Gates' give $500,000 in support of R-74
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Bill and Melinda Gates have donated $500,000 to the campaign to uphold the state's gay marriage law.
The donation was announced Tuesday by Washington United for Marriage, which is working to approve Referendum 74. The donation was made on Oct. 15, but didn't publicly post online with the Public Disclosure Commission until Tuesday. Referendum 74 asks voters to either approve or reject the law allowing same-sex marriage that was passed by the Legislature earlier this year.
Bill Gates had made a $100,000 contribution to the campaign earlier this year.
About $11 million has been spent on the campaign so far, with a bulk of it spent by gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage has far outraised its opponents, bringing in nearly $11 million compared to the more than $2 million raised so far by Preserve Marriage Washington, which opposes the law.
A poll released last week showed that 56.3 percent of registered voters back gay marriage in the state, compared to 35.6 percent who oppose it, with 6.1 percent undecided.
Among likely voters, support decreased to 54.1 percent, with 38.4 percent saying they would vote against the measure, and 5.7 percent undecided.
The poll, conducted by the University of Washington, also included a third prediction, based on whether people answered honestly. Matt Barreto, director of the poll, said that because sometime people answering poll questions feel social pressure to answer a certain way, results can be skewed. In this poll, they weighted the poll based on how they answered two additional questions: if they lied on the survey and if any topics made them uncomfortable. That third prediction reduced those supporting the referendum down to 52.9 percent, and those opposing 46.6 percent.
Barreto noted that in 2009, when voters were deciding on a referendum on the state's so-called "everything but marriage" expansion of the domestic partnership law, his polling showed the measure was up by 17 points, but it ultimately only won by just over 6 percentage points.
The donation was announced Tuesday by Washington United for Marriage, which is working to approve Referendum 74. The donation was made on Oct. 15, but didn't publicly post online with the Public Disclosure Commission until Tuesday. Referendum 74 asks voters to either approve or reject the law allowing same-sex marriage that was passed by the Legislature earlier this year.
Bill Gates had made a $100,000 contribution to the campaign earlier this year.
About $11 million has been spent on the campaign so far, with a bulk of it spent by gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage has far outraised its opponents, bringing in nearly $11 million compared to the more than $2 million raised so far by Preserve Marriage Washington, which opposes the law.
A poll released last week showed that 56.3 percent of registered voters back gay marriage in the state, compared to 35.6 percent who oppose it, with 6.1 percent undecided.
Among likely voters, support decreased to 54.1 percent, with 38.4 percent saying they would vote against the measure, and 5.7 percent undecided.
The poll, conducted by the University of Washington, also included a third prediction, based on whether people answered honestly. Matt Barreto, director of the poll, said that because sometime people answering poll questions feel social pressure to answer a certain way, results can be skewed. In this poll, they weighted the poll based on how they answered two additional questions: if they lied on the survey and if any topics made them uncomfortable. That third prediction reduced those supporting the referendum down to 52.9 percent, and those opposing 46.6 percent.
Barreto noted that in 2009, when voters were deciding on a referendum on the state's so-called "everything but marriage" expansion of the domestic partnership law, his polling showed the measure was up by 17 points, but it ultimately only won by just over 6 percentage points.
Thanks so much for this. I live in Grand Rapids Mi where there is another family with almost as much money making sure that we never get to marry.Â
Â
 http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2012/08/amway_makes_no_apologies_for_p.html
Â
Â
Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they donât have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.
 @Wesley Steinbrink Please list one way that gay marriage would directly affect your current marriage or your ability to marry in the future.
 @Meg Wagener If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.
     Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.
     Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.
     When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.
     One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. Thatâs not right.
 @Meg Wagener Who is claiming gay marriage will directly affect their marriage?
 @Wesley Steinbrink Anyway this referendum just passed, so yay for gays!
 @Wesley Steinbrink That's nice. Fortunately, marriage as a civil right in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with religion, thanks to a beautiful clause called separation of church and state. Gay marriage is not about radical social experimentation; it's about equality.
We should not be doing radical social experiments with marriage.
 At the same time, I believe in the Bible as the Word of God that tells us God created marriage as between a man and a woman. This article is for those who do not necessarily believe it as I do.
 @Wesley Steinbrink Finally, if you note the portion of the article specifically focused on same-sex marriage, it begins by stating that research surrounding the effects of same-sex marriage on society, children, etc. is in its infancy. This means that none of the other claims purported in the article are factually substantiated as they pertain to same-sex marriage. The article respectfully denies researchers' ability to make specific predictions about the outcome of same-sex parents on their children, admitting that all of their claims to this end are mere speculation. The only scientifically supported statistic in this section of the article is that gay marriage has "taken hold" in societies or regions where there is already a low fertility rate. Based on the argument in the article, because marriage is linked to procreation and same-sex couples can not naturally procreate, their union weakens the very definition of marriage. In the past, however, marriage was linked to procreation because the latter was a necessary and expected part of maintaining the health of a society. With our global population at seven billion and overconsumption already in mass effect, procreation no longer has this beneficial outcome.
@Wesley Steinbrink
Additionally, a sentence from the summary of this article states exactly why withholding the right to marry from gay couples is so personally unjust. âMarriage offers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self.â If the title of marriage is so important in this way for straight couples, how can one not understand the equal importance of this right for gay couples?
Â
@Wesley Steinbrink
This article does a wonderful job of highlighting the benefits of marriage, and it also has an unintended side effect of describing exactly why those benefits should be extended to same-sex couples rather than withheld for the privilege of heterosexual couples alone. This article discusses, specifically, the ways in which marriage benefits the public good. So by extending this logic, it should be understood that defining marriage rights to include more contributing adult members of society can thereby only further benefit the public good.
Â
@Meg Wagener
The Harvard Journal Article is online - please download and read the 43 pages. It doesn't take too long and is very scholarly and well thought out. It covers Equality, Justice and the Heart of the Debate, -- If Not Same-Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones, -- Challenges for Revisionists -- and Isn't It Only Natural -- among all other related topics. It never uses religion to make any of its points.
Â
On page 13 it also references another prominent paper delineating research results: "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good, signed by some seventy scholars, which corroborates the philosophical case for marriage with extensive evidence from the social sciences about the welfare of children and adults. The Witherspoon Institute, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles 9-19 (2008), available at http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf"
Â
(All from "What is Marriage?" by Sherif Girgis*, Robert P. George**, & Ryan T. Anderson***, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol 34, No. 1. Winter 2011.)
* Ph.D .Candidate in Philosophy, Princeton University.
** McCormick Professor of Jusrisprudence, Princeton University.
*** Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of Notre Dame
Â
Retrieved Oct 26, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155## [Click on "Download this Paper"]
When Wesley says that gays and lesbians being able to marry will "redefine marriage for [him]," I'm wondering exactly what impact this redefinition will have on his life and his current or future marriage(s).
Â
Same-sex couples already have the legal rights as married couples in Washington. Also, children do better when raised by a married mom and dad - Social science research indicates. Lower poverty rates, higher education achievement, better mental health, improved physical health, and increased general happiness. Redefining marriage can cause people to choose between faith action mission or upholding their religious beliefs. Parental rights are impacted as they cannot chose how their offspring are taught about marriage in public school. Businesses can be sued for just expressing support for traditional marriage - paraphrased from Preserve Marriage Washington.
The latest "no" commercials are bringing up "marriage was created for fostering the next generation"...that means persons past the age of child bearing can't marry either? Canadian sportscaster fired? that's CANADA, duh. we all have the right of association, if you're against gay marriage, don't have one. over the years I have known people who are gay, and seen so much prejudice waged against them. that's wrong and sad. they are HUMAN...just like everyone else
 @my_opinions Indeed. Is there a fertility requirement for a marriage license? No. It's a ridiculous argument.
Some of these comments make me ask the question.. Do some of you even KNOW anyone who is Gay? Do you listen to them, eat with them, pray with them, cry with them, laugh with them? Do you know their sometimes heart breaking life stories or the wonderful people they are? Do you know about their families, their choices, their good times and bad? If you don't even know and ACTUAL human being who is Gay I don't think you have the right to post such absurd things about how they will destroy society etc. Some of the most wonderful loving and hard working people I know are GAY!
Oh I see so because they chose to marry someone of the SAME sex than they should not have any rights? They should just NOT be gay and NOT marry or fall in love or have equality? They should be forced to be heterosexual or not have any legally equality marrying rights? Yeah that's awesome!
This is not about your religion, or your God or your church. Being gay is not illegal and the church and your God do not get to make these choices. This is about the LEGAL aspect of it. If Gays get the LEGAL right to marry freely and have the same advantages as heterosexual couples. If you don't want to be gay, don't be. If you don't want gay friends, don't have them. If you think that God does not like or approve of Gays, than he will work that out himself in his own time. Remember when it used to be illegal for Whites and Blacks to marry and how everyone said GOD hated it. Well here it is people.. you are not God and you do not get to speak for him.
Gays should have ever LEGAL right to marry that anyone else does. This is about Marriage EQUALITY for all. Some of the most amazing smart loving people I have the honor of having in my life are Gays, gay couples, gay couples with children.Â
This needs to pass.... period!
 @Angela Red Wright Gays already do have the legal right to marry that everyone else does.  They just don't like that right because it limits them to people of the opposite sex.  But like it or not the right applies EQUALLY to everyone.
 @Vertex  @Angela Red Wright Prior to 1967, blacks and whites had the same legal rights to marry as everyone else, too. They just didn't like it because it limited them to people of their same color. But, like it or not, this right applied EQUALLY to everyone.
Â
Please remember, Vertex, that SEPARATE was not then, is not now, and never will be EQUAL.
 @Vertex  @Angela Red Wright Actually the supreme court ruled that everyone has a right to marriage.  They didn't specify that the two people had to be of opposite sex. Â
 @Vertex  @Angela Red Wright You can keep posting this ridiculous canard, but it's still not going to be anything but ridiculous.
 @WhatRJDid Calling my position false and ridiculous proves nothing.
 @Angela Red Wright Angela, I believe you are mistaken in your response. I was responding to Vertex, who said gays have equal rights already--to marry someone of the opposite sex. That, to me, is ridiculous. I am a vehement supporter of marriage equality for our gay citizens.
And what is ridiculous about it? That everyone should be treated equally in all things? Yeah that sounds pretty silly doesn't it.Â
Gays should be free to love each other, have relationships and commit their lives to each other in ceremonies of their choosing. Â But in my opinion, the health of society hinges more on OPPOSITE sex marriages. Â It is a crucial building block. Â Therefore, I don't think government should grant the same status and benefits to same sex relationships.
@Vertex your comment shows how uneducated you are about life and family and people. Healthy society and social issues belongs to all of us and there are plenty of families that are same sex partners or marriages. They make up our society, they work, they go to school, they pay their bills, they build etc. Just because someone is gay does not mean that society as a whole is going to break down. That doesn't even make any sense what so ever
 @Angela Red Wright I didn't say that there are no families with same sex partners.  Nor did I say that society as a whole will break down because of gays.
 @Vertex If you're primarily concerned with the societal implications of heterosexual marriage as a building block then I don't see why you'd care about whether gays can get married or not. They're gonna be gay either way, so why not let them get married. It's not like if R74 fails all the gays are going to turn straight and get married.
 @georgehrowe Because if heterosexual marriage is unique in it's contribution to a healthy society then government has an interest in promoting it.  It wouldn't make sense to promote other relationships as being the same thing if they are not the same thing.  And there are other other human relationships besides same-sex and heterosexual couples - so by being something specific marriage will by nature "discriminate".  If it doesn't discriminate then it is nothing and everything.
 @Vertex  There is no evidence to substantiate your claim that heterosexual marriage has more of an impact in contributing to a healthy society than same-sex marriage. In fact, given that gay marriage ends in divorce far less often than straight marriage, I'd say we are really saving the taxpayers some money!Â
 @Vertex  Too bad.  Gay Marriage will happen in Washington State and will eventually be the law of the land.  Get used to it.Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush Well you sure destroyed my argument.  Guess I have to change my position now. ;)
 @eddiesocket Anyone can say that. Prove it.
 @Vertex  @Andrew Bush You didn't present an argument to destroy.Â
It's amazing to me to see the comments posted here. I do not agree with organized religion because I believe it is big business, and therefore as corrupt as Wall Street. Besides that, I don't think I've read anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said "Thou shalt go forth and use guilt and peer pressure to bilk money from the masses". So with that in mind, apparently the big business of organized religion is upset that this bill will make it legal to marry whoever (or whatever) you want. Frankly my dear, I don't give a monkey turd about what you do in your bedroom, or who/what you marry or consider your friend, roommate, or partner. That is not my business, each of us is responsible for our own actions or lack thereof, and the Bible says not to judge. However, that doesn't mean that those of us who believe in the Bible or Jesus should condone your "sins". I think that with the technology we have today, if you do something that the Bible/God/Jesus labels as "sin", you probably already know that it was a sin in the first place and you don't need me to tell you that it was, presuming that you consider yourself a follower. If you are not a follower of the Bible, then there are others that preach similar concepts. It's one of those things that gets everyone's feathers ruffled, the old "Sodom and Gomorrah" thing, the Bible thumpers think that this is one of the pieces of paper that will open the door to armageddon, lawlessness and widespread sin. I am not a Bible "thumper", I am much more open to conversation than that, and I believe that each of us is at a different level of spiritual learning, so I am not opposed to sitting down with people who are actual sinners (God Forbid!) and speaking with them about anything, much like Jesus did when people sought him out. Please people, be civil, after all, you can't treat another human being like they need you to chastise them, if they are doing something wrong, they already know it, and it doesn't matter what you say to them, they will make their own decisions. Also, it's counter-productive to butt heads with someone that thinks that you are full of self-righteous bs because you are acting like you know better than they do or are better than them. It just proves the point that you are self-righteous.
 @Bluelapis "so I am not opposed to sitting down with people who are actual sinners"
Â
There is no such thing as sin. Â It is a creation of religion which is in itself man made. Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Bluelapis Well you are free to call yourself a sinner till the cows come home. Â
Â
Religious sin doesn't apply to people who do not partake in religious nuttery.
Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Bluelapis how many of these "good books" were shelved before even murder was listed as "sin"Â
Â
Murder was A-OK Â at one time according to the phony religions. Â
Â
For that matter so was rape torture and slavery. Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush Thanks for the news flash.  Now please explain how you can possibly know this.
@Andrew Bush @Vertex Andrew is right the only way we know the word sin is because we may or may not have been forced to read the bible where we are also taught things like Hell that doesn't exist. Who says what SIN is and is not? Man? well he seems to think so..
 @Andrew Bush Oh so you can't actually back up your claim?  Perhaps we should just chalk it up as a mere assertion.
 @Vertex How do I explain how something made up isn't real?  Â
Â
LOL!!
Just calculated that if I give 20$ I will have given the same proportionate amount of my net worth. Works for me. I guess much more important than the actual amount, is that the Gates' fully support the cause. When one of the most iconic persona of capitalism lends his name, that should make the most resistant scratch their head. Thank you Mr. & Mrs. Gates.Â
At one time there was some kind of biography about Gates that he had memorized one of the New Testament books of the Bible. Â He has a good memory but could not understand what it meant. Â The man is growing old but so do wolves in sheeps clothing.Â
Bill Gates is very smart and very talented and he is doing a lot to help, educate and protect the entire world. I know him personally and he is an honorable man.
 @Angela Red Wright He's got a lot to make right in the way he's treated people in the past. Honorable men don't steal IP and code bases from young people who don't know ow to defend themselves.Â
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, should one person be able to influence any ballot measure to this extent either way if his wallet is fat enough? Why bother voting if that is the case?
 @dorimonsonfan  yeah you shouldn't vote then...Â