions for clergy & churches regarding the actual wedding ceremony, but not for businesses or other individuals supporting a wedding- i.e. photographers, cakes, planers, etc. No exceptions for adoption agencies either. Washington already has a very strong anti-discrimination law which covers sexual orientation, so there will be no real change except same-sex couples will be able to marry.
Did I miss something?

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, you did.
It expands and severely muddies the definition of "Establishment of Religion" to include businesses, noth themselves churches, that are run by religions or possibly even just members of a religion.
This is VERY not good. It's not just a legal octopus, it's a portuguese man-o-war with hundreds of tentacles killing or injuring almost everything it touches.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you're wrong. I didn't see anything in either the House or Senate bill that allows a business to discriminate. New Jersey already has anti-discrimination statutes which cover sexual orientation.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry. My head is full right now with the Washington State Bill ... which is as I described.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the Washington State bill doesn't do that either. I watched the hearings as BOTH the House & Senate committees turned DOWN amendments which would have allowed businesses to refuse customers based on religious objections to same-sex couples.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
ok. I was somewhat distracted while listening to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. I may have failed to hear that it was only a proposed amendment under discussion.
I certainly hope that you are correct. The alternative makes the Bill a poisoned pill with horrifying consequences down the line.