Is the Silence of Same Sex Marriage Proponents a Sign of their Approval of Bigotry?

by lewwaters

First we saw SB 5688, “Expanding the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners” passed and the subsequent brouhaha over R-71 to place it on the ballot for voter approval, finally being passed with supporters claims of it was not an incremental step towards same-sex marriage, even though the author, state senator Ed Murray said it was.

Then, during a lame-duck session as Democrats were losing their stranglehold on the House, a repeal of the Military Policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was passed, ending prohibitions on gays serving in the Military openly.

And now, we have Barack Obama deciding that the Justice Department will no longer defend challenges against the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, during challenges in federal court. Editorials around the state wasted no time praising the decision since 2 bills are currently introduced in Olympia that will throw the doors open toward same-sex marriage.

Even Senator Patty Murray has come out praising Obama for such a bold step and adding her withdrawal of support of the law she once voted for in 1996. Murray now says, “I support and I applaud the President’s decision because it is time to end this 14-year policy,” and “No American and no American family is treated as a second class citizen . . .” alluding to same-sex unions, but carefully avoiding the use of the word “marriage.”

She’s dead wrong. Not on allowing gays to embrace each other in civil unions, but that no American and no American family is treated as second class, as I showed in my earlier post, The Time Has Come To End ALL Discrimination in Marriage, Americans and American families will continue to be openly discriminated against, being denied that same embrace of civil matrimony being sought by gays and approved of by Obama and Murray.

I sent my concerns over this blatant continuance of discrimination against consenting people to Representatives Jim Jacks, and Jim Moeller. Additionally I sent it to state senator Ed Murray and Craig Pridemore. Seeking support in ending all discrimination in marriage it was also copied to Governor Chris Gregoire and Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

While I can understand the two Senators being busy, I sent this out over a week ago and so far, not one of the state senators, representatives or governor has replied. Is this because they think I am not serious? Or, that only selected people should continue to be allowed to marry?

I am disturbed that the 2 bills pending in Olympia list continuing discrimination against responsible and loving adults and it must not be allowed to stand.

White House press secretary Jay Carney says that Obama’s position on DOMA has been consistent, “He has long opposed it as unnecessary and unfair.” Is it now necessary and fair that other loving people will remain denied their right to express their love in civil marriage?

Is the gay community selfishly seeking acceptance through marriage solely for themselves, while denying that same right to two brothers, should they be gay and want to marry? Surely they cannot be so bigoted, can they?

Are brothers and sisters so close that they decide they would like to marry and elevate their love and family to a new level to continue to be discriminated against? I know there is that old fashioned worry about recessive genetics should siblings reproduce, but there is no prohibition on marriage between others who may be predisposed to pass disease and disorders down on their offspring and no one proposes such restrictions be placed on them.

So why continue to deny the right to civil marriage to so many other loving people?

I will continue to wait on a reply from my elected officials and hope they rewrite their bills to include all people that attained the age of consent to marry. I hope too that Senators Murray or Cantwell follow suit and introduce similar measures in the US Senate and repeal these draconian prohibitions across the board.

We have been told that there is no logical legitimate reason to retain DOMA and the time has come to end one man to one woman.

There is also no reason once that definition is gone that any and all who have reached the age of consent should remain discriminated against and denied their civil rights as well. If there is no legitimate or logical reason to keep DOMA and define marriage as one man, one woman, then the door must be swung open to any and all consenting to and desiring civil marriage.

Representatives Moeller, Jacks, Senators Murray and Pridemore, tear down these draconian discriminations. Stop the bigotry!

Surely, all of you Democrats who always preach equality and fair play don’t approve of continuing this bigotry, do you?

11 Comments to “Is the Silence of Same Sex Marriage Proponents a Sign of their Approval of Bigotry?”

  1. I see some valid arguments and points you are making. That if you are going to aim a law directory at someone but even exclude one minority, how is it fair?

    They have been crowing for two or three decades on various platforms about unfairness of various things and you are issuing a call for the kettle is black? That they are writing a civil union law and maybe a separate marriage law with what they concern themselves should new societal norms but remove any of their acts of congruence or idea and further discriminate against other people’s choices?

    Isn’t there a STATE law and Federal law against discrimination? Why do I feel like I have to go to constitutions (state & federal) to find out that the gays cannot discriminate even in THIS form?

    Like

  2. Lew, you’ve been polite enough to explain your (non-religious) opposition to “gays in the military” but that doesn’t really apply in this case – what is your (non-religious) argument against “gay marriage”?

    Like

  3. Jeremy, so far I find RCW 49.60.400 Discrimination, preferential treatment prohibited and also RCW 49.60.030 Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights, the latter of which states, “The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”

    Additionally, Westlaw has a 19 page pdf article put together on behalf of transgender folks.

    Discrimination is banned by law and now we have both the president and our senior senator stating that a federal law defining marriage as “one man to one woman” is “unnecessary and unfair.”

    As I see it, since there is no longer any valid or logical reason to retain the definition of “one man to one woman,” to be fair and equal to all, all discrimination against consensual civil marriage must be removed and allowed.

    Both of the bills currently before the legislature in Olympia, Moeller’s and Murray’s, retain discrimination in them, as said in my first post on this last week.

    I have sent all of my representatives, including state senator Murray and our two US Senators an email pointing this out, but have seen no reply nor any adjustments to their bills to remove all discrimination.

    I also asked for it to go before a public vote, but I doubt that would happen.

    Martin, Military Service is an entirely different issue. For most that never served, it is difficult to understand how completely different it is from a regular job.

    As for same sex marriage, there has been centuries of religious teaching, historical practice, and cultural tradition that either frowned upon or banned it and that has now been declared “unnecessary and unfair” by those much smarter than I am.

    During the days of the R-71 battle I pointed out several secular reasons against same-sex marriage that were soundly ridiculed, poo pooed and scoffed at.

    I no longer defend my stand from 2 years ago and now only ask that all marriage be given the same consideration as is being given to same-sex.

    As I have said, since there is no longer any valid reason to retain “one man to one woman” as the definition of marriage and it is fair and proper to allow marriage between people of the same sex, why can’t that same sex be brothers, if consensual?

    Why can’t an adult child marry an aging parent to gain legal spousal rights to care for them without the hassle of courts, wills, powers of attorney an other such hoops one must jump through?

    Why not allow bother and sister to marry, if they so choose? It would affect no one else’s marriage or interfere with their family, it would just be adults in love.

    Personally, I am really shocked to see that every single one of our elected representatives hold such bigoted views. I would never have thought it of them.

    I thought they would jump at the chance to show true fairness and tear down all discrimination in civil marriage as both Jim Moeller and Ed Murray have said they fight for all this time.

    Like

  4. Martin,
    I can give you one. The State has no interest in a “gay marriage”. It cannot produce biological children. The reason that the State begun licensing marriage is because of the state interest in children.
    That being said, I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all. A civil union is all that the civil authorities should be able to offer. Marriage should be left to the religious institutions. The only reason they want “gay marriage” is to legitimize their relationship. They want the same respect that everyone else has. Unfortunately for them they aren’t going to get it. There are so many issues in just the name the couple takes or doesn’t take. They are looking for the government to provide them something which the government can’t deliver. We have huge deficits and this is what our reps are worried about?

    Like

  5. Peter, I see your point, but the fact is that the state has taken it upon themselves to seize interests in marriage and now work diligently towards making it fair and just, but not across the board.

    I also agree the state should not be involved in marriage, but the fact is they are, by their own decree.

    If they intend to retain their power over marriage and intend to do away with long held traditions and legalities, they must change it for all, not just a few.

    The manner that both Jim Moeller and Ed Murray have written their bills is discriminatory.

    Like

  6. From a legal pov, “gay marriage” strengthens the concept of marriage. Married couples have special inheritance, medical, retirement, and childcare benefits and responsibilities. The law considers the person closest to the situation, having a vested interest in the wellbeing of the other person, is the one to be making those decisions, which overcomes any societal predilections.

    I’m not being disrespectful with I say that what is important to your concept of marriage is not necessarily mine. In a question of liberty, we are all allowed to believe what we want as long as it does not affect another person’s liberty. Gay marriage may make you uncomfortable but that is not reason enough to dictate the personal lives of others.

    Using another word, “Civil Unions,” that means exactly the same thing is an awkward substitute – torturing the language verges on dishonesty and cowardness.

    As for intra-familial marriages, though I know your argument for it is specious and sarcastic, it is valid – one which I agree with. There is no reason to restrict marriage among humans (from a secular/legal pov).

    Like

  7. Martin, it is only your point of view that my position is “specious and sarcastic,” but the claim that it is also would allow discrimination to continue in civil marriage.

    You claim “gay marriage” strengthens the concept of marriage from a legal point of view.

    Okay, I accept that.

    So can you tell me why ending all forms of discrimination between consenting adults wouldn’t also “strengthen the concept of marriage?”

    How does allowing same-sex marriage rights, but continue denying them to other consenting adults do anything but discriminate?

    As I said, I have abandoned my previous thoughts against same-sex marriage seeing that it is inevitable and now only desire to see it applied equally to all.

    I am totally serious with this. If the long held traditions are to be taken down, as they are being, then they must be taken down for all.

    Anything less is just plain bigoted and I am truly amazed that long time supporters of same-sex marriage seem so opposed to fairness and equality for all.

    Like

  8. Lew, I said I AGREED with your argument.

    Like

  9. Yes Martin, but you also state that I am being specious and sarcastic.

    I am not ridiculing the effort to legalize same-sex marriage, but pointing out that if we are to do away with the old tradtions on marriage, they must be done away with across the board, to keep things fair and equal.

    All of the arguments and reasons to do away with “One Man One Woman” equally apply to all other forms of consenual relationships.

    My post is trying to point out thst thoe who are advocating doing away with “One Man One Woman” do not appear ready to apply their efforts equally, as it should be.

    Like

  10. Lew, I still AGREE with you.

    As a society, we are using democracy to determine what “marriage” is – meaning we are treating it as a subjective issue rather than a scientific or legal one. I hear your argument and I agree that all humans should be allowed to marry – while you’re thinking that since we’re making distinctions, let’s stick with tradition. Interestingly, your argument works for both of us.

    Like

  11. Martin, I hope then that you will join me in contacting our elected people in Olympia and encourage them to amend or rewrite their bills.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: