For all of the cries of “equal rights for all” and “end discrimination” coming out of the Democrat controlled legislature in Washington State, I am surprised, shocked even to realize we actually have a legislature filled with bigots when it comes to civil marriage.
Jim Moeller, Jim Jacks, Tim Probst, Ed Murray, Craig Pridemore, nearly every single Democrat in Olympia falls in that category as they sign on to bills to legitimize same-sex marriage, yet continue to deny civil marriage, or even domestic partnership to other consensual relationships.
The problem is, they do not “end discrimination” in marriage in Washington as both bills contain language still restricting marriage rights in consensual relationships that do not fit into the narrow definitions of traditional marriage or the new definition proposed by Moeller and Murray.
It has long been held that marriage should be between “one man and one woman” and we now see that is old fashioned, out of date and discriminatory. If there are no valid or logical reasons to retain the traditional description, why should it only be made available to a few and not all?
Why is it that same-sex marriage proponents remain so ardently opposed to ending discrimination towards all consenting adults? They have been crying out the loudest for the longest time and now, they wish to open the door for only a few, slamming it shut on other consensual relations that also would have no detrimental effect on others marriages?
Naturally, if there were any legitimate, valid or logical reasons for retaining the “one man to one woman” traditional marriage, it should be left as is. But, same-sex marriage proponents have successfully broken down and neutralized every single reason presented over the years, indicating the time has come to make real changes.
Or so it appeared.
We now see yet another bigoted bill masquerading as “equality” from Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma that just passed in the House. HB 1649 says Ms. Jinkins “is about fairness for all families.”
But, it isn’t. While moving to recognize same-sex marriage performed in another state, it does nothing to recognize Polygamous, sibling or even incestuous marriage between consenting adults, should any state or even territory or foreign country perform such a marriage.
Some European Countries have legalized and performed some of these marriages. Would the Jinkins bill recognize such marriages in Washington State? As some American states become more enlightened to the degree our European Partners have, would the bill have to be rewritten to recognize those relationships? Or, would the bigotry against those relationships continue?
As bills strive to be more “gender neutral,” why do old fashioned bigoted ideals remain in regards to relationships that do not fit the narrow view of traditional or same-sex proponents?
Democrats have long claimed to be leading the way in ending discrimination and implementing civil rights to all. How can that be when it is they who continue to write bigotry into bills regarding civil marriage or even legally recognized domestic partnerships?
Over the years I have had my disagreements with Jim Moeller politically, but have come to respect that he stands up for what he believes. I even stood next to him against the Westboro Klan when they invaded our community.
But, the idea that he would harbor such bigotry towards others, by ignoring calls to rewrite his bill or amend it to grant free and full civil rights to all never entered my mind.
And, the rest of our elected representatives from the community? Jim Jacks, Craig Pridemore, Tim Probst, even Governor Gregoire and Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, why do they not step up and work to end this unfair practice for all consensual relationships, once and for all?
How can they claim to be for fairness and equality for all when they harbor such deep seated bigotry in their hearts still?
I wait to hear from any single one of the above any logical or legitimate reason civil marriage should not be available to any and all consensual adult relationships.
If there are none, then it can only be their own bigotry that retains those restrictions.