The seal of the State of Washington
So Washington State Governor
Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire
Christine Gregoire wants to make our state the seventh in the national to make same-sex marriage legal. Well zippity-do-dah. As if Washington state had slipped far enough off the proverbial liberal cliff already. Now we want to put ourselves in the same category as New York, Massachusetts and the politicians and judges in California. I say the politicians and judges of California because the good people of the Golden State have had the good sense to vote FOUR TIMES to disallow Gay Marriage.
Lesbian wedding cake
I’m going to throw a bone to proponents of Gay Marriage. I don’t think there is any doubt that some who oppose Gay Marriage do so for purely hateful and discriminatory reasons. Some people hate gay people for reasons that fall pretty close to why they hate other types of people; because they’re “different”. However, I strongly believe that the most liberal wings of the Democratic party HATE all Conservatives and put just as much logic and reason into such feelings as the discriminatory gay bashers put into their thoughts.
And should any of our leaders do anything at all to placate either of these extremes? Absolutely not. Sadly, they do all the time. The expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, comes to mind.
Most people oppose legalization of gay marriage. Constant opinion polls and ballot measures have said so repeatedly in the past 10-15 years…which is the only period of time in human history in which the matter was given any consideration whatsoever.
And while I am certain to receive comments and criticisms calling me a hater and homophobe and other colorful descriptions I’m not too worried about it. Speaking of expressions, there is one I heard when I was a child referencing sticks and stones that comes to mind. Because the proponents of gay marriage are so loud and visceral I realize I’m sticking my head in the lions mouth; but hoping, perhaps foolishly, that calm reason and debate can dominate this discussion.
My opposition to gay marriage has more to do with my political philosophy in general. The more government, the more laws the less liberty and freedom. And gay marriage creates more laws and restrictions than it eliminates in addressing a discrimination that does not exist.
I credit radio talk show host
Michael Medved
Michael Medved for sharpening my point of view on this gay marriage issue. Medved has correctly and repeatedly pointed out that when it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to marry someone of the same-sex as things stand right now THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. ZERO!
Right now in most of this country a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman. No where does it say that “a GAY man cannot marry another man” or “a LESBIAN cannot marry another woman”. Meaning, a gay man can legally marry anyone that I can legally marry. I am heterosexual. I am married to a woman. Were I single I would be legally barred from marrying:
1. A minor
2. Anyone legally married to another
3. My mother, sister, or first cousin
4. Someone of the same-sex (in my case a man)
I CAN (if I weren’t already married) legally marry anyone else who doesn’t fall into those four categories. Any gay man can do the same. So I ask, where is the discrimination?
A society has a right to establish laws protecting our cumulative values. You can’t just dismiss the laws that prevent you from marrying some other people. It used to be legal for you to marry your first cousin. After divorcing my Mom’s father in 1942 my Grandmother married her first cousin. On at least one other occasion in my own family’s genealogy I found an instance of 1st cousins marrying (let the jokes begin. “That explains a lot”, etc, etc). And while I don’t recall finding instances of legalized minors marrying in my family history I do know of instances where someone as young as 16 was married. Most famously singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin; something that wasn’t terribly uncommon in the deep South as recently as the 1950s (age or 1st cousin). And of course bigamist marriages legally occurred with Mormons in this country in the 19th century, and still exist today, illegally. The point is gay people aren’t being discriminated against on this issue and there are plenty of examples of laws that DO prevent us from marrying some other people. And those laws apply to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation.
Also, as Presidential candidate
Newt Gingrich so adequately pointed out in last Saturday’s New Hampshire debate legalizing gay marriage creates, or expands, discrimination by our governments against many Christian churches. He correctly points out that the Catholic church in Massachusetts had to close down their adoption services because they wouldn’t allow adoption by same-sex couples. The Obama administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off Christian colleges and universities from any federal funding and research grants for opposing the gay agenda. The repercussions of legalizing gay marriage are enormous and go far beyond creating special rights for a small minority class of people.
Homosexuality and gay marriage are opposed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In only four other countries in the entire world is gay marriage legal. Canada is the only country in the Americas where it is legal.
And as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney
said in that same debate marriage between a man and a woman has been the ONLY standard by which humans have existed and grown for 3000 years. And we shouldn’t throw 3-thousand years of history out the window so cavalierly; especially when no discrimination exists.
Lastly in the interest of political fairness this isn’t just a GOP or Conservative issue. Democratic President Barrack Obama is on record as being opposed to gay marriage. Washington legislators or voters should say no to Gregoire’s proposal because ultimately this is not a state issue. It’s must be a Federal issue for the simple reason that we cannot have a couple, any couple, being legally married in one state and not so in another. Ultimately, baring a Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court will decide the matter.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
Related articles
- Thousands of same-sex marriages performed in Canada may not be legal: report (news.nationalpost.com)
- Canadian Premier Denies Gay Marriage Reversal After Foreign Couple’s Divorce Limbo (huffingtonpost.com)
- Feds say thousands of gay marriages done in Canada not legal: Report (theprovince.com)
- Washington Attorney General: Residents Should Vote On Gay Marriage Rights (thinkprogress.org)
- AP: Gay marriage within reach in Wash. Legislature (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Roman Catholic Silence In Washington (lezgetreal.com)
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
M Schuett blah blah blah 
Wow. How ignorant. Maybe you should just go back in time and live in the Separate But Equal time period, because they used the exact same logic to keep black people down. The state is not going to make religious organizations accept gay people – although if “God” loves everyone they should – the state is just allowing people to enter into the contract of marriage together.
And if you’re a religious person, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”
“Judge not, so that you may not be judged.”
And aside from the bible passages that go on and on telling you that you are no better and that you should leave the judgments up to him, what on earth does two men or two women marrying do to you? How does that affect you in any way? If your church is just as ignorant and filled with bigotry as you are, you will never have to suffer a gay marriage happening in your church, you will never have to see two husbands or two wives, and since I’m sure you have no gay or lesbian friends, you will never have to attend a gay wedding.
And don’t you dare say it is to maintain the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is not sacred anymore. Marriage has not been sacred for quite some time. The fact is, if you don’t want gay people to marry because it will damage the sanctity of marriage, then divorces should be illegal as well, since those damage the sanctity of marriage as well. Marriage is an attraction in Las Vegas for crying out loud! People are married for less than two months now-a-days! Celebrities have all married each other at some point by now. Why is it Kim Kardashian is allowed to have a 70 day marriage, but a pair of men or a pair of women that have been together for twenty years cannot have any marriage at all? Who are you to say that they should marry someone of the opposite sex because you do? That, my friend, is a fear of difference. What I gathered from this blog was “They cannot do anything different from me because *I* can’t marry my six year old first cousin so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry another consenting male/female.”
It’s ignorant. And it’s ridiculous.
There are plenty of things that mankind has held onto from the past. They had Holy Wars in the past, does that mean that America should start allowing its states to declare war on other states because they harbor more people of a different religion? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it? There’s a reason we aren’t banging stones together in a cave anymore. There’s a reason there aren’t “Colored” restrooms and “White” restrooms. There’s a reason why interracial couples are allowed to marry now. Remember, not so long ago in those three thousand years, a white man could not marry a black woman and a black man could not marry a white woman. And that spreads to other races as well.
There was a LAW saying that this kind of union could not happen. If someone had used the argument that you are using here, “Well, I can’t marry my six year old first cousin and I can’t marry a black man/woman, not that I’d want to anyway, so why should you be able to marry that black man/woman that you’ve been with for ten years and are in love with. Just marry a white man/woman and get over it.”
Again, sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?
Thank you for your comment, LillyRJ. As I expected you are the first of what I expect to be many other name-calling comments. Sad that your best argument is to claim that I’m ignorant. Silly too.
Plainly you are not aware of the fact that interracial marriage was not uncommon throughout the world and throughout history. Removing clearly discriminatory laws that were limited to relatively small geographic areas and a relatively short period in human history does not equate to the standard prohibition by law and by societal attitude throughout the world and throughout history.
With regard to the biblical dictum by Jesus of “Do not judge, or you too will be judge”; it is you who is judging. Not I. I fully admit my views may be wrong in the eyes of God. And if they are I will ask forgiveness. But at this point in time I don’t believe I am wrong or that the plurality of people in the world are wrong on this subject.
I never referenced the “Sanctity of marriage”. You did. I merely pointed out, without challenge from you or anyone else, that no discrimination exists in our current laws, and that creating new laws allowing that which has never been accepted by human kind creates more laws and more discrimination than currently exists thus reducing our liberties.
And prohibiting same-sex marriage does not limit any two people from entering into legally binding contracts, similar to marriage, protecting their rights, possessions, or inheritance. So again I ask, where is the discrimination?
I very much appreciate your visit and comments, though you can keep your personal insults to yourself, please. Thank you.
And clearly you are not aware of the fact that homosexuality was common in human history before the surfacing of the Catholic religion. Wicca (a religion that largely predates Catholicism) was openly welcome to loving whomever the soul so chose. That included same sex couples. However, when Catholicism came along and changed their holidays to entice the Wiccans to conform (well… or die believing what they were raised to believe) homosexuality was then considered a dirty thing because it was not “God’s design for man”
The discrimination lies in the fact that you do not want to marry a man. (At least, I’m going to jump out on a limb here and assume that is truth.) Entering a contract similar to marriage is akin to entering a colored bathroom that is similar to a white person’s bathroom. Sure, they might be pretty similar, but the fact of the matter is the two are NOT equal.
The discrimination lies in the fact that you – a straight male – can enter the contract of MARRIAGE with a straight woman. You can also enter the contracts of civic unions and domestic partnerships – though with the option of marriage, why would you choose those? However a gay male can only enter the contracts of civic unions and domestic partnerships with his significant other – leaving him barred from ever having a legal marriage. THAT is where the discrimination lies.
Mike –
You are really steered wrong on this. Suggesting that a law that prohibits the discrimination of an American citizen is akin to creating bigger government as it “creates more laws and restrictions than it eliminates in addressing a discrimination that does not exist.” WTF? This is obnoxious. And, clearly puts a spin on an otherwise clear example of discrimination.
And, if Medved has sharpened your argument, you should be careful not to bludgeon yourself on your point. The idea of equating same-sex marraiges to pedophilia, bigamy and incest is simply asinine.
Furthermore, this post totally undermines your attempt to engage in a meaningful dialogue about this issue. I hope you honestly take time to at least reconsider the framework of your garbled argument.
Sorry Leon. This is not complicated at all. Very simple…no discrimination exists except in the minds of those who are Gay. You can’t start creating laws for every sub-culture that exists in our society. And the equal protection laws speak well to this subject. As long as any man can marry any woman I am legally entitled to marry and is legally barred from marrying all the individuals or types of individuals I’m legally barred from marrying how on earth can you claim discrimination? And its ludicrous to suggest otherwise. A Gay man is a MAN first and foremost. He is not a different species. Same thing with lesbians. They are women first. Treat everyone equally and with respect. That’s how we’ll get along in this world. And some people will just have to grow up and be big adult people and realize they don’t always get everything they want. But as long as you’re treated fairly that’s enough, or should be.
BTW- the timing of this post leaves me to wonder if you were leaving your other disagreeing and challenging statements on FB w/o having read the blog. Shame! Shame!