Opponents of the marriage equality law approved by the legislature will turn in more than 200,000 signatures Wednesday blocking the law from taking effect Thursday.
Opponents say they have enough signatures to qualify Referendum 74 for the November ballot.
This will be the thirty-third time voters in the US will be asked to legalize same sex marriage. It has been rejected the previous 32 times.
Joseph Backholm, with Preserve Marriage Washington, the group that drove the signature gathering campaign, thinks the Washington decision will fall in line with previous votes.
"This is not about fairness or equality, this is about what is the definition of marriage and we expect Washington state will agree with the other states that marriage is between a man and a woman."
To learn more check out www.PreserveMarriageWashington.com.
37 Comments
Wow.
Yep. Washington voters will uphold marriage as the union of a man and woman.
Bravo, WA!
What sad lives you all must have, to devote so much time and energy to taking away other people's happiness. The tide is turning, and over 50% of America supports gay rights now. WA state will be the first to uphold marriage by voting, and the rest of the states will follow.
Where's the usual NOMer comment asking about the crystal ball?
Oh yeah, hypocrisy is in the rightwing details.
AD -
I'd say that it's more accurate to say that over 50% of Americans think that the politically correct, "enlightened" way to answer a poll about so-called ss"m" is to say you are in favor of it. But when it's time to vote on it in privacy, well, we all know how that goes.
The tide has turned in how people answers polls, such that the results are virtually meaningless.
Overcame:
Bingo.
The polls have been wrong over and over again on SS"M", just as they were drastically wrong in presenting the Walker recall as "too close to call".
But what's shaping up for SS"M" this fall is worse than they can possibly imagine
@AD
So you've given up on Maryland and Maine already?
WA is a sure fire loser for marriage corruption, but let them go ahead and delude themselves otherwise.
It will help drain their coffers.
And if they haven't given up on ME and MN yet, they will soon enough.
No chance for the marriage corruption movement anywhere the people get to vote.
Lefty, I have not given up on MD and ME, but I live in WA and I'm working on the campaign to preserve marriage rights for ALL couples in love. Washington approved R-71 at the ballot in 2009, which was called the "Everything But Marriage" bill, giving couples full civil rights under the law, just not the "M word". And public acceptance has grown a lot in 3 years.
We have won before, we will win again.
In the meantime, yet ANOTHER Federal judge has found DOMA unconstitutional. Equality is winning.
AD: So marriage rights is all about just love? Friendships have love & trust, and that's enough to form a friendship. That's a friendship (with the rights of friendship), not civil marriage. We say the same to you: 'devote so much time and energy to taking away other people's happiness' -our happiness, when we see out children indoctrinated in Public Schools as a result of imposed so-called equality for guys who don't see the difference between a -rectum- and a -vagina-. We will fight you politically all the way. And ignore you if we see you around, because we know you are our enemy.
Little Man, you make no sense. Is your marriage based on love? I would hope so.
Yes, please ignore us. Leave us alone to live our lives, and you live yours.
There is no indoctrination, just reality. Gay people exist. Accept that as truth, and treat everyone with respect.
And it is charming that you spend so much time thinking about what I do in the bedroom! I think some of you might be a little bit jealous!
AD,
You came banging on our doors demanding access to our club; we did not bang on yours. Blaming your victims for the crime you yourself commit is the tell-tale sign of a true sociopath.
Awesome news!!! Even in WA state people realize the importance of protecting the meaning of traditional marriage. I expected it to qualify for the ballot but 200,000 was a very pleasant surprise.
Maintaining the man+woman definition of marriage preserves fairness and equality; redefining it introduces inequality, elitism, and intolerance into a public institution, and opens the door to bigger government, the weakening of natural familial ties, and the loss of precious maternal, paternal, and children's rights. Want to destroy a society? Gut marriage.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/gay_marriage_the_hidden_agenda.html#.T80exhUNN8I.blogger
"Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist. And once the family is gone, society will fall apart. Knock out the cornerstone, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/gay_marriage_the_hidden_agenda.html#.T80exhUNN8I.blogger#ixzz1x4NIrOfa
It's truly telling that in such a progressive state such as Washington, that they got as many signatures as they did.
This is all going to culiminate on November 6 and when these 4 states reject same-sex marriage and give the Conservative movement the precious seats they need to take the congress and more state-legislatures, the liberal movement will see the greatest cultural backlash since the 90's when values voters turned out in record numbers. If only they could have finished the job back then.
I believe the same with happen again.
And DOMA goes down for the fourth time.
AD asks: "Is your marriage based on love?"
Here, again, the strawman argument. The reasons for people getting married are irrelevant to the definition of marriage. A man and a woman who don't like one another very much but make a good partnership are as eligible for marriage as a man and a woman whose parents arranged their marriage or a man and a woman who love each other.
Society doesn't care why men and women get married; it just cares that they do, so that any children that are created can have a mom and a dad and that those who created the children take responsibility for the upbringing of those children.
That two people of the same-sex are "in love" is irrelevant as to whether they can be married or not. They are de facto ineligible because they are not the combination of sexes that reproduce.
Ash:
The civil unions scam- the cynical duping of those folks in WA who thought they were settling this question by "compromise in good faith"- involves a little thing called backlash.
Don't bother to look it up, you will see it firsthand on election day.
Every cent, every minute of political activism, will be wasted for the marriage corruption movement in WA.
So please, be our guest.
Elections, after all, are exactly what we employ to settle questions like this.
@Daughter of Eve
I've read that book. It's not a game plan. It's an account of the ways that family structure has changed from one era in human history to the next, given that the way we reproduce ourselves biologically stays the same. Engels' conclusion is that freely-chosen monogamous marriage is the only form of marriage that can foster the equality of the sexes.
Thanks for the great links, DoE.
@21 And there you go, bringing children into it. Talk about a straw man!
Randy, I am curious as to what crimes you think I am committing.
AD -
Fact: There would be no marriage except for the fact that men and women procreate. There would not even be formation of couples.
I know it's merely inconvenient to the SS"M"ers that men and women are the only way that babies are created and same-sex couples are the way that babies are never created, but it is the essence of marriage. No bigotry, no animus; just anatomy and biology.
"And there you go, bringing children into it."
There it is.
If you want to understand the profound, irreconcilable difference in worldview which separates the defenders of marriage from the SS"M" radicals, it consists precisely in the utter rejection of any connection between marriage and children, by the marriage corruption advocates.
OK, there it is, pick your sides, take your stand.
It's winning time.
I'll be sure to tell all of my straight friends without children that they aren't really married! Once again, your logic goes off on an unrelated tangent. Two people can be married without children. Argue all you want, but this isn't about making babies.
Not so fast there, AD. Your objection explicitly requires us to dissociate children from marriage.
There is no clearer, simpler way to grasp the essential difference in worldview which lies at the heart of the battle over marriage.
For the American people, marriage refers to the unique union of the two complementary genders of our species; this union is recognized and fostered by the State because it *commonly* results in children, and best provides for their nurture.
The SS"M" radical has no coherent idea of what marriage is.
The SS"M" radical cannot define marriage as any thing other than what amounts to a Federal Friendship Registry with benefits.
Sorry, AD, but that definition is not going to fly.
The votes have made it quite clear, and we will conclude the lesson in November.
AD -
Oh, I'm not arguing; the fact is that if it weren't for males and females procreating, there would be no such thing as marriage. In fact, it is so based in sex, that homosexual couples are known to adopt male-female roles in their relationships! If you want to come up with an alternative theory as to how marriage came about, I'd love to hear it, especially as to why marriage involves couples.
No one ever said marriage required procreation; just that marriage exists because of and continues to be defined by the only combination of sexes that can possibly reproduce.
AD -
You might want to try the argument used by some of your cohorts: that same-sex couples DO reproduce! (They just need an opposite-sex third party to intervene....). That at least dovetails better into the other pro-ss"m" arguments about how same-sex parents are better than real parents, blah, blah, blah.
Some couples have babies, some don't.
Some couples adopt, some don't.
What was your point? How does this affect you, if two people want to spend their lives together?
It doesn't. Straight people will continue to marry and have babies, the world will not die off, the sky will not fall.
AD -
My point is that marriage is more than about 2 people wanting to spend their lives together (have you been paying attention?). That some people who decide to get married and don't have kids is irrelevant; kinda like asking why you signed up for a gym membership but have no intention of working out.
I'm paying attention, but you're totally wrong. The #1 reason that two people get married is to spend their lives together. The rest of it is irrelevant and doesn't concern anyone else.
AD -
The reasons that people get married are irrelevant to the purpose of the institution; the purpose - and why government and society value it - is because of its intended effect: to keep moms, dads and children together. Why would government get involved in marriage if it is irrelevant to anyone but the parties?
Believe it or not, AD, reproduction is really important to society, and assuring that children have their moms and dads is an important purpose of marriage. Same-sex couples produce nothing; that's why government and society don't care about them.