Comments on: Washington House passes same-sex marriage

By: I'm Just Sayin'

I'm Just Sayin' — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:05:11 +0000

The crux of the argument regarding marriage equality is going to come down to a simple concept which is “enrichment.” If you want to exclude individuals from participating in an institution, then you can’t enhance the lot of those that you allow in if participation is the only access to those benefits.

So, if you want to keep marriage between one man and one woman? Then simply eliminate any benefits that are bestowed because of it. Ironic, but DOMA actually makes marriage more vulnerable to same sex participation as we will soon see.

I think we can all guess how quickly the marriage barrier will fall if the only way to keep it “sacred” is to give up all the state and federal tax breaks, rights of survivorship, social security enhancements, etc. that the government has bestowed on it. It’s a modern day dowry. Funny how the grace of God alone isn’t enough incentive.

By: Merely Tim

Merely Tim — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:02:04 +0000

Laurelboy,
Your comment on “opening the door” reminds me of my own German great-grandparents’ intense concern over opening the door to southern European immigration. They were appalled over the garlic-eating immigrants flooding America! If they had their way, there would be none of the wonderful Italian dishes in America today.

By: Merely Tim

Merely Tim — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:52:24 +0000

Laurelboy,
You must be a lawyer. A new institution (civil union) will require duplication of 200 years of legal precident to resolve its many issues. You can multiply the legal issues by 50 for all the States, plus the District of Columbia, plus the Federal Government as well (which grants the 1,000+ financial benefits of marriage). AND this new institution will still be, and has already been, challenged by those who believe “civil unions” would hurt their own precarious “marriage.”

By: laurelboy2

laurelboy2 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:38:16 +0000

@Todd Sanders: I’ll comment on your question to Susie Lee. It affects me and you in multiple ways. Among other negative consequences, it opens the door to legalizing polygamy and any other form of union, many of which would make me, and I suspect you, barf. With regard to polygamy, there’s already a legal challenge raised in Utah and the floodgates are opening…

By: laurelboy2

laurelboy2 — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:32:45 +0000

@Susie Lee: I agree with you. As a gay man, I think civil unions are perfect. With regards to Washington, there will be a state-wide referendum and the right to marry will be overturned.

By: Todd Sanders

Todd Sanders — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:11:36 +0000

Susie, its 2012 get over it already. Are you married to a man? Kids? Family? How does a marriage between two people from the same sex have an effect on your life? Please answer that.

By: RJofDC

RJofDC — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:46:26 +0000

Worry about your own marriage Susie Lee.

By: Emma

Emma — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:15:52 +0000

I am a New Yorker, but most of my relatives are Washingtonians, and I am so very pleased to have both of my beloved states within the fold of equality. Thank you, Washington!

By: Merely Tim

Merely Tim — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:38:38 +0000

“Sacred unions” only occur in a house of worhship, not in City Hall.

By: Susie Lee

Susie Lee — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:14:27 +0000

‘Marriage’ is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It will never be anything else. Don’t destroy what God has created, by applying it to anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman. Find your own word, to describe your union with a same sex partner.