Those Poor Bishops..

[Durnik]

It seems someone in Washington State decided her heart & soul needed to be followed..

From the LATimes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/lonely-old-widow-and-lawmaker-becomes-voice-for-same-sex-marriage.html),


Washington state is the focus of one of the most hotly-debated issues of our time: same-sex marriage. Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, is poised to sign a bill next week that would allow such unions. And she does so with the support of Washington state lawmaker Maureen Walsh, a Republican, who broke ranks in order to support same-sex marriage.

That's how Walsh became an online celebrity and champion for gays and lesbians everywhere.

...

A widow of several years, Walsh said she desperately misses her husband. And not just because of the sex. (Although she misses that.) She says she misses the emotional bond that they shared. And when she realized that, she said, she knew how she'd vote on the same-sex marriage issue.

"How could I deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life?" she says. "To me it seems almost cruel."

a partial transcript..


And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly were committed to one another in life to be able to show that by way of a marriage?

You know, my daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago. And you know what? I thought I was going to just agonize about that.

Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being, and she’s met a person that she loves very much. And someday, by God, I wanna throw a wedding for that kid. And I hope that’s exactly what I can do. I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a ‘domestic partnership’ — which frankly sounds like a Merry Maids franchise to me.

Here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/embed/UiGmgqW6ES8) (also at the above link).. It's great! How else can you describe someone demonstrating that the U.S. is supposed to be about freedom & compassion.. not restriction & bigotry.

To be sure (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/washington-gay-marriage_n_1264038.html), 2 Republicans found their hearts required compassion & 3 Democrats (in name only?) may need to be replaced next elections.. ;-)


Two Republicans – Reps. Glenn Anderson of Fall City and Maureen Walsh of College Place – crossed the aisle and voted in favor of the bill. Three Democrats voted against it: Reps. Chris Hurst of Enumclaw, Steve Kirby of Tacoma and Mark Miloscia of Federal Way.

enjoy
bobby

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.. Mark Twain

Disclaimer: I have a gay nephew, a gay foster sister & a gay 2nd cousin.. All wonderful people. All deserve what (nearly) everyone else also wants.

[CWSmith]

There was an interesting (if brief and loud) debate on Bill Mahr this week. One argued that this should be taken out of the courts and handled in the ballot box. Another said that was tyrany of the majority and rights could not be voted on. They were both right. We still hear arguments about "activist judges", but then slavery was eventually settled by voting a constitutional amendment. There is no means of solving this problem that will not draw complaints from one side or another, so to hell with it. Treat it like racism - pass the laws and wait until the next generation grows up and embraces the change. I admire any politician willing to lead and not follow. Good luck to Washington State and to your sister and cousins. They deserve what everyone else has.

[Durnik]

One argued that this should be taken out of the courts and handled in the ballot box. Another said that was tyrany of the majority and rights could not be voted on. They were both right.

I can see that.


slavery was eventually settled by voting a constitutional amendment.

True, but it had previously been legally codified that Negroes were 'property'.. It was _that_ wrongness which had to be changed. The illegality of being gay has already fallen.. it was always mostly a religious prejudice anyway. It is the recognition of sexual orientation having no effect on a persons rights which is still to come. Of course, it can be said that many still do not recognize the rights of non-whites.. But legally, the recognition exists.. & when the teaching of bigotry ends, it will eventually disappear - as nobody is born a bigot. ;-)

Thanks for your thoughts.

enjoy
bobby

[Osborne Russell]

One argued that this should be taken out of the courts and handled in the ballot box. Another said that was tyrany of the majority and rights could not be voted on. They were both right.

That theme runs all the way through US history. Left to the ballot box, people practiced all manner of oppression. In order for there to be civil rights, there have had to be courts and heavy federal involvement. It's ironic that the people that complain about it the most are the ones most responsible for it, but it's not a coincidence. They were the original oppressors.

[botebum]

This issue has always seemed pretty straightforward and simple-
It should be up to those against it to prove why it shouldn't be allowed instead of those for it to prove why it should. Until they can prove why it shouldn't be allowed, it must be legal.

I don't think it should be a voted issue. Human rights isn't a popularity contest. They are rights.

Doug

[Durnik]

This issue has always seemed pretty straightforward and simple-
It should be up to those against it to prove why it shouldn't be allowed instead of those for it to prove why it should. Until they can prove why it shouldn't be allowed, it must be legal.

I don't think it should be a voted issue. Human rights isn't a popularity contest. They are rights.

Doug

This would be one of those 'Duh!' moments.. You would think all the 'constitutionalists' would be on board! Oh, that's right.. they like state enabled restrictions.. of 'others'.. Never mind..



That theme runs all the way through US history. Left to the ballot box, people practiced all manner of oppression. In order for there to be civil rights, there have had to be courts and heavy federal involvement. It's ironic that the people that complain about it the most are the ones most responsible for it, but it's not a coincidence. They were the original oppressors.

;-)


enjoy
bobby

[John of Phoenix]

CWSmith:
Treat it like racism - pass the laws and wait until the next generation grows up and embraces the change. I admire any politician willing to lead and not follow. Good luck to Washington State and to your sister and cousins. They deserve what everyone else has. It's interesting that even without laws the modern generation is doing just that - embracing the change. Some say it's becasue of the way gays are portrayed on TV. Whatever the impetus, I'm all for less hate and discrimination.

[CWSmith]

The problem is that when courts enact laws those on the losing side (at least lately) like to invoke the claim of "activist judges". Ironically, these same people had no problem when the Supreme Court decided a presidential election along party lines - somehow that was not activist.

No matter how you slice it, problem 1 is getting the rights to the people and problem 2 is getting the people to agree that is how it should be. Bad feelings and resentment lingers for at least a generation and the idea that some social change was forced on the unwilling people becomes a political hot potato in every election for 20 years.

Don't get me wrong - I am 100% in favor of gay rights. I think that stable married couples are better for society and that means fully functioning committed relationships with all the rights and responsibilities. However, no matter how you accomplish it, there won't be peace until the majority ratifies the decision in some manner.

[ron ll]

And she signed it. Glad I live in a progressive state.

[Keith Wilson]

Treat it like racism - pass the laws and wait until the next generation grows up and embraces the change. The next generation already has. It's no big deal to almost everyone under 30. Almost all the opposition is from old religious folks. By 2030 people will just shake their heads and wonder why folks made such a fuss in the old days. And good for Ms Walsh! We make some small progress toward decency and justice, thanks to people like her.

[Durnik]

>And she signed it.

Cool!


>It's interesting that even without laws the modern generation is doing just that - embracing the change.

>It's no big deal to almost everyone under 30.

Forget where I saw it, but the comment was to the effect that history less has 'end' points than it has transitions of crises passed & change accepted..

Do I really have to wait until 2030 to see this? ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Keith Wilson]

​Do I really have to wait until 2030 to see this? ;-)Nah, you can do it right now if you like. ;-)

[CWSmith]

And she signed it. Glad I live in a progressive state.

Ihope the day comes when you can share her with the rest of us. Plus, I'll shake the hand of Republican Walsh and maybe even vote for her! We need more like both!

[Durnik]

>Nah, you can do it right now if you like. ;-)

;-) be nice when the hoopla is over.. like we don't have _real_ problems to deal with.

>I'll shake the hand of Republican Walsh and maybe even vote for her!

I'll likely not ever be able to vote for her, but I'll shake her hand.

Here's Maureen's official site page with a 'contact (http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/members/maureen-walsh/)' link for those who wish to say 'thanks'.. which I did.

enjoy
bobby

[Osborne Russell]

However, no matter how you accomplish it, there won't be peace until the majority ratifies the decision in some manner.

You're absolutely right and it is a damned difficult job. America's mission is to live up to her own pronouncements. If people would do it spontaneously, we wouldn't need a government at all, let alone a federal government. A simple point, made "in the beginning", elegantly but forcefully, by "the Fathers", but completely lost on the bigot hose beasts. They are the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the rest of it. They are the reason gay marriage has come from the courts.

[Durnik]

Wow theres a complete lack of Republicans chiming in with their Two Bits on this thread. Good for you.

Would be nice if life would go that way.. ;-)



They are the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the rest of it. They are the reason gay marriage has come from the courts.

Truly, if people were socially conditioned to care for others instead of being (socially conditioned) to see them as a target or even a 'resource' to be exploited, no government would be needed. Now, if we can change our government to no longer support Madison (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison)'s beliefs..


In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Context at link.. underlining, mine..

enjoy
bobby

[CWSmith]

Equal rights are not 'special rights."

HUMAN rights are not "special rights."

What "special rights" are you getting at?

[wardd]

where's sam?

[Durnik]

http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Blowtorch http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3305621#post3305621)

Equal rights are not 'special rights."

HUMAN rights are not "special rights."



What "special rights" are you getting at?

I took that to mean conservatives referring to others rights which they disapprove of as being 'special'.. while 'their' rights are irrefutable..
For examples, the attempted denial of the 'right to vote' to non conservatives & the attempted denial of the sanctity of marriage to, in the past, mixed religion couples as well as couples of different ethnicities - & now, same sex couples.. Funny, first it was 'mixed too much'.. now, it's 'not mixed enough'.. Religion, practicing restriction of others for thousands of years.. ;-)


where's sam?

Hey, Hey!.. unless that be "Sam, I am".. Dr Seuss's creation showed decidedly more awareness than our resident bigotry apologist..

enjoy
bobby

[CWSmith]

I took that to mean conservatives referring to others rights which they disapprove of as being 'special'.. while 'their' rights are irrefutable..
bobby

I took it the same, but just wanted to see if he'd admit it.

[ChaseKenyon]

This issue has always seemed pretty straightforward and simple-
It should be up to those against it to prove why it shouldn't be allowed instead of those for it to prove why it should. Until they can prove why it shouldn't be allowed, it must be legal.

I don't think it should be a voted issue. Human rights isn't a popularity contest. They are rights.

Doug

Doug , when you are right, sometimes you are so right that there should be no need for further discussion, just for folks to check in with and AYe Aye Captain.


:D:D:D:arg:arg:arg

[Osborne Russell]

It should be up to those against it to prove why it shouldn't be allowed instead of those for it to prove why it should.

And so it has been, all along.

About 15 years ago, when gay marriage started to gather momentum, I expected to hear a lot of practical objections. I heard none. That means opposition is based on sheer bigotry.

When Prop 8 was challenged in court, the proponents could have cited any practical objections they had, in fact, any objections at all. They wound up calling two witnesses who talked about religious tradition. This is the position they are stuck with, now: gay marriage is objectionable on religious grounds. They're no longer in a position to make any other argument.