Washington Puts a Ring on it
February 10, 2012 
14 Comments
The Washington State House of Representatives like’s marriage equality so it put a ring on it. As I’m sure you know, marriage
- The Washington House during the debates
equality passed in the House 55-43 and Christine Gregoire will sign the bill on Monday at 11:30AM.
From that point on, opponents funded by out-of-state groups will have until June 7th to collect 120,577 signatures to put the bill up for referendum. If they are successful in collecting that many signatures, the referendum will go to vote in November. While I would be so proud to fill in the bubble for marriage equality, I hope it doesn’t come to that.
In other news, Representative Matt Shea (R-4) from the Spokane Valley is clearly a professional in impacting the sterotype that people from Eastern Washington are old fashioned idiots. He really proved himself by freaking the eff out about the florists not having enough religious freedom to not deny gay couples flowers for their wedding. First, businesses would be stupid to not capitalize on the wedding boom. Second, Shea went on to say, “Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony,”. He’s a personal injury lawyer.
Thanks to Washington for your support of equal rights for everyone. And Matt Shea, stay home next time. You’re making us all look bad.
About the Author
Sooooo happy and proud of Gregoire. Yessss. Now, to go about showing the world that we’re not all assholes over here in eastern WA. Love is never wrong.
Bess:
How sad you must be constantly showing people what a ‘good person’ you are by applauding the progressive agenda. This is no way to live deary….
This marriage legislation was Gregoire’s Washington State political swan song. She is gunning for a national appointment assuming Obama wins in November, 2012…and we just paid the freight.
Meanwhile the great unwashed citizens of Washington State will now have to deal with the fallout of her efforts. Expect other groups to come forward and ask for their version of marriage to be legally blessed by the state as well. The polygamist will most likely be first in line.
Gregoire did us no favors and drove our economy into the crapper on her watch. Good riddance to her and may the evil she inflicted be deeply manifested into her own life….
If this makes me an ‘Eastern Washington asshole’ in your eyes Bess, then so be it. At least my thoughts are based in reality and not dictated to me by how I perceive others might think of me.
Part of being an adult is being honest and objective when it is NOT popular….
Yep, there’s an eastern Washington asshole right there. I suppose your next argument would be something about people marrying toasters or animals, right?
Not sure what fallout the “great unwashed citizens” would have to deal with, unless it’s all that lurrrve in the air. We need more love in the air, not less, sweetie.
How unfortunate you lack the maturity or intellectual acuity to retort in a civil manner, Bess. If you would have bothered to soberly evaluate my previous comment more closely you would have realized I did suggest polygamist as the most likely group to strive to change the marriage laws in the future….not toasters.
Since obviously you are not well read and probably don’t pay significant taxes, the great unwashed statement was in reference to the common working citizens who are burdened with paying the bills the State accumulates.
Our oversized state government does not function on “Love in the air” but tax dollars, deary…
Great headline!!!
Personally, if everyone in a polygamous relationship is happy and healthy, I have no problem with it, Fool. Because the more well-read and educated you are, the more you realize that not everyone is just like you, and that those experiences are equally valid. Gay marriage will not cause anything except for gay folks getting hitched, sweetheart.
Bess:
Your thinking is self-centric, myopic and lacks the foresight that comes with maturity …a common trait of ignorant, arrogant youth.
Most learned folks realize laws are on the books are forever. Money drives most legal actions. If the polygamist group marriages are legalized, the next step is to cry equality in insurance. This means a State worker could be married to 4 wives with 20 kids and ALL would be covered by the State of Washington insurance.
Bess, I’m sure if you are honest with yourself, even you should realize the danger and high probability of abuse and fraud.
Enjoy your feelings of smug self satisfaction; in about ten years you will realize the errors of your ways and the awful legislation Washington State just ingested…
Dear Don’t,
I’m neither ignorant nor arrogant, and based on the mirror I’m guessing I’m not as young as I used to be either. Thus I don’t need to use name-calling as one of my rhetorical devices.
I will, however, point out that the rhetorical device you are using is called the “slippery slope” argument. This is a time-”honored” logical fallacy that does not acknowledge the possibility that a middle ground exists in which your worst-case scenario does not, in fact, occur.
There is no inevitability here. Since the legislative process is weighted against change rather than in favor of change, with every change in the law requiring many, many steps before it takes effect, there is no short, straight, quick path such as you describe.
Jumping from providing equal contractual rights for two adults regardless of gender to an increased cost to the state for insurance covering the children and wives of polygamists is quite a leap. I doubt it’s one the legislature plans to make, and it is not a valid reason to oppose the single step they have just made.
Oh Barb, how good it is to hear from you again. My previous comment on this thread was a retort to a rather childish imp who quickly resorted to using pejorative barbs…sorry I could not resist…instead of offering a valid counterargument….kids these days….”Bess” was quickly out manned and out gun in a rather elementary debate…
I find it refreshing you’re stepping in to help out….good for you….
Any self-respecting believer in elective zygote or fetus termination completely understands the argument technique of slippery slope. The abortionists have been using this maneuver for years to support their shaky and rather selfish position against the unborn.
This is not the method I’m employing however; although I see why you might draw that conclusion…we all tend to stay with the familiar… I was suggesting metaphorically that pulling on this age old thread of marriage will affect the tapestry of our laws and culture negatively…and for what gain?
Remember R-71 in 2009? What was that all about? At the time it was not about gay marriage…but in truth it really was….not an honest bunch are they???
Incremental progress is apparently alive and well…
Unforeseen consequences of the laws passed by legislators are sometimes the bane of citizens…the contract arbitration laws come to mind of late…..
One must wonder two things”
A) What is next on the agenda of the less than honest pro-WA gay marriage leadership?
B) What other groups will use the paths forged by the above mentioned to mainstream their perversion of marriage under the banner of equal rights for all?
As someone who aspired to elected office I’m sure you are aware of the long term consequences of laws. My questions might not be answered in this decade…the haste and arm twisting that went on to generate the WA gay marriage legislation in a big election year however are legitimate concerns…
If you still consider this the same lame “slippery slope argument” technique, then perhaps it is best you did not win the seats you sought…
Best of luck….
Fool: Sweetheart, you’re out-womaned here. Once you’ve been around a few more years you’ll realize that you’re completely off-base. Ask yourself two questions:
1. Why is it my business if gay folks get married?
2. Again, why is it my business if gay folks get married?
There’s no good answer here that doesn’t make you sound like an ignoramus, pumpkin.
Bess wrote:
“Fool: Sweetheart, you’re out-womaned here”,
Your startling lack of reasonable, logical argument and bravado indicates otherwise….
The truth and it is a truth you already know as indicated by your childish. churlish, response, my previous points are actually valid concerns you don’t have the means or apparent mental capacity to address.
This is why you debase yourself by writing such tripe as:
Once you’ve been around a few more years”, and “There’s no good answer here that doesn’t make you sound like an ignoramus, pumpkin.”
By your own words, you are more concerned with what people think of you instead of seeking the truth.
The truth however is what our fellow citizens deserve…well at least my fellow citizens since you exfiltrated to the great state of Montana.
Laws are forever; good laws are a blessing we bestow to future generations; bad laws are likewise a curse. The institution of marriage has been around unchanged for forever.
Instead of solving our massive budget problems in this state, our LAMEduck governor chose instead to hastily strong arm this awful legislation through the legislature for her own personal political benefit.
The citizens of the state of Washington will now pay the price.
You are fortune to move to a state where the governor is less concerned about a future national political career than the people he was elected to serve.
Best of luck in your new MT life…
Don’t,
You actually say, “The institution of marriage has been around unchanged for forever”? “Laws are forever”?
Except for the repeal of laws against miscegenation, which were only found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as recently as 1967.
Except for changes in the law concerning a woman’s right to own property and have some say in the custody of her children.
Except for many a state with common-law marriage.
Except for polygamy–your favorite–being a common marriage practice in other countries and cultures.
And except for your “forever” not being that long, really, in the anthropological sense of the word. Humans have lived, breathed, reproduced, and loved each other for thousands of years more than the institution has existed as defined by either church or state.
And isn’t it wonderful that the last name of the plaintiffs in the 1967 Supreme Court case were named Loving? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Pettifogging is unbecoming of a lady, Barb….pickup the pieces and go home….