WA state 7th to allow gay marriage........

[WorldWatcher]

Look, take me at my word or call me a liar.. I don't give a crap. I've lived in WA state mostly since I was 9. I know our history. I'm not going to research something I know happened just to prove to you I'm not lying. I'm not a liar and therefore I shouldn't have to prove I'm not lying. If you don't want to accept that one, take the Quest field one and accept it. Most WA state voters over 25 know exactly what I'm talking about.

You obviously want to pick a fight, go pick it with someone else.

Not trying to pick a fight and not trying to call you a liar, you may be correct you may be mistaken - but I don't think you are lying (as in a known false statement made with the intent to deceive) so relax.

You made a positive affirmation that you voted in a Washington state initiative on Same-sex Civil Marriage and that the vote was to reject such a position.So I reviewed all state ballot initiatives between 2000 and 2011, since most of the iniative votes were in 2000 & 2004. None of the votes had anything to do with rejecting Same-sex Civil Marriage. The closest things to the topic were the rejection of Referendum 71 thereby allowing full Domestic Partnership privileges and a 1997 initiative that was also rejected to allow employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.


>>>>

No, I said I abstained from that vote.

OK, let me correct that.

You made a positive affirmation that a vote was held in a Washington state initiative on Same-sex Civil Marriage and that the vote was to reject such a position.So I reviewed all state ballot initiatives between 2000 and 2011, since most of the iniative votes were in 2000 & 2004. None of the votes had anything to do with rejecting Same-sex Civil Marriage. The closest things to the topic were the rejection of Referendum 71 thereby allowing full Domestic Partnership privileges and a 1997 initiative that was also rejected to allow employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.


Corrected.

>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

So you ask to have a discussion and I opened the door about having a discussion as to why the government should discriminate against citizens on the basis of gender as it pertains to secular law and Civil Marriage, but you don't want to have that discussion?

BTW - this discussion has been taking place in the public arena for about the last 20 years since the early 1990's when it appeared that Hawaii might legalize Same-sex Civil Marriage.


>>>>

I believe my response was basically "not to disccuss the right or wrong of gay marriage" IE, I didn't want to discuss it.

BTW, the discussion has been taking place for a lot longer than 20 years. We were discussing it when I was in highschool and that was in the 70's.

Well how are we to know if laws should be rejected or accepted if we don't discuss them?

>>>>

My point at the time was not whether it should be accepted or rejected, only that it was already rejected by the voters and the state legistlature went around us, AGAIN!!

I didn't want to discuss the right or wrong of it as I have still not made up my mind on the subject which is why I abstained from the vote when the initiative came around. Now another WA state voter has backed me on that, hopefully that's enough for you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not very helpful in attempting to confirm what you said. But let's work with that.

2012 - 5 = 2007. Then we'll take 2-years on each side as a buffer.

Below is a list of all Washington State voter actions for the years 2007 through 2008, which of them was the vote on rejecting Same-sex Civil Marriage again?

• 2009 | I 1033 | Limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth
• 2009 | R 71 | Expansion of domestic partnership rights
• 2008 | I-985 | Various changes in traffic regulation
• 2008 | I-1000 | Allow terminally ill adults access to lethal medication under some circumstances
• 2008 | I-1029 | Licensing, regulation of long-term healthcare workers
• 2007 | I-960 | Approval of 2/3rds of legislature, or voter approval, for tax increases, public information about tax increases
• 2007 | R 67 | Insurers prohibited from unreasonably denying certain coverage claims.
• 2007 | SJR 8206 | Legislature required to transfer 1% of general state revenues to a budget stabilization account each year
• 2007 | SJR 8212 | State-operated inmate labor programs run by private contractors
• 2007 | HJR 4204 | Approval of school district excess property tax levies by simple majority vote of participating voters
• 2007 | HJR 4215 | Authorize investment of money in higher education permanent funds as permitted by law
• 2006 | I-920 | Repeal of laws imposing estate taxes
• 2006 | I-933 | Requires compensation when government regulation damages the value of private property
• 2006 | I-937 | Require electric utilities to meet targets for energy conservation
• 2006 | HJR 4223 | Increases "head of household" exemption to $15,000
• 2005 | I-900 | Performance audits of state and local government agencies and entities
• 2005 | I-901 | Prohibit smoking in public places and in places of employment
• 2005 | I-912 | Repeal motor vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents in 2005 and 2006, 2 cents in 2007, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2008
• 2005 | I-330 | Limit non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases to $350,000, limit attorney fees
• 2005 | I-336 | Establish a supplemental malpractice insurance program for liability exceeding private insurance
• 2005 | SJR 8207 | Replace the phrase "district court judges" with the term "limited jurisdiction court judges."

If it's not on that list here are all the state ballot votes in Washington State between 1900 and 2012, so maybe you could find it for us. -->> List of Washington State Initiatives to the People - Ballotpedia

>>>>

Look, take me at my word or call me a liar.. I don't give a crap. I've lived in WA state mostly since I was 9. I know our history. I'm not going to research something I know happened just to prove to you I'm not lying. I'm not a liar and therefore I shouldn't have to prove I'm not lying. If you don't want to accept that one, take the Quest field one and accept it. Most WA state voters over 25 know exactly what I'm talking about.

You obviously want to pick a fight, go pick it with someone else.

As a resident of said State. You are 100% correct.

OK, as a Washington State resident that says a pervious vote was taken on Same-sex Civil Marriage and (since you agree) that it was rejected.

On the link below you can find all Washington State ballot votes from 1900 through 2011. Please identify the year that a vote occured that placed Same-sex Civil Marriage on the ballot and that it was rejected.

ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/List_of_Washington_ballot_measures#tab=2010-2019



Thank you.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I believe my response was basically "not to disccuss the right or wrong of gay marriage" IE, I didn't want to discuss it.

BTW, the discussion has been taking place for a lot longer than 20 years. We were discussing it when I was in highschool and that was in the 70's.

Well how are we to know if laws should be rejected or accepted if we don't discuss them?

>>>>

My point at the time was not whether it should be accepted or rejected, only that it was already rejected by the voters and the state legistlature went around us, AGAIN!!

But there has been nothing presented, even after given the opportunity and a site provided to facilitate such a check, that shows it was even voted on once.

I'm not saying there wasn't a vote taken, I'm looking for what the subject of the vote actually was and what the outcome of the vote was. I'm sorry sometimes people are mistaken and I just like to confirm things. I worked the intelligence field in the Navy - trust but verify was our unofficial motto.

I didn't want to discuss the right or wrong of it as I have still not made up my mind on the subject which is why I abstained from the vote when the initiative came around. Now another WA state voter has backed me on that, hopefully that's enough for you.

OK, don't discuss the law. Just kind of confused as you were encouraging a discussion to take place.

I've provided to link to the other poster also, maybe they will be able to document some confirmation that a vote was held.


>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

Well how are we to know if laws should be rejected or accepted if we don't discuss them?

>>>>

My point at the time was not whether it should be accepted or rejected, only that it was already rejected by the voters and the state legistlature went around us, AGAIN!!

But there has been nothing presented, even after given the opportunity and a site provided to facilitate such a check, that shows it was even voted on once.

I'm not saying there wasn't a vote taken, I'm looking for what the subject of the vote actually was and what the outcome of the vote was. I'm sorry sometimes people are mistaken and I just like to confirm things. I worked the intelligence field in the Navy - trust but verify was our unofficial motto.

I didn't want to discuss the right or wrong of it as I have still not made up my mind on the subject which is why I abstained from the vote when the initiative came around. Now another WA state voter has backed me on that, hopefully that's enough for you.

OK, don't discuss the law. Just kind of confused as you were encouraging a discussion to take place.

I've provided to link to the other poster also, maybe they will be able to document some confirmation that a vote was held.


>>>>

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone? Why would we lie about such a thing?

 

[WorldWatcher]

My point at the time was not whether it should be accepted or rejected, only that it was already rejected by the voters and the state legistlature went around us, AGAIN!!

But there has been nothing presented, even after given the opportunity and a site provided to facilitate such a check, that shows it was even voted on once.

I'm not saying there wasn't a vote taken, I'm looking for what the subject of the vote actually was and what the outcome of the vote was. I'm sorry sometimes people are mistaken and I just like to confirm things. I worked the intelligence field in the Navy - trust but verify was our unofficial motto.

I didn't want to discuss the right or wrong of it as I have still not made up my mind on the subject which is why I abstained from the vote when the initiative came around. Now another WA state voter has backed me on that, hopefully that's enough for you.

OK, don't discuss the law. Just kind of confused as you were encouraging a discussion to take place.

I've provided to link to the other poster also, maybe they will be able to document some confirmation that a vote was held.


>>>>

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone?

Because I've been on discussion boards for a number of years and watched a number (actually a large number) of people make claims about the law which upon check prove to be faulty. It's part of the process I use to gain a better understanding about both the law and the issues involved with how the law has evolved.

So when someone makes a claim about the law, I like to read the source documents involved such as the legislation itself, court opinions rendered, and in some cases the ballot text and voting history of initiatives/referendums themselves. You made a claim and as is my habit, I checked for such an initiative to see what it said and I could find no evidence that one existed.

My first source was to Ballotpedia which I've found as a good starting point and provides convenient links to government source documents. Here is another link from the Washington Secretary of State listing all ballot initiatives and referendums since 1990's. I see no such public vote by the people of Washington State on the subject of Same-sex Civil Marriage. The closest would be Referendum 71 (which was on Domestic Partnerships and which was rejected by voters).

Index to Initiative and Referendum History and Statistics: 1914-2011

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone?

The second thing is that if such a vote had occurred, it would be very important on the type of vote that was taken. If it was a referendum on statutory law, then at a later time the Legislature could legally change such a law. However it it was an initiative to amend the Washington State Constitution, then the Legislature would not be empowered to change such a situation without first submitting a new amendment to the voters.

If the Washington State Legislature approved statutory law in violation of the State's Constitution I would speak out loudly against such an action.

Why would we lie about such a thing?

I don't think you lied, I think you were mistaken. I respectfully ascribe no nefarious intent at all.


>>>>

 

[Againsheila]

But there has been nothing presented, even after given the opportunity and a site provided to facilitate such a check, that shows it was even voted on once.

I'm not saying there wasn't a vote taken, I'm looking for what the subject of the vote actually was and what the outcome of the vote was. I'm sorry sometimes people are mistaken and I just like to confirm things. I worked the intelligence field in the Navy - trust but verify was our unofficial motto.



OK, don't discuss the law. Just kind of confused as you were encouraging a discussion to take place.

I've provided to link to the other poster also, maybe they will be able to document some confirmation that a vote was held.


>>>>

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone?

Because I've been on discussion boards for a number of years and watched a number (actually a large number) of people make claims about the law which upon check prove to be faulty. It's part of the process I use to gain a better understanding about both the law and the issues involved with how the law has evolved.

So when someone makes a claim about the law, I like to read the source documents involved such as the legislation itself, court opinions rendered, and in some cases the ballot text and voting history of initiatives/referendums themselves. You made a claim and as is my habit, I checked for such an initiative to see what it said and I could find no evidence that one existed.

My first source was to Ballotpedia which I've found as a good starting point and provides convenient links to government source documents. Here is another link from the Washington Secretary of State listing all ballot initiatives and referendums since 1990's. I see no such public vote by the people of Washington State on the subject of Same-sex Civil Marriage. The closest would be Referendum 71 (which was on Domestic Partnerships and which was rejected by voters).

Index to Initiative and Referendum History and Statistics: 1914-2011

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone?

The second thing is that if such a vote had occurred, it would be very important on the type of vote that was taken. If it was a referendum on statutory law, then at a later time the Legislature could legally change such a law. However it it was an initiative to amend the Washington State Constitution, then the Legislature would not be empowered to change such a situation without first submitting a new amendment to the voters.

If the Washington State Legislature approved statutory law in violation of the State's Constitution I would speak out loudly against such an action.

Why would we lie about such a thing?

I don't think you lied, I think you were mistaken. I respectfully ascribe no nefarious intent at all.


>>>>

You listed a bunch of initiatives but unless you read them, you have no idea what they are about. I am not going through all our past initiatives to prove something to you.

Big money was spent in this state to try to get that thing to pass, most of th emoney coming from OUT of state. It failed. Our state government has now ignored us, like it has so many other times, and instituted it anyway.

Beflieve me or don't, I don't give a crap anymore.

 

[grunt11b]

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a bill that legalizes gay marriage in Washington state, making it the nation's seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

It's a historic moment, but same-sex couples can't walk down the aisle just yet.

The law takes effect June 7, but opponents are already mounting challenges on multiple fronts.

Opponents planned to file a challenge Monday that could put the law on hold pending the outcome of a November vote.

Separately, an initiative was filed at the beginning of the session that opponents of gay marriage say could lead to the new law being overturned.

Gregoire signed the bill Monday morning. It passed the House on Wednesday, a week after Senate approval.

"We are thrilled," said Lisa M. Stone, executive director of Legal Voice, a nonprofit that advocates for gay and lesbian rights. "After amazing support from both the Senate and the House earlier this month, signing the marriage equality bill late this morning was the next step toward providing equal treatment for all loving and committed families."

U.S. News - Wash. governor signs gay marriage bill into law

I hope this keeps up.

And in other news, the rest of America still doesn't seem to really give a shit anymore. Back to you greg!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would you insist on documentation? You can't just believe someone?

Because I've been on discussion boards for a number of years and watched a number (actually a large number) of people make claims about the law which upon check prove to be faulty. It's part of the process I use to gain a better understanding about both the law and the issues involved with how the law has evolved.

So when someone makes a claim about the law, I like to read the source documents involved such as the legislation itself, court opinions rendered, and in some cases the ballot text and voting history of initiatives/referendums themselves. You made a claim and as is my habit, I checked for such an initiative to see what it said and I could find no evidence that one existed.

My first source was to Ballotpedia which I've found as a good starting point and provides convenient links to government source documents. Here is another link from the Washington Secretary of State listing all ballot initiatives and referendums since 1990's. I see no such public vote by the people of Washington State on the subject of Same-sex Civil Marriage. The closest would be Referendum 71 (which was on Domestic Partnerships and which was rejected by voters).

Index to Initiative and Referendum History and Statistics: 1914-2011



The second thing is that if such a vote had occurred, it would be very important on the type of vote that was taken. If it was a referendum on statutory law, then at a later time the Legislature could legally change such a law. However it it was an initiative to amend the Washington State Constitution, then the Legislature would not be empowered to change such a situation without first submitting a new amendment to the voters.

If the Washington State Legislature approved statutory law in violation of the State's Constitution I would speak out loudly against such an action.

Why would we lie about such a thing?

I don't think you lied, I think you were mistaken. I respectfully ascribe no nefarious intent at all.


>>>>

You listed a bunch of initiatives but unless you read them, you have no idea what they are about. I am not going through all our past initiatives to prove something to you.

I listed the summary of what the initiative was about. It would be illogical to assume that an initiative about Property Taxes had a secret agenda as a referendum against Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Big money was spent in this state to try to get that thing to pass, most of th emoney coming from OUT of state. It failed. Our state government has now ignored us, like it has so many other times, and instituted it anyway.

What you are describing is probably Referendum 71 from 2009 which had to do with extending Domestic Partnership benefits to same-sex couples which had been passed by the legislature. The referendum itself really had nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage but was commonly referred to as repealing the "Everything But Marriage" law. I can easily see the point of confusion especially for someone that said they didn't care and didn't vote at the time.

BTW - That referendum was rejected and the law upheld and the "Everything But Marriage" law was allowed to stand.

Beflieve me or don't, I don't give a crap anymore.

I've provided access to all voter ballots since the early 1990's. Considering that Same-sex Civil Marriage was not an issue prior to about 1993 and most (if not all) ballot votes didn't occur until after 2000 then...

.......... I'll have to chalk this up as not believing you because you made a mistake in your remembering.

...............Have a nice day.



>>>>