And Now the Good News - R-71 Wins in Washington!

It may not be marriage, but the voters have approved equal rights for same sex couples.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

It may not be marriage, but the voters have approved equal rights for same sex couples.

You know the fight ain't over in Maine, right?

The final votes have not been counted and seeing that NOM hired Schubert and his clonies.......we can expect legal challenges.

Good for Washington.......now we move on.

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

Yeah, this won't be the first time I'm saying something I privately suspect may irk others.

I find this deeply disturbing,*not* a good thing.

In other words,*AS LONG AS THAT WORD IS ABSENT*, people barely approve it.

In other words,*prejudice IS alive and well*.

In other words,*so long as the anti-gay can disseminate lies and pretend an OWNERSHIP of the word marriage*, gay people get their rights.

Know what it reminds me of? You be good little boys and girls and we'll let you sit at the "same table" -- even though it's not.

This disturbs the hell out of me. The Washington vote is *no less* about fear, hatred and control. It's simply masked differently.

Oh, and?... National Organization for Marriage is now sponsoring its own drives to recruit *millions of persons* to be deployed "wherever necessary" to defend marriage. That organization needs to be attacked on all *legal and true* bases and shown with *autistic tirelessness* to be the bunch of bigots that it is. And I do mean *tirelessly*. Just my two cents; but I'll stand by it like a rabid dog by a corpse. Thanks for reading.

DustyShadow wrote:

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

If marriage is a separate, sacred word, it MUST be expunged from ALL legal documents within the government.

DustyShadow wrote:

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

Yeah, see, this is what disturbs the living hell out of me. See above. You're exactly the type of person I was talking about.

No offense, of course. Nothing against you. But I'm glad to *know for a fact* that the national gay rights movement is going to continue as it was until *marriage* is equal everywhere. And I know you know it, too.

DustyShadow wrote:

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

Will you still feel this way.....when Washington passes a Full Marriage Equality bill?

I think not.

You aren't opposed to Same-Sex Couples just as long as we want to accept 2nd class Citizenship.......how generous of you.

Separate but equal wins once again.

DustyShadow wrote:

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

Its the county courthouses that call it marriage in all of their geneology records dating back to Colonial America.

The cost of going back and changing every instance of the word *marriage* in all those billions of records would be prohibitive....unless you're willing to volunteer your services.

You would be shipping whiteout in by the tanker load.

With that done, then you would have to go door-to-door changing the wording on every marriage license ever issued on American soil.

Do you really care about it *that* much!?

MALELPN wrote:

Separate but equal wins once again.

Don't give up yet. There are still enough uncounted votes to swing it either way; with room to spare. Wait for the certified results.

MALELPN wrote:

Separate but equal wins once again.

Separate yes.....Equal.....no

DustyShadow wrote:

Congratulations. I mean that sincerely. I am not opposed to same-sex couples having rights. I just think it is wrong to call it marriage. If all the same-sex couples in our country could get these rights, that would be great.

I am very appreciative that you said that. Perhaps those "defense of marriage" initiatives and peoples vetos could include us in some way. I am deeply troubled that "marriage" has become a word that carries so much of a difficulty for this nation. Let us hope that "civil unions" become the law and "marriage" left to the individuals involved in one.

I hope you will help us gain those rights. Thanks you for your kind words.

rdg1234 wrote:

Yeah, this won't be the first time I'm saying something I privately suspect may irk others.
I find this deeply disturbing,*not* a good thing.
In other words,*AS LONG AS THAT WORD IS ABSENT*, people barely approve it.
In other words,*prejudice IS alive and well*.
In other words,*so long as the anti-gay can disseminate lies and pretend an OWNERSHIP of the word marriage*, gay people get their rights.
Know what it reminds me of? You be good little boys and girls and we'll let you sit at the "same table" -- even though it's not.
This disturbs the hell out of me. The Washington vote is *no less* about fear, hatred and control. It's simply masked differently.
Oh, and?... National Organization for Marriage is now sponsoring its own drives to recruit *millions of persons* to be deployed "wherever necessary" to defend marriage. That organization needs to be attacked on all *legal and true* bases and shown with *autistic tirelessness* to be the bunch of bigots that it is. And I do mean *tirelessly*. Just my two cents; but I'll stand by it like a rabid dog by a corpse. Thanks for reading.

If Referendum 71 should get defeated......it also just proves my point.

It isn't about the name or the benefits......it would be about keeping us down........not going to happen.

Does this mean gay legislators can now come out of the closet?

rdg1234 wrote:

Yeah, this won't be the first time I'm saying something I privately suspect may irk others.
I find this deeply disturbing,*not* a good thing.
In other words,*AS LONG AS THAT WORD IS ABSENT*, people barely approve it.
In other words,*prejudice IS alive and well*.
In other words,*so long as the anti-gay can disseminate lies and pretend an OWNERSHIP of the word marriage*, gay people get their rights.
Know what it reminds me of? You be good little boys and girls and we'll let you sit at the "same table" -- even though it's not.
This disturbs the hell out of me. The Washington vote is *no less* about fear, hatred and control. It's simply masked differently.
Oh, and?... National Organization for Marriage is now sponsoring its own drives to recruit *millions of persons* to be deployed "wherever necessary" to defend marriage. That organization needs to be attacked on all *legal and true* bases and shown with *autistic tirelessness* to be the bunch of bigots that it is. And I do mean *tirelessly*. Just my two cents; but I'll stand by it like a rabid dog by a corpse. Thanks for reading.

You simile falls flat. Rabid dogs die pretty quickly. If you can find legal means to attack the National Organization for Marriage, that is they are really doing some illegal, by all means, go for it. If they are illegal, I want it exposed. I would not knowingly choose to support or help an organization that is operating illegally. If you are just seeking to undermine them because their opinion is different from yours, then I sincerely hope you all fail.

You won't be satisfied apparently until you have co-opted and possibly even corrupted the word "marriage." I personally find that a cause worth fighting for, to defend the integrity of "marriage." Apparently, millions more people feel the same.

RnL_4EVR_MARRIED wrote:

<quoted text>
If Referendum 71 should get defeated......it also just proves my point.
It isn't about the name or the benefits......it would be about keeping us down........not going to happen.

And it isn't about gaining marriage, it is about validating who you are at everyone else's expense.

pauline 2 wrote:

Does this mean gay legislators can now come out of the closet?

I wish they would. The American people deserve to know.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I am very appreciative that you said that. Perhaps those "defense of marriage" initiatives and peoples vetos could include us in some way. I am deeply troubled that "marriage" has become a word that carries so much of a difficulty for this nation. Let us hope that "civil unions" become the law and "marriage" left to the individuals involved in one.
I hope you will help us gain those rights. Thanks you for your kind words.

I've said many times that I support you getting the rights. I personally feel that couple, gay or straight, who is joined by a justice of the peace should be said to be in a civil union. It isn't technically a "marriage." MY take on marriage is that it is God joining together two individuals. If God is left out, either by choice or because it isn't the type of union that God sanctions, then it is a civil union, not a marriage. Is there any chance that gays would fight for that and leave marriage to those of us who are joined by God? I'll jump right in and help.

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
And it isn't about gaining marriage, it is about validating who you are at everyone else's expense.

Say what you want.....I personally don't need your VALIDATION.

My wife and I have been married over 14 months now......and this is about Full Marriage Equality.

If you have it.....then so should a Gay or Lesbian couple or family.

Until that is achieved......this fight will continue.

Maine is just another STEPPING STONE.

Funny......that when Prop 8 passed a year ago......the same trolls came out.......hmmmmm.......funny.

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
I've said many times that I support you getting the rights. I personally feel that couple, gay or straight, who is joined by a justice of the peace should be said to be in a civil union. It isn't technically a "marriage." MY take on marriage is that it is God joining together two individuals. If God is left out, either by choice or because it isn't the type of union that God sanctions, then it is a civil union, not a marriage. Is there any chance that gays would fight for that and leave marriage to those of us who are joined by God? I'll jump right in and help.

So, if a Same-Sex Couple or a Opposite-Sex Couple got married by a Justice of the peace.....you would agree that both would be considered in a Civil Union, right?

Now, if the Same-Sex Couple had an Ordained Minister Marry them......would you considered them in a marriage? or still Civil Union?

See......you need to understand that there are Churches out there that will and do marry Same-Sex Couples.