Just, wow

Last night we were sitting around the table waiting for the boy to finish his dinner when the trusty husband picked up the Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet and began to flip through it. ?He stopped to read something and then looked at me. ?”I am going to ask that you don’t read the statement against Referendum 71,” he calmly stated. ?Of course that meant I HAD to read it. ?Being the anti-news person that I am I had no clue what Ref. 71 was. ?He mentioned that it was a revision to the domestic partnership law that WA had passed a while ago. ?A measure that I whole heartedly supported at the time.

This go around it is just a few minor revisions to the wording of the law. ?Basically, it makes the wording a little more gender neutral giving same sex partners a few more rights than before. ?Things like sick leave for a partner, custody in the event of a disillusionment and worker compensation and unpaid benefits upon a partner’s death. ?What it DOES NOT do is redefine marriage in Washington State. ?That is very clearly stated in the wording of the referendum.

I begged the trusty husband to give me the voter’s pamphlet so I could see for myself what he didn’t want me to see. ?As he begrudgingly handed it over he said, “I warned you.”

Let’s start by mentioning that the against statement has 4 exclamation points in it. ?I’m actually surprised that it wasn’t written in ALL CAPS BOLD AND UNDERLINED!!! Then they really could get their point across.

Next, we’ll break down what is basically causing me to have an aneurism.

“SB 5688 is primarily about homosexual marriage – not benefits.”

The text of the explanitory statement says, “If approved, the measure would not change the statute defining marriage under Washington law. A domestic partnership would not be within the definition of marriage, which would continue to be limited to one man and one woman.”

Oh it gets better…

The against statement goes on to say, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation for civilized societies and has been for centuries. Marriage does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals, but for the greater good of the social order. Marriage is about providing the most stable and healthy environment in which to raise children.”

ah, buh, AH! ?For the good of the order. ?For the CHILDREN! ?Think about the children. Because nobody with a gay parent has ever amounted to anything (*cough* Rene Russo, Anne Heche, Ally Sheedy *cough*) ?or a single parent for that matter (Hello, President Obama). ?Only those with a mother and a father will ever become something memorable.

Better still…

“SB 5688 redefines terms such as ?husband? and ?wife? to be construed as ?gender neutral.? The new law will confuse children and likely result in public schools influencing children to accept a new definition of the ?family unit? so that same-sex partners will be a recognized norm.”

Oh dear lord. ?If we talk about it in school it might make all of the children GAY! ?Kinda like cooties.

Does it really matter what two people who love each other do in the privacy of their own bedroom? ?It seems to me that children would benefit from having as many people around them who love and care for them as possible.

I don’t get it.

9 Comment

  1. I am SO with you.

  2. Margaret says: Reply

    When an amendment to the Michigan constitution was proposed several years ago, I didn’t think it would pass. Even the narrow-minded one man/one woman believers wouldn’t want to glibly change the wording of our state constitution, would they? But they did. They did. The amendment change was passed with flying colors. I was so disappointed in my state.

  3. it gets better when you see those words coming from the mouth of a real human being..


    video voters guide, watch Roger Stickney on Referendum 71 (bottom video half way through).

  4. mom says: Reply

    I so wanna be there when my friend finds the love of his life and walks down the isle. He’s young, impressionable, and fighting bravely againest a world that is againest who HE IS! A wonderful, fun, bright, honest human being who deserves the same happiness in life that we all do. The man that he marries will be a lucky one. And by God… nobody… nobody… should be deprived of a basic human need… love. I’m with you, Lisa!

  5. I can’t even rationally discuss this issue because I can’t wrap my brain around the other side of the argument. It makes my blood pressure rise to dangerous levels when someone starts talking about how it is going to destroy society if we “let” same sex couple get married.

  6. luneray says: Reply

    I hope that R-71 is going strong. I think it is because the only anti-R-71 ad I know about is on Classic KING radio, and it’s ludicrous. “Don’t you think that the state legislators have better things to do with their time? Send a message to Olympia and vote NO on R-71!” Hmmm…I think I will send s message to Olympia and vote yes because I think civil rights for a significant amount of the population is something legislators should be concerned about.

  7. It makes me so mad I can barely speak about it. Had a friend in High School who was terrified to tell anyone her mother was gay. It was not until we were grown that anyone knew. She was terrified for her safety.

    The whole thing is insanity. Please let’s amend the constitution to exclude people from having rights. That sounds like a great idea. Because somehow their having rights infringes on mine?

    I don’t understand it and when I hear people try to explain or speak about it I just want to throw something.

  8. Heidi says: Reply

    Wow. I always vote for letting people be who they are. Happy and in love sounds great to me!

  9. Sandy says: Reply

    Ugh. Beyond stupid.

    And to think we are one of the most liberal, left-leaning states out there.

    Oh, and I heard that ad about “don’t our legislators have better things to do with their time,” and it made me want to slap a bitch. That is the ugliest, most callous ad I’ve ever heard.

Leave a Reply