Former Republican Gov. Evans supports R-74

@Truth Percolates: 

If truth percolates, you must be a drip.  Marriage Equality hsa been the law for a number of years now in 7 states here in the US - yet you apparently can only find Canadian stories to "prove" it is bad (at least in your view of the world).

@Truth Percolates Ok if there was any doubt in my mind before, there is not now. You are gay.

 @Truth Percolates Oh no! The entire world is going to come crashing down on your poor little head when gay marriage is legalized, isn't it? It's not rocket science, bro: If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married!

 @Truth Percolates  poor you... Your entire world is crashing because you have no one to put down in a desperate effort to put yourself above others.   

 

What is not normal is your strange obsession with homosexuals.  

 

Why do you spend so much of your time thinking about the homosexuals?  

 

Can't you help yourself?   

@Truth Percolates -

1) Seperate but equal DOES NOT meet the test of Constitutionality.  Requiring a seperate name / title / function for gay marriage requires a seperate but equal condition to be created, which has ALWAYS been ruled un-constitutional.   Therefore your arguement in this regard is a failure.   Add that marriage has been determined to be a right by the US Supreme court in more than one case, and you cannot dismiss gay marriage under any circumstance.      

2) Canadian law regarding bias, discrimination and gay marriage is different than American law.   You might as well be comparing Saudi Arabian laws regarding bias, discrimination and gay marriage to ours - it makes as much sense as doing so with Canadian laws.  Canadian laws regarding bias and discrimination allow for lawsuits and fines against people who speak out in ways like you describe - but NOTHING in the American laws allow for that - and I doubt that any laws that would do so would be able to stand due to thier contraviening the Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion.

3) NOTHING in the American initiatives / laws prevents someone from having whatever beliefs they want regarding gay marriage. 

4) If one wants to break the EXISTING American anti-discrimination laws on the books today, they can easily do so even without gay marriage being approved -  Be a business that caters to the public - say a wedding reception hall.   Refuse to rent it to a gay couple because they are gay.  Today - EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF GAY MARRIAGE LAWS BEING PASSED you will have broken the anti-discrimination law.  When you are in a business that caters to the public, you are required to follow ALL laws regardless of your morals or religious beliefs.  You CANNOT violate these laws.  This includes everything from occupancy laws to health code laws to the anti-discrimination laws. 

 

The folks who the anti-R74 ad use from Vermont are liars.  The gay marriage law is not why they got in trouble.  They got in trouble because they violated the EXISTING anti-discrimination laws.   (and by the way, they had ALREADY decided that they were no longer going to host weddings or wedding receptions BEFORE they refused to allow the lesbians to hold thier reception in thier facility - so they lied twice).

 

 

 

 @Truth Percolates In case you are unaware of it, Canadian law does not apply in the US and US law does not apply in Canada.  What Canada does, or does not do, is irrelevant to the people in Washington state.

 @Necrobio   Its the Tea Party Effect!   

 @Magic 8 Ball And tradition in the South prior to the mid 1960s was Jim Crow Laws which validated segregation into law.  Tradition of this country during historic expansion since its founding was using Manifest Destiny as a catch phrase was to exterminate Native Americans or push them onto reservations or concentration camps to make way for white settlers.   So, perhaps, we should all go back to using tradition as a basis for judgement of law passages rather than what is correct in human civil rights?  And if so, just how far back in tradition should we go?

@Magic 8 Ball - gee dude, so the redefinitions of marriage that have happened dozens if not hundreds of times over these lo, thousands of years mean nothing and only THIS ONE redefinition is a problem?  If that's the case, I'd have to say you're the one with the problem, not the rest of us.

 

Traditions change.  Definitions change.

Which definition is yours?

1) Marriage used to be property transfer of a woman from her father to another man.  Arraigned by the men without the input of the woman.

2) Marriage was only allowed with the village elder / King / Priest's blessing

3) Marriage required a significant dowry (aka payment for the property transfer of the woman)

4) Marriage was not allowed between different races

5) Marriage was not allowed between two different religions

6) Divorce was not allowed

 

And there are many, many more.

 

Which one should we have stopped at?  The definition and 'traditions' have changed so many times, I don't know which one is the one you anti-gay marriage people demand to be 'the only one that's ever existed'

 @Magic 8 Ball Which institution? There are actually 2 institutions that people are often confused about. This affects only the governmental institution of "marriage," which is the social contract the government recognizes for taxes and other benefits (which all consentual unions should have a right to). The other religions institution of "marriage" is NOT affected by this, as churches cannot be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

 @Magic 8 Ball If gay marriage bothers you so much don't marry a gay.   Its that simple.   

 @wally gruentenheimer Poor wally... still lashing out on every story about gays.   

 @TruthinAdverts "Remember when the Republican party had individuals like Dan Evans?"

 

YES!

Dan Evens and Colin Powell are the LAST AND ONLY Republicans I trust.

 @jdoll88  Your whining isn't news either but here it is.  

 @sb in seattle To be completely fair, Dan Evans is a VERY liberal Republican.  Some might call him a RINO.

 @Dannyboy I reported this comment.  I'm surprised it's still here.  Apparently KOMO does not think calling people butt pirates is offensive.  *Shrugs*

 

 

 @Dannyboy Keep fighting those demons in your closet.   

@Dannyboy - ah the classic insult the person who takes a different position than yours.

 

And it's also a major fail.

 

Thanks for playing - try to come up with something more original next time.

@Dannyboy I think he is married, and probably out of your league. Seattle is a liberal city though, so you have plenty of options.

Why would a civilized society want morals and values anyway?

@northwestsurfer That's right northwestsurfer...Values are not in the least bit important in society.  Kill the unborn, sex with animals, child molestation.  It's all good!

 @northwestsurfer How much less could you care?

 

Hint, the phrase is could NOT care less.  If you could care less it means that you do indeed care to some degree.