There is a signature drive for referendum 71 to eliminate the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 in Washington state. The new law gives many of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, without changing the current state definition.
Oppponents of equal rights for LGBT people have phrased the question in a confusing fashion. If the referendum gets enough votes to make the ballot, LGBT people and allies would need to vote YES, because the referendum is not whether it should be repealed but whether it should be re-enacted.
Avoid the confusion, and steer clear from the anti-gay tactics of our opposition. Pledge now to decline to sign Referendum 71 and tell friends and family.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Washington Decline to Sign Referendum 71
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
I will be signing the referendum along with all my friends and their contacts.
Do taxpayers in Washington have so much extra money that they can support gays in medical or financial trouble, rather than letting their willing domestic partners do it?
Do the tax payers have the extra money to support heterosexual couples?
I will sign it. Not only because I think that the voters have a right to have a say in this matter, but because the blatant attempt at intimidation by the gay community enrages me enough to sign this.
How in the world does gays not wanting their rights taken away = intimidation?
Voters have no right in the matter, as majorities should not be able to take rights away from minorities.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the MINORITY POSSESS THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. " - Jefferson, clarifying more
"everything-but-marriage" means you have the same GOVERNMENT rights as straight married couples. however MARRIAGE is a religious thing and since in AMERICA we have FREEDOM OF RELIGION, religious leaders are allowed to say GAY MARRIAGE IS A BIG NO.
the activists don't seem to understand this and would rather throw a fit like a young child who doesn't get a piece of candy. i personally don't mind gay marriage, but with the way the activists have been acting i am going to sign the referendum 71 and vote NO on gay marriage
Yes because that makes a lot of sense, people are demanding full equality so in return you will give them none.
Marriage is a civil contract which is government sanctioned and recognized. Churches can perform or not perform marriages, same-sex marriage only wants government recognition.
If your right to marriage was taken away, you would be pissed too. This isn't like a kid in a candy store who can do without the candy, gay peoples lives are destroyed and made troublesome by this inequality.
this is a test.. i just typed my response and it screwed up and i don't think it will get posted.
try it again i guess...
fair enough... but that brings up more questions from me. everything but marriage means gay folks get all the same rights, except the government doesn't recognize them as married, correct? how can that "destroy a life" (your words, not mine). I could personally care less about marriage (straight or gay) and every single person in this country has more and more rights denied and stripped from them everyday, but how can you justify going after the people who think different then you? calling them up and "debating" or "harrasing" (both terms used loosely). tolerance is a two way street and gay people wouldn't like some god-warrior stuffing jesus down thier throat and being told "you will go to hell for being gay sinner" the same way a god-warrior wouldn't like having the gay culture stuffed down thier throat.
and do you honestly think that by calling up someone who has signed this referendum (which means they think gay marriage is wrong) and talking to them on the phone they will go "oh gee, i see the light, gay folks are O.K." more then likely whether (sp?) you mean to or not, these people will feel threatened and harrased (doesn't matter if they were or not, you know they will act like they were) and also some really are harrassed. (the word NAZI is thrown around a lot. NAZIs were the worlds most amazing killing machines filled with nothing but pure evil and KILLED or DESTROYED LIFES or millions of innocent people, you can't compare someone who disagress with gay marriage to a NAZI)(not saying YOU did, just saying it gets thrown around quite a bit. being called a NAZI is just as offensive as being called a FAG, although I think you'll probably disagree)
lots of people in this country are having more rights taking away and denied each day, and it's the government to blame and the people who make the laws, not the folks who have different opinions then you. if you want, i will privately give my number over to anyone on this website if they want to talk and "debate" with me to try and change my mind about gay marriage. if you make good enough points i would sign the "decline to sign" thing, however if not I will sign referendum 71. i will not feel guilty for what i believe and feel, just the same way a gay person should not be made to feel guilty for that they believe or feel.
i mean none of this to be offensive, it's just debate. we believe differently then one another and the only way to live peacefully with one another is to TOLERATE (tolerance is a two way street) EACHOTHER.
I'm also not trying to imply that the "god-warriors, or right-wingers or whatever" are 100% correct. they can act downright awful, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. you can't shove it down thier throats and expect them to not fight
What sort of gay sub-culture is being pushed down your throat? Like any political issue people on both sides will make phone calls, canvass, have signs, etc. It is a heated topic.
perhaps shoved down the throat was the wrong expression. and i'm stepping down off the soapbox and i would just like a few questions answered..
1. What do "you" (homosexuals as a whole) hope to achieve by calling up people who have signed referendum 71? Do you believe you will change peoples minds through simple debate or are you planning to act like they did in California and protest indviduals who have signed?
2. Any feelings on the word NAZI being as offensive as the word FAG.
I would love to get some answers to those. Seeing as this website was set up for his I hope you will answer as in detail as possible instead of your last post which was nothing more then a generic brush-aside comment. If you can't come up with good answers for one guy on the internet how do you expect to change the minds of the thousands and thousands of people? (i was going to use millions instead of thousands, but that sounded like exageration but it's a lot of people whose minds need to be changed in order for y'all to get married and you will need some good reasons other then "it ruins lifes")
oh yea. question 3:
How does "everything-but-marriage" destroy lifes? If you get all the same rights as straight couples except your not recognized as married by the government, well why is that so horrible. shouldn't you except that most folks aren't as open-minded about homosexuality and the "everything-but-marriage" is a big step for them. tolerance is a 2 way street.
you can't always get what you want,
but sometimes you get what you need.
i shall be waiting on the edge of my seat for your reply.... again, please no generic brush off crap..
thanks
I don't think anyone can speak on behalf of the nearly 30 million gay and lesbians and millions more who are allies.
I can say that I hope dialogue is achieved and that through conversation people will understand that this is an attempt to take away civil rights from people. The right to visit a loved one in a hospital, or file joint tax returns.
I don't think any form of name calling is good, and its counter productive.
I don't think separate but equal is ever good. While civil unions would be a step forward it would be unfair to make a whole group of people less than.
well this is getting boring to me and you have let to presaude me to feel sympathetic to your cause. i will be signing referendum 71 and i guess i will just talk to you when you call me to "make me see the light". good luck with whatever it is you have to do to feel important.
well this is getting boring to me and you have let to presaude me to feel sympathetic to your cause. i will be signing referendum 71 and i guess i will just talk to you when you call me to "make me see the light". good luck with whatever it is you have to do to feel important.
Well it is a free country, but I am sad to say you are on the wrong side of history when you side with bigotry. Many of your friends, family, co-workers are gay whether out or not, and this will hurt them.
i disagree. you can't say that i am on the "wrong side of history". history will be decided by those in charge and for all you know planet of the apes could happen and then what will history say? and "many" of my friends, family and co-workers are not gay. i'm sure some of them are, but as far as i know none of them are. and how does it hurt gay people that are not "out of the closet" (i believe that is the right expression). what about the gay men married to a woman and they have a couple of kids, how does this hurt them? and what about the politicians who rally so hard aganist gay rights and then get caught in the bathroom, or the priests who enjoy sack-tickling little boys? no gay marriage does not effect them, yet thier negative attention is what so many people see and they associate that with gay marriage, and just because someone disagrees with gay marriage they are not a "bigot". what if someone was super um.. not sure of the word i want, accepting i guess, like a mother theresa type person, but because of religious beliefs (much like mother theresa probably had) they think marriage is just between a man and a woman. so does that mean they are a bigot? are all nuns and preiests and people in the world who disagree with gay marriage bigots? no matter what else they have done in life, they disagree with gay marriage, thier a bigot? if people don't believe that jesus was black, are they racist? you can't just say "you disagree with me, then you're a bigot" that's just bullpoo, but i guess that's guilt tripping people is how you roll. i have actaully signed up to go get signatures for referendum 71 and for every "decline to sign" signature you get, i shall get 2 more saying "no-gay marriage for you" (you a fan of seinfeld? soup-nazi, marriage-nazi... get it?) and again i'm not collecting signatures because i think gay marriage is wrong, i'm doing it because i think going after the people who sign referendum 71 the way you are is wrong and the great thing about AMERICA is that the system was set up to hold people down. not just gay people, but all people. "no rights for anyone" should be the slogan.
Eric and others:
If marriage is a religious thing, then you are correct that religious leaders have the right to recognize it or not. They do NOT have any right or any business passing laws enforcing this. Their jurisdiction is over their church and their church ONLY. Religious freedom means you can't enforce a specific religion's beliefs on anybody.
Also, marriage is not exclusively religious. Common law marriage has existed for as long as many religions have.
On a personal note, I believe disagreeing with gay marriage IS bigotry, but you people don't call it that - it's "tradition." This has been the argument against every civil rights struggle. You really are on the wrong side of history.
"Freedom of religion" does NOT give religious people the freedom to take away the rights of homosexuals. It gives them the freedom to practice their religion in peace, and it gives homosexuals the freedom to be separate from the beliefs of those who would oppose them. In theory, anyway.
"Freedom of religion," in this case, is just a more confusing way of saying "separation of church and state." Religious people can believe whatever they want, but marriage is NOT religious. Sometimes the ceremony is religious, but the purpose of the institution of marriage is to bind two people together legally, not religiously. I know many MANY people who are married and who are atheist. So why don't the religious people have a problem with that? Shouldn't that be just another form of godless marriage to them? Another violation of their religious institution? No, its because they are against homosexuals, which is bigotry, no matter how you try to say it.
@eP, why would you vote against people because they are campaigning? Why would you take away the rights of a homosexual because they are trying to make people understand? I would never "harass" someone who signed Ref 71, but I would try to let them know why they are in the wrong, just like so many Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to convince me that I am in the wrong when they come to my doorstep every month. If tolerance is a two-way street, then so is the human need to make others understand.
Post a Comment