Senate Approves Homosexual Marriage With The Help of 4 Republicans

by lewwaters

As Washington State flounders in this ongoing “Great Recession,” with a $1.5 Billion budget gap, failing schools, court decisions demanding more school funding, double digit unemployment in several counties for 3 straight years, all has been put on the back burner as the top priority for the Washington State Legislature is to approve Homosexual Marriage in our state.

Last evening, February 1, 2012 the senate held a brief debate and voted to approve homosexual marriages after Democrats defeated amendments that would place the notion before the voters of the state and protections claimed to be in the bill for clergy and religions being extended to private citizens who may decline assisting in or participating in homosexual marriage ceremonies if they felt it violated their religious convictions.

For example, if you are a baker or photographer and decline to bake a wedding cake or take the photos for a homosexual marriage ceremony, feeling that your assistance or participation may violate your deeply held religious views, you may be held liable in a lawsuit for violating their civil rights.

That same protection is also denied judges, justices of the peace and others authorized to perform secular marriage ceremonies if they feel such participation may violate their deeply held religious views.

I also find claims of an $88 Million boost to the state’s economy by approving homosexual marriage specious at best.

Voicing opposition to an amendment proposed by Democrat Senator Brian Hatfield (19th district) that would have placed the final word on this before voters in the state, Democrat Lisa Brown of the 3rd district, relying on the announcement of her lesbian sister stated that such matters should not be left “to the whims of a majority.”

Openly homosexual Democrat Senator Ed Brown (43rd district) said, “The idea of a representative democracy is simply whether it is that small group (homosexuals) or whether it is small states, the majority, the whim of the majority as James Madison talked about in the Federalist Papers should not be decided in that fashion. That one half of one percent is the reason we exist.”

In 2009, passing the “Everything but Marriage” enhancement to Domestic Partnerships, Murray was quoted cautioning that “just because an almost-marriage law for same-sex couples will soon be on the books, that doesn’t mean the state will embrace same-sex marriage. California’s experience should be a lesson to us, not to move before we’re ready,” he said.

A refresher on the actions of homosexuals after voters turned down homosexual marriage in California can be seen here, here and here.

The final vote to approve was 28 to 21 in favor. Abandoning their party platform, four Republicans, Sens. Steve Litzow, Cheryl Pflug, Andy Hill, and Joe Fain elected to join the majority party to approve.

Democrats Tim Shelton, Jim Hargrove and Paull Shin came to the side of the minority party to vote against corrupting marriage in Washington State.

After the vote, addressing the legislatures lack of interest so far in working on real problems in the state, Republican Senator Jim Honeyford (15th district) said, “Now that this distracting and divisive piece of legislation has moved through the Senate I hope we can focus on the real problems facing Washington, especially the big gap in the state budget. I have been greatly dismayed by the lack of progress the Legislature has made so far this session toward dealing with the budget and other real problems the people elected us to address.”

Joining him was Republican Val Stevens (39th district) saying, “It is unconscionable that the Legislature has been disrupted the past four weeks focused almost completely on this issue. We should have spent that time working to address our state’s nearly $2 billion deficit.”

Senator Mike Hewitt (16th district) joined the chorus with, “This issue has consumed the Legislature’s time and attention for four weeks. We’re almost halfway through the 2012 session and the Senate has yet to hold any substantive hearings on specific reforms or a proposed budget. It’s time to get on track and focus on what citizens sent us here to do this year – enact much-needed reforms and balance our budget.”

Addressing the defeat of amendments that would protect private citizens from allegations of discrimination by adhering to their deeply held religious views, Senator Janéa Holmquist Newbry (13th district) said, “I am worried about the religious liberties and free conscience of those who support traditional marriage. Individuals in domestic partnerships represent two-tenths of one percent of the state’s population, yet the Senate tonight ignored the remaining 99 percent of us. What we witnessed tonight is not the bestowal of civil rights, but the exercise of political power.”

Joining her with a similar concern, Senator Dan Swecker (20th district) added, “I am worried about the religious liberties and free conscience of those who support traditional marriage,” said Holmquist Newbry. “Individuals in domestic partnerships represent two-tenths of one percent of the state’s population, yet the Senate tonight ignored the remaining 99 percent of us. What we witnessed tonight is not the bestowal of civil rights, but the exercise of political power.”

In regards to the Democrats successfully blocking an amendment to place this issue before voters, Sen. Mike Padden (4th district) said, “Unfortunately the majority party rejected other important attempts to protect the rights of Washingtonians, as well as an amendment to attach a referendum clause to the measure and put it before voters on the fall ballot. The people of the 4th Legislative District, and all of Washington, deserve the last word on a subject of this magnitude.”

Adding her voice, Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (12th district) said, “Over the past several weeks I have heard from hundreds of people who have strong feelings on both sides of the issue. I think the Legislature should give them, and all the other citizens of Washington, the opportunity to personally weigh in.”

The bill is now before the House where I have no doubt that the Democrats will continue to ignore pressing issues to focus on passing this notion of sham marriage off on citizens in the State. I also believe that it will easily pass with the assistance of more turncoat Republicans as Rep. Glenn Anderson (5th district) and Rep. Maureen Walsh (16th district), who co-sponsored the house bill, have already signed on to it.

It will be signed by governor Gregoire right away instead of pushing for real problems facing Washington Citizens be addressed during this short legislative session.

There are already citizen initiatives being written and filed to allow voters in the state a say in this matter.

We can expect intimidation of those most likely to sign the petitions as, thanks to current Republican candidate for governor Rob McKenna, all of the names, signatures and addresses of any who signed the referendum petition on the ‘Everything but Marriage” bill were handed over to some 30 homosexual activist groups to be placed on internet websites with search engines.

Homosexual activists have already vowed to have “aggressive conversations” with those they feel most likely to sign petitions.

Republican candidate for replacing McKenna as Attorney General, Reagan Dunn has also announced his support for homosexual marriage. Of that announcement, Kirby Wilbur, chairman of the Washington State Republican Party said, “Dunn’s stance has sparked an emotional reaction from many. Dunn has 10 months to convince Republicans he’s on their side on most other issues. Reagan is an experienced politician. Can he handle it? We’ll see. I think he can.”

I believe conservative voters in the state, feeling abandoned by the Republican Party will best decide that.

Conservatives have choices in Shahram Hadian for governor and conservative Everett attorney Stephen Pidgeon who has announced his campaign for Attorney General.

Mr. Hadian will be visiting Vancouver again Friday night, February 3 at 6:30pm at Cascade Middle School. If you are feeling disenfranchised by the spineless actions of the WSRP and some candidates, you are invited to attend to learn more about Shahram Hadian.

94 Responses to “Senate Approves Homosexual Marriage With The Help of 4 Republicans”

  1. Human rights cross political boundaries. Doing the right thing has no political affiliation. Brave people behaving courageously in the face of political fallout.

    In 1959, only 29% of those polled were in favour of the Civil Rights Act. Should our legislators not have passed that?

    Doing the right thing, in the face of politically adversity, turns a politician into a hero.

    These four, and others like them, are heroes.

    We could use more like them.

    Like

  2. “For example, if you are a baker or photographer and decline to bake a wedding cake or take the photos for a homosexual marriage ceremony, feeling that your assistance or participation may violate your deeply held religious views, you may be held liable in a lawsuit for violating their civil rights.

    That same protection is also denied judges, justices of the peace and others authorized to perform secular marriage ceremonies if they feel such participation may violate their deeply held religious views.”

    As it should be, Lew. It is against the law for any business to discriminate in this manner already. You may not discriminate based on religious affiliations in any business. Do you really want to go back to seeing signs in windows that read “No Jews”?

    Really?

    Religious organizations behaving as a relgious organization and not as a business are protected, as they should be. However, if they think it is okay to behave as a business and not have to behave in a lawful fashion, they are sadly mistaken.

    Gay marriage is moving forward and will soon be legal. Your arguments, and those like yours, are falling on deaf ears, and the support for gay marriage is growing constantly, as people begin to fully understand that all people are entitled to the same stature under the law.

    Like

  3. Human rights again, Greg?

    The same human rights you would deny Polygamists, first cousins and siblings if they so choose?

    As we have seen, any who buy into your perversions is a hero in your eyes.

    Your comparison to Blacks gaining civil rights is a false equation as the civil rights act was not limited to Blacks only, it covered everybody.

    This excludes many.

    Like

  4. Greg, even a dullard can see the loopholes.

    I guess that “Free Exercise thereof” in the first amendment doesn’t mean anything?

    But, it’s typical of liberals to legislate what people may think and force them to act contrary to their religious views.

    Liberals and communists both.

    As for “moving forward,” do you forget the referendums already filed opposing this?

    Will you join in with burning down churches or firebombing people’s homes if it is overturned by the “will of the people?”

    Like

  5. As for “moving forward,” do you forget the referendums already filed opposing this?

    Nope. The legislators have behaved courageously, and I have faith in the people of the State of Washington to do the right thing also, in the face a of a vote that should never need to occur.

    ‘Will you join in with burning down churches or firebombing people’s homes if it is overturned by the “will of the people?”’

    Will you join in on the bullying and beating of homosexuals WHEN the referendum doesn’t pass?

    Stupid questions get stupid questions in return, Lew.

    Like

  6. Poor Greg, I hope you don’t cry too much in November.

    Oh, how many millions do your think homosexual activists will spend to engage in their “aggressive conversations” to intimidate voters not to sign the petitions?

    The point was not “stupid” if you had read the links covering the violence and riots by homosexuals in California when Prop 8 was approved.

    However, your assertions of bullying and beating queers is as they are still in a “protected class” status others are denied.

    So much for EQUALITY again, right?

    Like

  7. Saying something is a “human right” never makes it so.

    Using the “reasoning” that “human rights” (even when, as in this case, they’re non-existent) shouldn’t be subject to a vote sets a bad precedent when those so-inclined can declare ANYTHING to be a “human right.”

    What if they referred to cable TV as a “human right?” Or cell phones? (They must be, since so many welfare recipients have the damned things.)

    Gays had/have PRECISELY the SAME “human right” as I do: to marry whoever they want as long as they are of age, mentally sound enough to make decisions, not already married and a different gender. Thus, there is neither a discrimination claim nor a “human right” issue.

    Simple, really.

    Like

  8. And blacks had the same rights as every white person in the 50’s, too, Kelly, to marry someone of their own race, right? What were they thinking, getting all uppity and wanting to marry white people?

    Logic has never been your best attribute, Kelly. Not even a good effort there.

    Like

  9. You really shouldn’t type with your head so far up your ass, Greg.

    Hate to tell you, but the overturning of interracial marriage retained one man to one woman.

    I can show you former homosexuals. Can you show me a former Black person?

    You insult Blacks every time you equate them to queers.

    And now that they have moved closer to their “Special rights,” when do they drop their “Protected class” status?

    Like

  10. Gee. Here comes Greg Owens again with his failed “arguments”. Greg, you lost the last round, so are you ready to have some more bulldozer tracks across your hillbilly face?

    Of course, you’ll be a typical Liberal chickensh*t and not address any facts that show how off-base you really are. I doubt that you’ve found any “man-equipment” yet.

    That’s ok. We can all easily see how full of crap you are.

    Like

  11. Poor Greg, we have to feel sorry for him.

    He got his butt kicked in comments on the Columbian too

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/feb/02/local-house-members-divided-along-party-lines/

    Next time he wants to use the Bible to support his view, maybe he’ll study with the pages open, LOL

    Like

  12. Heehee Lew. Greg’s foot must have a permanent dung-bucket attached to it.

    Like

  13. Lew, all you have shown in the Columbian comments is that you use your religion as an excuse to condemn, exclude, and hate. And it is there for all the world to see. Must feel really nice to show your true colors for all to see.

    Enjoy your sad existence as the world around you grows and matures, while you stagnate, not ever learning what a full existence is truly all about.

    What a sad, sad, little man.

    Like

  14. LOL, oh Bible scholar wannabe.

    When you have time, research the definition and meanings of the Greek word ‘Porneia’ that Jesus spoke. Use a Greek lexicon available online free.

    You might also ponder, Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

    You made a jackass out of yourself again, Greg.

    Like

  15. “Gay marriage” is not the same as “Gay rights.” If you don’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, don’t do it.

    Greg Owens, are you an attorney? If not , STFU.

    Like

  16. The problem is, Martin, others have been faced with allegations of discrimination when they declined to do just that due to their own religious beliefs.

    I have no doubt that as homosexual activists discover who the Christians are that might decline to assist or participate in their ceremonies, they will be intentionally targeted, just to keep the agenda moving.

    I was fully supportive of civil unions to grant homosexuals equal rights, but it was they who decided to decline those and demand full marriage rights.

    Like

  17. Lew, only 3% of civil allegations ever go into court. The vast majority of cases are dismissed due to lack of merit. It’s unlikely Gay activists will pursue this tactic here in Washington.

    I’d rather you weren’t anti-gay, but it’s still up to you.

    Like

  18. Martin, it’s not just court, but the court of public opinion they seek.

    Just so you know, I’m not “anti-gay.” As I said, I was supportive of civil unions and would never agree to denying them certain jobs, although for personal reasons, I would not want homosexual men to be in authority over younger boys.

    I don’t advocate criminalizing homosexuality as it once was.

    But, I do believe marriage is an institution made for men and women to join together exclusively.

    You and I both know this is not about “rights” as they have been granted full rights in the enhanced “Everything but Marriage” Domestic Partnership they now claim is inadequate. My opposition then was based on knowing it was just an incremental step.

    No, it’s not about any rights, it’s about forcing others to accept them as normal and regardless of how the bill is worded, I have no doubt that one day clergy and churches will be targeted.

    Like

  19. Martin Hash:

    No, I’m not an attorney, but I slept in a Best Western Express last night.. 🙂

    A business person has the right to do business with whomever they wish; however, if the reason they choose not to is blatantly discriminatory, they are subject to the laws in place to prevent that from occurring, and would be open to being held accountable for any violations. Pretty simple, actually.

    It is also the right of anyone to address issues with their wallet. It is a fact that homosexuals have the most disposable income of anyone. In this economy 1.) Is it really wise to turn away business and 2) Is it wise to offend a group of people that have more money to spend than anyone else?

    A business doesn’t need to be threatened overtly. All it takes is a little word of mouth to spread information on the manner in which someone conducts their business. Remember the old adage, “a satisfied customer tells 5 people; a dissatisfied customer tells 50”?

    Customer service is my #1 attribute of businesses I use, well over price. If I receive excellent customer service and support, I am more than willing to pay a little more to use that business. I pay attention to such detail and will address how and where I conduct my business based on how those I patronize conduct theirs.

    Lastly, if churches behave like a business, they will, and should, be held to the same rules and regulations as any other business. Being owned and/or operated by a religious organization is not an excuse for conducting your business in an unlawful manner.

    Like

  20. There is a significant difference between a state sanctioned union that is called “marriage”, and the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony when that union is sanctioned and blessed by God. Sure, some liberal churches will sanction gay marriages in their “churches”, but those can never be, and will never be, anything other than unholy unions.

    I don’t fault anyone for voting for gay marriage because the “marriage” is a meaningless exercise. As stated by others, gays already had all the benefits of marriage in Washington – so go ahead and give them a state license for it.

    Like

  21. Craig Sayre:

    With a divorce rate at or above 50% with Christians at about the same rate, how many of those marriages would you consider “holy”, “sanctioned and blessed by God”?

    Just asking….

    Like

  22. Greg,

    You’re missing the point.

    Like

  23. There’s a simple answer to this problem – get the government out of the marriage business entirely. The government should be limited to recognizing civil unions, while marriage should remain the exclusive purvue of religious organizations.

    Like

  24. I would agree, Tom. But don’t forget, it was the homosexuals themselves, after demanding recognition by civil unions who decided to oppose them in favor of full marriage.

    As I recall, they took it to the California Supreme Court to declare civil unions entitled them to full marriage prior to the Prop 8 debacle.

    Like

  25. I would support that, Tom. If the contract recognized by the state were universally recognized and had the exact same rights and responsibilities applied to it for everyone entering into it, that would be a great solution.

    Craig: What point is that exactly? Either something is holy, sanctioned, and blessed by God or it isn’t.

    Going back to Lew’s assertion that he actually understands the Bible and wants everyone to abide by it even though he doesn’t, Paul says the the marriage of two people where at least one of them has been divorced is adultery. Does it follow, then, that that marriage, even though performed by a minister in a church, is really holy, sanctioned and blessed by God?

    Like

  26. Greg, haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough?

    I don’t call for everyone to understand the Bible as I do, but the effort was to show you that twisting Bible scripture to give the appearance it actually supports what it clearly condemns leaves you looking all the more a fool.

    Trying to build Biblical support for your perversion is a lie.

    Stick to what people do is no one elses business if you really want support.

    Oh, and if I didn’t make it clear, I support getting government out of marriage.

    Like

  27. Lew, currently, civil unions, no matter what some people call them, are NOT universally recognized, nor carry the exact same rights and responsibilities as marriage.

    One of many examples of this is that those that have a cilvil union in the State of Washington are not entitled to adopt a child together in another state that does not recognize civil unions.

    It is, very simply, not the same thing, unless it is universally recognized with the exact same rights and responsibilities.

    Like

  28. And again, Greg, you miss the point.

    Civil Unions were on the way to being recognized, but it was the homosexuals who nixed them in favor of full blown sanctioned marriage, not us.

    You point to adoption as if it is a civil right to adopt children. It isn’t as many heterosexual couple are also unable to adopt.

    Homosexual marriage will not help heterosexuals denied adoption gain a child, will it?

    Unwittingly, you once again show your point only proves homosexuals are getting special rights, not civil rights as Washington does allow homosexuals to adopt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

    Like

  29. Greg,

    The point being that perverted relationships can never be blessed by God. Even though, as you say, 50% of heterosexual marriages fail, they can at least have God’s blessing if they cooperate with Him. There are failures to one degree or another in every human relationship – for those that don’t fall outside the relational boundaries the God has decreed as worthy of being blessed, those failures doesn’t mean that they can’t still receive God’s blessing if they repent of their failures and seek his blessing.

    Like

  30. I see. Then, back to another of Lew’s points. Which relationship boundaries are we talking about….the relationship boundaries of a man with many wives and many more concubines, a Biblical form of marriage still in place at the time of Christ? Those relationship boundaries? Weren’t those relationships holy, sanctioned and blessed by God? Isn’t that how the two lineages of Israel and Ishmael created? Didn’t Jacob have to work 7 years for his first wife, then another 7 for the second?

    Inter-racial marriages were also considered “perverted” by the church not too long ago as well, Craig. Where is that position now?

    So, let me continue to understand your position, Craig. If a couple that has married when one has divorced is considered adultery, their marriage can be considered holy, sanctioned and blessed by God, even though they continue in the adulterous relationship? It’s not like they have confessed, are forgiven and cease to sin…they are still sinning, according to Paul. Please explain how this works, in your view, Craig.

    Like

  31. Greg, you’ll never learn.

    Show us scripture condemning Blacks or interracial marriage.

    Someone twisting scripture to suit their point does not make it so.

    Just as you are doing to justify homosexuality.

    So, show clear condemnation of Blacks and interracial marriage.

    Or shut up.

    Like

  32. Greg,

    I notice that you didn’t give any examples of homosexual marriage as being blessed by God. Why not? All of your examples of relationships that we today would call wrong or abnormal, were heterosexual relationships.

    Where does the Bible identify interracial marriage as perverted? If I recall correctly, King Solomon married an Ethiopian did he not? Don’t confuse what some Christians used to believe (and I suppose a few still believe) with what God permits or prohibits.

    As I stated in the previous post, His blessing is contingent upon our repentance for failures in those relationships that He will bless. Your last paragraph therefore, is irrelevant.

    Like

  33. “As I stated in the previous post, His blessing is contingent upon our repentance for failures in those relationships that He will bless.”

    Doesn’t repentance require the repentor to cease the action? So, let me clarify once again; are you saying that all the marriages of the Christians that have remarried in the church with a previous divorce are not holy, sanctioned and blessed by God?

    I just trying to fully understand your position, Craig. Because, you know, there are so many different versions of Christianity, I am just trying to make sure we all understand which one you follow…..

    Like

  34. “Don’t confuse what some Christians used to believe (and I suppose a few still believe) with what God permits or prohibits.”

    Well, Craig, which ones are the RIGHT ones? There are SO MANY. It is hard to know which Christians have the correct information and which ones don’t. How can we all NOT be confused?

    Please inform us all, Craig, which Christian denominations and sects are right, and which ones are wrong?

    Like

  35. Greg’s comments and questions, well stated as they are, aptly represent what myself, Lew, and others have posited. I have made it clear in my comments on this post and other of Lew’s blog posts, that I support the right of gays to marry. I sent an e-mail to Laird agreeing with his last column in which he advocated for Washington’s gay marriage law. Lew and others don’t agree, and that’s okay. What Greg’s comments, in response to my comment on this post illustrate, is that the liberal agenda will not be satisfied with an eventual national recognition of gay marriage.

    I made the comment that while I support the right of gays to marry, I personally consider homosexuality and homosexual marriage to be a perverted lifestyle and outside the boundaries of a relationship that God could bless. I based that on my own understanding of Holy Scripture, yet Greg has incessantly cross examined me – going down rabbit hole after rabbit hole in pursuit of an “understanding”.

    His examination is not on my support of gay marriage, but on my personal beliefs. He represents in this case, the mindset of the liberals. They will insist that everyone subscribe to the belief that gay marriage is “normal” and “acceptable” and even “preferable”. There will be no room for religious organizations or individuals who reject homosexuality – who call it a perversion or an abberation or a sin. We will increasingly be marginalized, rejected, castigated, litigated against, and finally be cast off – either to prison or to death. I’m OK with that. I hope I can endure till the end.

    Like

  36. As I’ve said before, I think Homosexuality is a form of mental illness. It’s people who want to be something other than what they are or people who are unhappy about who and what they are. We’re all given a set of “original equipment”. That’s who we are. Period. You’re either male or you are female. Live with it.

    Like

  37. Greg, if you really wish to base an argument upon something, first you should at least learn something about that something you are using.

    Everything you have tried to use to justify homosexuality by equation fails. You cannot show anything supportive of homosexuality in the Bible and your lame “Jesus never spoke against homosexuality so that makes it okay” fell flat when you reminded of what else Jesus did not speak against that we do not condone.

    While there indeed many “versions of Christianity” as you put it, along with thousands of translations of the Bible you have not yet shown one that marries homosexuals scripturally. Yes, I know there are some that do marry homosexuals in their church and whatever judgment may be due for that will come in time.

    By the same token, allow me to remind you more words by Jesus, Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

    That would pretty much cover those who twist the Bible to justify their bigotry against Blacks as well as those who twist the Bible to justify homosexual marriage, I would think.

    That does not mean the Bible teaches hate for the person as it does not. It is the act, the sin if you will that is detested. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals can also abstain, but neither wants to. All can be forgiven for past ‘sins’ if they approach and seek forgiveness and repentance. As is said, we all have our crosses to bear.

    As I already said, stick with “it’s no ones business what is done if the privacy of others homes,” instead of trying place support for the practice in the Bible. You’ll do a lot better that way.

    Like

  38. But Lew, it’s “no one’s business what is done in the privacy of their homes” for people who want multiple partners, too. In fact, I think a number of people practice “multiple partners” in their own homes today. They’re just not allowed to be “married” to the multiple partners though. That sure isn’t “Equality”.

    Like

  39. My point all along, Jack 😉

    Like

  40. First, Jack, homosexuality, in many if not most cases, is PROVENLY GENETIC. There is no question about this in science. It is taught in 1st year Medical School Histology and Biochemistry, and the fact that the population is not aware is almost criminal.

    Secondly, when two words mean the same thing, i.e. “marriage” & “civil unions” – then that’s political correctness. There are hundreds of years of legal precedents for the word “marriage” that makes it very important that everyone who is “married” has the right to in court. “Civil unions” are a legal fiction.

    Thirdly, neither “human rights” nor biblical commands are recognized in court.

    Like

  41. Martin, I won’t argue legal points with you, but I do take exception to “homosexuality, in many if not most cases, is PROVENLY GENETIC. There is no question about this in science.”

    Scientists have been at odds ever since the announcement of a “gay gene” an to date it has not been replicated by any geneticist.

    http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

    http://narth.com/docs/mythgene.html

    Interestingly, Timothy F. Murphy, Professor of Philosophy in the Biomedical Sciences at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago in a paper outlining an interesting history in the search for the “Gay Gene” concludes, “In puzzling over the origins of homosexuality, clinicians and researchers have rounded up the usual suspects when it comes to explaining human traits: genetics, early biological events, and psychological development. Genetics is a seductive siren in this regard, since it deals with organisms at their lowest level of causality. From time to time, contemporary genetics studies of homosexuality appear and ping-pong their way through the media; but none have accounted for human sexual orientation in any definitive way, and if the past is a prologue to the future, neither will they entirely extinguish the idea that sexual orientation is immutable. What has really killed most interest in sexual orientation therapy is not proof of the genetic origins of homosexuality, but the rejection of the notion that homosexuality is a condition that needs to be “cured.” If we wish to promote social equality for gay men and lesbians, the origins of their sexual identities is beside the point.”

    Even the much touted Twin Studies are questionable, http://www.narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf

    http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

    What is near criminal is that, just like with global warming, politics and agenda steer the discussion and any clear research or legitimate questioning is automatically ridiculed, scoffed at and ignored.

    That’s not science, that’s a political agenda.

    And, in the most basic unscientific explanation, there are different sexes for only one reason, procreating the species. Whether created or evoleed, there are two sexes for only that reason. If homosexuals are to be considered “normal,” they would be able to procreate with each other and not have to seek the services of the sex they are not attracted to.

    That does not mean they should be abolished or criminalized again, but it also doesn’t make them “normal” and granting them forced recognition and legal protections will not make them “normal” either. But, it is their choice to be homosexual just as it everyone elses choice to engage in sexual activity or abstain. The claim of the have no choice is a dangerous claim to make as that relegates them to the status of not being in control of their desires. Those not in control of their sexual desires end up in prison for rape, do they not? So it is their choice whether or not to engage in the activity.

    Like

  42. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that Homosexuality is a form of mental illness. I think the only reason that it hasn’t been researched as a mental illness is because the Liberals don’t want to label Homosexuals as “mentally ill”.

    There really is no other reason for Homosexuality. It certainly isn’t genetic and it certainly isnt “normal”.

    Like

  43. “There is no question about this in science.”

    How many times have we been assured of that?

    “The speed of light is a constant”
    “nothing can travel faster than the speed of light”
    “Pluto is the ninth planet of our solar system”
    “there are only 3 spatial dimensions”
    “coffee is bad for you”
    “beer is bad for you”
    “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”

    I could go on and on, but each one of the claims above have either been refuted by new evidence, or have been brought into serious question.

    So much for science providing the answers.

    Like

  44. Martin, I am pleased to see you are coming around.

    I agree, OMG 2012

    Obama Must Go

    Like

  45. Good work Lew. Another convert!

    Like

  46. My bad. You guys are good about not bashing me with your magic books (religion), and I apologize for swinging around my magic books (science).

    Back to real debate.

    Like

  47. “Science” today has a definite political “agenda”, Martin. Maybe you didn’t know that. I think the rest of us can see it.

    Like

  48. LOL @ Hillbilly.

    Like

  49. What would you know about it, Greg? After all, you’re just our Resident “Punching Bag”.

    Like

  50. LOL @ Hillbilly responding, knowing that I refer to him as “Hillbilly”

    Like

  51. So sorry that you can’t win an argument, Greg. Maybe it’s because you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. Go back to school.

    Like

  52. I just want to make an observation; if this does go to referendum in Washington State and Romney is the GOP nominee, there is no way he will win the Presidency. His church, COJCOLDS, spent millions of dollars publicly against Propostion H8 in California and created a huge nation-wide backlash toward that church. They will undoubtedly do the same thing in Washington State. People will not separate him from that controversy and it will cost him the election. I don’t see how he can get by that. It will, by default, end up being a national referendum on gay marriage. While I support gay marriage and want it to succeed, it would be a shame for a single issue to determine the outcome of a national election. There is so much more to be addressed, and I would vote for Romney should he be the Republican nominee.

    This really isn’t a post to start a new debate; it is just an observation. However, I’m open for discussion….

    Like

  53. A major fallacy in your assessment, Greg.

    If it does go to a referendum, guaranteed to by the way and the referendum passes, also very likely, does it escape you that it will be reflecting a majority view?

    The so called “backlash” in California over Proposition 8 was predominantly from homosexuals who showed the asses in a major tantrum.

    I will admit Romney being a Mormon is an issue, and it shouldn’t be. Someone’s religion, if any at all, should not even be a part of their campaign I feel.

    Still, he is not guaranteed a win should he be the nominee. Nor is Obama, although he has the advantage of incumbency and we can expect more smoke screens in weeks ahead to gloss over his numerous failures.

    There are no guarantees is elections, but I seriously doubt a referendum overturning homosexual marriage in Washington State will be a national issue as much as you feel.

    Like

  54. “Someone’s religion, if any at all, should not even be a part of their campaign I feel.”

    I agree, and hope there is a way he can overcome it, much the same way Kennedy did in 1960 (no, I am not comparing anything but the religion element), should he become the Republican nominee.

    Like

  55. 31 states have rejected “Gay marriage” when it was put to a vote of the people. Washington State will be #32. America doesn’t want “Gay marriage”. It’s just that simple.

    http://tinyurl.com/3guksuu

    Like

  56. From the time this article was written in 2009 to 2011, attitudes are changing significantly, and rather quickly. In 2009, the Gallup polls showed only a 43% approval for gay marriage. In 2011, the numbers have significantly changed, with 53% supporting gay marriage. The numbers are the most strong with younger voters. As more and more are coming on the rolls, this number is expected to continue trending upward.

    The 31 states listed in your reference had votes that occurred in 2009 or earlier.

    These numbers are from Gallup.com.

    It is my opinion that a referendum will support gay marriage. I expect that the people of Washington State are educated and intelligent enough to understand the issue and will support it, so I am not afraid of the vote.

    My observation above is that if the Mormon Church should get involved at the level they did in California, it will become a national issue and will adversely affect Mitt Romney’s candidacy. It will also inspire the younger voters to turn out, which will sway the vote in that direction as well.

    This is just my opinion; however the current polls, along with the historical repercussions of Proposition H8 in California, support both my observation and current opinion.

    Like

  57. I guess you don’t get out a lot, Greg. Maybe from your armchair public opinion seems to be “changing”, but I get out in the real world every day and I sure don’t see any “changes” in public opinion about Homosexuality, especially amongst young people.

    I think it’s just “wishful thinking” on your part.

    Mitt Romney’s candidacy is a helluva lot more “affected” by the fact that he’s just another RINO weasel than it will ever be “affected” by Mormon support.

    I frankly don’t see how what Romney or the Mormons do will alter this issue either way. It’s a state issue and I don’t think it will be seen as anything else.

    Dream on.

    Like

  58. Greg, in spite of what Gallup claims, the fact remains not one state has passed homosexual marriage by a vote of the people and all that want it passed do what they can to prevent a vote of the people.

    Like

  59. I know I said I wouldn’t engage hillbilly anymore, but it’s just so easy…

    Me: Here is my opinion and the support for it.

    Hillbilly: Well, here in the swamp I just can’t see it. Seems to us’ns that the moonshiners hate them homos just as much as they always have, including cousin dad.

    More statistics:

    “All the ages groups opposed Prop 8, except for those 65+ who supported it by 67%. As importantly, when compared to another marriage initiative in California in 2000 (the Knight initiative), all age groups increased their support of same sex marriage equality in 2008—except for those 65 years of age or older.”

    Proposition 8 voting demographics. Actual, verifiable, voting statistics, right from the ballot box.

    But, that’s hardly proof, is it, hillbilly, compared to whatever it is that you “see”, right?

    Like

  60. Greg, just because it is what you want to see happen, there is no viable guarantee it will.

    The only poll that matters is the ballot and come November, we will see.

    Like

  61. “Greg, in spite of what Gallup claims, the fact remains not one state has passed homosexual marriage by a vote of the people and all that want it passed do what they can to prevent a vote of the people.”

    This will be a good test of that, as it will be one of the first major votes since the Gallup polls have showed a majority in favor. Recent statewide polls in Washington have shown as much as 54% in favor of gay marriage. And yes, I know about the Columbian’s and KPTV’s local polls.

    I think we can agree, though, that among the pollsters, Gallup is highly respected and their methodologies have been sound.

    Again, I have confidence, and I expect that the people of Washington State are educated and intelligent enough to understand the issue and will support it, so I am not afraid of the vote.

    Like

  62. I hope you don’t do anything drastic after the November vote, Greg 😉

    Never count your chickens before they hatch.

    As for the Gallup poll, they are not the only “highly regarded” poll in existence and I find a national poll based upon 1,100 “random” phone calls suspect.

    Although a long time ago, don’t forget that Gallup was one of the loudest voices announcing Republican Dewey defeated Democrat Truman 😉

    Like

  63. In other words Greg, you’re just rubbing your “magic lamp” hoping and dreaming for a “win” against long odds.

    I think you’re going to be highly disappointed.

    Like

  64. Btw Greg, “highly educated” and “intelligent” people know that this “Gay marriage” thing has absolutely nothing to do with “Equality” and “Rights” because it does nothing to eliminate discrimination in marriages.

    Only ignorant and stubborn bigots refuse to admit that “Gay marriage” is only about monetary benefits and a paper certificate of “acceptance” for a small minority of citizens with a mental “condition”, and excludes many legal-age adults from their “rights” to marry as well.

    Like

  65. Another victory!

    “..the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state’s Proposition 8 “works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians” by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    Like

  66. That the extremely liberal 9th circuit court ruled as they did was an expected, Greg.

    Next up is the Supreme Court, with the knowledge that the 9th circuit court remains the most overturned court in the land.

    Oh yes, Obama’s appointee to the court, Elena Kagan. Remember her words when she was going through the confirmation process for Solicitor General?

    No? Let me help you. She said, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

    No guarantees she’ll keep that view, but then again she isn’t the only justice, is she?

    Party today, Greg, but don’t put a down payment on that ring for your boyfriend just yet 😉

    Like

  67. Then the 14th Amendment must also protect the rights of Polygamists, cousins, relatives, and very young people to be “married” as well.

    The government has no right to keep anybody from “marrying” anyone or anything that they want according to the 9th circuit because it “works a meaningful harm” upon those people.

    Like

  68. Heehee. The Columbian has it’s hands full trying to “hold down” the uncivil discourse on the subject of “Gay marriage”.

    I guess that the Facebook “thing” isn’t “working out too well”. Funny that we don’t have that problem here on Lew’s Blog, isn’t it?

    Maybe The Columbian could “learn” something here.

    Like

  69. I can’t really fault Matt, I know what he is up against.

    In 2004, I was (and still am today) one of the Admins of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth discussion forum and believe me, we had our hands full.

    Then too, that problem doesn’t exist here because we do not have near the volume of comments or articles.

    But, it is obvious that facebook did not correct their problems. So, Matt has his hands full

    Like

  70. I think the “lesson” is that in trying to “censor down” the discussion and “bias” it to the Left, The Columbian only succeeds in letting the little sockpuppet bastards run roughshod over everybody else.

    Here, smartasses get the “comeuppances” that they so sorely deserve.

    That’s the difference.

    Like

  71. Most of the sockpuppets that fell they own the forum there don’t stop by here.

    LOL, one even got on Matt today asking if people were allowed to post wrong information.

    When Matt asked what wrong information, the moron answered “85% of whatever Lew writes.”

    I needed that laugh 😉

    Like

  72. Guys, don’t get so far out on a limb on this Gay marriage issue. Yes, the 9th Circuit is liberal and often overturned, but they are bellwethers of public opinion.

    First, signatures on an initiative, then the initiative on the ballot, then the initiative must pass, then it must face Washington Court scrutiny, then U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny. That’s a long, long rode for something that’s going to happen within a generation anyway.

    Like

  73. I don’t know where you’re getting that: “it’s gonna happen anyway” stuff, Martin. Today’s youth is as anti-queer as any other generation I’ve seen. I think you’re just “wishful thinking”.

    Like

  74. I’m sure that the sockpuppets know of your Blog, Lew. I’m sure they’ve also witnessed the “beatings” other sockpuppets & smartasses have received as well.

    We’re always “cheerful” about what we do here, though. That’s the “nice” part.

    Like

  75. Martin, if they were truly “bellweathers of public opinion,” they would not being overturning the will of a majority public vote, would they?

    What happens in Washington after homosexual marriage passes and Gregoire signs it remains to be seen.

    But the fact remains, not one state where it is legal did so by a vote of the public.

    Like

  76. Martin:

    Not to mention the millions upon millions of public and private money spent on an issue trying to prevent the inevitable. Think how that money could have better served the public good being used in more humanitarian terms. The Mormon Church alone spent milliions on this issue in California, while so many of their members are fighting to survive and still make their 10% payment so they will be deemed worthy to attend the temple. What kind of organization would do this to its own people, using money taken from the people who could use it the most?

    It’s a shame, really.

    Like

  77. What is a real “shame” is wasting money and resources trying to make society accept a form of mental illness as “normal”. It’s like trying to declare public drunkeness as somehow “normal”.

    It just doesn’t “fly”. That’s all.

    Like

  78. People that approve of this and wish to throw up the blinders on a slippery slope should look closer as pedophiles are working diligently to be reclassified as “born that way” too.

    Already they describe themselves as “minor-attracted persons” engaging in “Intergenerational Intimacy.”

    And no, that doesn’t make all homosexuals pedophiles, there are plenty heterosexual pedophiles too. But regardless, neither should be tolerated and as they continue their push for normalcy, right behind the homosexuals, where do we end up?

    But, as usual, no one wants to look at any potential fall-out, it’s just do it now and if it feels good do it attitude.

    Like

  79. C’mon, Lew. Consenting adults. Another moot argument.

    Like

  80. Greg, if other deviants are riding their coat tails in an effort to desensitize the public for their perversion, it is hardly moot.

    But, you do give a perfect example of what I meant when I said you all refuse to consider any detrimental after effects.

    Like

  81. Slippery slope. Same argument used for racial issues in the 50’s and 60’s. You use hateful and frankly, despicable terms for other human beings Lew. Something your Bible taught you to do?

    Like

  82. Sorry Greg, apples and oranges. Blacks were granted civil rights as heterosexuals.

    But again, I am not saying something that may happen some day, but something is happening right now and you would rather pull the covers up over your head.

    By the way, the over use of the race card is making you all a laughing stock.

    Like

  83. Denial of science and lack of basic respect for fellow humanity is making you all look sad and ignorant.

    Like

  84. And keeping your head up your ass on what is happening around you makes you look completely foolish, Greg.

    As for “lack of basic respect for fellow humanity,” need I remind you that it is you who objects to removing all barriers to marriage for adults of legal age?

    That is separate from pedophiles, excuse me, “minor attracted people” seeking normalcy at this time, but they are making the same arguments homosexuals did many years ago.

    And people like you who wish to sweep it under the rug will enable them to succeed.

    And yes, there are “scientists” already claiming they too are “born that way.”

    You really should have read some of the plethora of links I have supplied you over the past couple of weeks.

    Like

  85. Do we really need to go down the micro-biology SCIENCE vs behaviourist road again?

    Again, Lew. You pick the most extreme arguments, that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. You said it yourself. Comparing the two is not valid, nor will it ever be.

    The subjugation and abuse of minors is never acceptable. And that is not the issue being addressed. Period. But continue on, Lew. Slippery slope and all that rot.

    Dogs and Cats, sleeping together; MASS HYSTERIA! I see that the states that allow gay marriage haven’t been destroyed by fire and brimstone yet.

    But again, this argument here is really not all that necessary. Washington State will legalize gay marriage in the next few days. Some people that want to try to delay the inevitable will spend millions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere on a failed campaign, and human rights will win out in the end as the always have.

    Like

  86. Greg, do you enjoy pissing into the wind?

    Again, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR PEDOPHILES, I’M WARNING YOU THAT THEY TOO ARE PUSHING FOR THE SAME NORMALCY YOU GRANT HOMOSEXUALS!!

    30 years ago people laughed and said homosexuals marrying would never happen and look at today.

    When I was in the Army we thought queers would never take precedence in serving and look at today.

    Marginalize all you want, Greg, it is happening, now, today and pulling the covers up over your head won’t change it.

    By the way, the House just gave queers permission to enter sham marriages, just as expected.

    See you at the polls in November.

    Like

  87. Again with the language used toward your fellow human beings, Lew. Really? I know it’s your blog and you may use whatever language you like, but such hateful, despicable use of language toward another group of fellow human beings is not necessary, is it?

    Like

  88. Get over self, Greg.

    If you are so offended at my language, you know where the door is.

    Your false thin skinned comments are more laughable than almost anything you have said so far.

    LOL, yeah sure, like you think you’re on moral high ground?

    Like

  89. Yes, Lew, on this issue, I am. Treating other human beings as less than yourself, using derogatory terms, and demeaning them is never the moral high ground, Lew. It just shows your ignorance.

    Like

  90. Yet you have no problem mistreating other human beings yourself by supporting continued discrimination against them when their basic human rights would have no affect on you.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Greg Owens.

    Keep those blinders up, Greg. But don’t come crying when it finally dawns on you just how wrong you were.

    Like

  91. Hmmm. Greg has no problem “treating other human beings as less than himself” when it comes to his “agenda” to make “Gay marriage” somehow “acceptable”.

    That’s where you lose your “argument”, Greg. You don’t give a flying rat’s anus about “equality” and “rights”. That’s why society will never accept your BS.

    Like

  92. Yes…We do have some RINO Republicans, don’t we?

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: