Supporters, opponents make final push on same-sex marriage
»Play Video
SEATTLE - The November election is drawing near and supporters of marriage equality are making sure their voice is heard while making a big push across Washington state in favor of Referendum 74. Meanwhile, opponents of the measure say it's important not to redefine marriage.
People on both sides of the issue were out on Saturday, trying to convince voters how to cast their ballots.
In Seattle, participants in an R-74 rally said they are promoting peace and acceptance for all. They hope that voters will say yes to the measure, which would uphold the state Legislature's vote earlier this year to allow same-sex marriage.
Imagine, they say, what it's like to walk a mile in their shoes.
"I can't even believe that we have to sit here and raise all this money to fight for something that should just be," says R-74 supporter Ceasar Hart.
"It doesn't matter if two women or two men want to get married - it's none of anybody's business," agrees another R-74 supporter, Kelsey Ward.
Hundreds of R-74 proponents marched for marriage equality through Capitol Hill.
"It's to bring about visibility and to show the community that we are here, have a voice and (are) ready to make some change here," Sarah Toce said at the rally.
At the same time in Everett, there was a much smaller demonstration, but with a stance that participants said is just as important - do not redefine "marriage."
"Gays and lesbians can live any way they want to, but they have no right to redefine marriage," says R-74 opponent Chuck Whitfield.
Whitfield says his side of the issue is often mislabeled as hateful.
"In order to show love and compassion to gays and lesbians, we want to do it kind and in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord," says Whitfield.
The November election is less than a month away - it is then we will see the final fate of Referendum 74.
A "yes" vote on R-74 is to uphold the state Legislature's vote earlier this year to allow same-sex marriage and a "no" vote is to overturn it.
People on both sides of the issue were out on Saturday, trying to convince voters how to cast their ballots.
In Seattle, participants in an R-74 rally said they are promoting peace and acceptance for all. They hope that voters will say yes to the measure, which would uphold the state Legislature's vote earlier this year to allow same-sex marriage.
Imagine, they say, what it's like to walk a mile in their shoes.
"I can't even believe that we have to sit here and raise all this money to fight for something that should just be," says R-74 supporter Ceasar Hart.
"It doesn't matter if two women or two men want to get married - it's none of anybody's business," agrees another R-74 supporter, Kelsey Ward.
Hundreds of R-74 proponents marched for marriage equality through Capitol Hill.
"It's to bring about visibility and to show the community that we are here, have a voice and (are) ready to make some change here," Sarah Toce said at the rally.
At the same time in Everett, there was a much smaller demonstration, but with a stance that participants said is just as important - do not redefine "marriage."
"Gays and lesbians can live any way they want to, but they have no right to redefine marriage," says R-74 opponent Chuck Whitfield.
Whitfield says his side of the issue is often mislabeled as hateful.
"In order to show love and compassion to gays and lesbians, we want to do it kind and in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord," says Whitfield.
The November election is less than a month away - it is then we will see the final fate of Referendum 74.
A "yes" vote on R-74 is to uphold the state Legislature's vote earlier this year to allow same-sex marriage and a "no" vote is to overturn it.
This comment has been deleted
 @wahoo Meh.  We all waste our Sunday whether it's watching football, playing WoW or going to church (Some do all 3!).  The tricky part is leaving us all alone enough to do those things as we please.
The idea of same-sex marriages gives me the heebies. But thatâs not the point is it? Anyone who willingly joins Scientology gives me the heebs too but should those folk not be allowed to marry?
Â
My friend became ordained in some âchurchâ online and he married me and my wife. We were married in our front yard of the home we had live together in for the previous 12 years. The whole thing lasted like 15 minutes. We had âReverend Wolfmanâ (as my friend called himself), my wifeâs friend and my other friend and ourselves, sign the piece of paper we spent $60 to get, and the following day dropped it off at the county office.
Â
Poof! We were man and wife.
Â
Thatâs all it is really. A piece of paper. The exact thing exists for civil unions; in fact it looks EXACTLY the same except the top title is different.
Â
So call it what you want. The idea of gay marriage is the heebs simply because homosexuality gives me the heebs.
Â
There is nothing in a name.
Â
Â
 @Repoman Thank you for distinguishing between your opinion and fact. That's all the tolerance most of us want from anyone, for anything.
If you don't want gay marrige, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Church's who publicly support or condemn political policy whether abortion, gay marriage, war, should lose their tax exempt statuses. What 2 men, or 2 women, or 1 man and 1 woman do in their bedroom, is only the business of the willing and consenting participants. In fact, a lot of the religious right may be surprised that the 1 man & 1 woman couples may engage in acts similar to 2 men, or 2 women, which really isn't any of their business, but could help open narrow minds. I would have thought that during the Civil Rights movement that our country would have learned that Equal but Separate isn't really equal at all. In fact, it's what gay couples face with domestic partnership, they may get some of the benefits, but it's still not a federally recognized "marriage". There are over 1000 federal benefits that only come with "marriage". Love is love, hate is hate, and marriage by any other name, just isn't recognized as marriage.
I get a real kick out of these religious types who are using the word "marriage" as if it were sacred or something... They might do well to remember that the "sacred marriages" of heterosexual couples have a divorce rate of - what, about 50% these days... doesn't sound so "sacred" to me...
Â
I think we would all benefit if people would pay LESS attention to what other people are doing (esp in the privacy of said other peoples' bedrooms), and a little MORE to improving their own lives and attitudes. Â Â
Â
In re specifically to Mr Whitfield, he would do well to remember that not everyone shares his same faith or beliefs...as hard as that may be to accept, we DO live in a country in which that is OK. Â Nobody ever said that Christians - or any other religion, for that matter - held the "right" to determine the meaning of a word. Â Â His statement ~ Â "Gays and lesbians can live any way they want to, but they have no right to redefine marriage," says R-74 opponent Chuck Whitfield." ~ is narrow-minded, condescending and arrogant.Â
 @margay1 Not all ministers are preaching hate from the pulpit! Here's a minister in Vancouver, WA that is doing the exact opposite! http://vanucc.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Audio10-07-121.mp3
Most all catholic churches are preaching  against it and nothing you can do about it mr noneofyourbizzness and business is spelled business not bizzness but  bet your a 12 yr old kid who just wants to be cool spelling business wrong.
@riderofthelegend By ignoring tax code violations by 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, the IRS is basically giving billions to churches engaged in political campaigning, which amounts more-or-less to government subsidization of religion. A pastorâs freedom of speech has its limits, however, and that limit is where such speech facilitates or accommodates the insinuation of religious doctrine into political affairs.If the IRS wants to put its principles into practice, it will stop church leaders from telling their congregations how to vote. This means putting its foot down and standing its ground. Such organizations should not be subsidized by being granted them tax-exempt statusâwhatever their political persuasionâas this ultimately amounts to the funding of religious politics.Because the churches are preaching politics from the pulpit,IMO churches should not be tax exempt anymore. They should be taxed on all tithes and income they receive. The churches should stay out of the political proccess and not preach against gay rights or any other program at the local, state, or federal level. I support a tax rate of 30% for all that break the law and 15% for all other churches.
If anyone hears of any churches violating their tax exempt status for actively campaigning to ban gay marriage,please report them. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
 @noneofyourbizzness Wonder if anyone ever reported the Billy Graham Association for their advertisements in the N.Carolina newspapers.  The flat out were stating the ballot measure and telling people how to vote.Â
@BayouBoy @noneofyourbizzness Billy Grahamâs religious empire has ended up in the hands of his son, Franklin. Franklin Graham seems determined to repeat his fatherâs mistakes. He takes far-right views on many issues, meddles in politics, violates tax exempt status and seeks to get close to centers of power and has insulted other religions, including Islam and Hinduism.According to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision of the tax code from which these churches derive their tax-exempt status, a compliant organization must not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of ... any candidate for public office." It's a travesty and and a slap in the face of our founding fathers that the IRS has failed to remove the tax-exempt status of these churches and religious organizations such as Billy Graham's organization despite their violations of tax code. This must change, and the law must be applied equally to everyone.
 @noneofyourbizzness Just a question to you, no hate implied. If, if all of the same rights, taxes, 'privileges', paperwork, everything, absolutely everything was written into law for gays, but the only difference would be that the tittle would not be called marriage', another tittle would be used. Would that be satisfactory? If not, it would seem the only thing that is important is that that term 'marriage' is used. And if that were the case, all of the other arguments have been nothing more than a facade.
 @last boyscout  @noneofyourbizzness I figured I would comment because you make an interesting point. I believe washington state has domestic partnership law. The problem is this, when a government dictates that you must get a license for something, then it needs to be open to same sex couples as well as heterosexual. When there are over 1000 different rights (if I am remembering correctly), which are offered by government because of being "married" and the same rights arent offered to same sex couples even under the domestic partnership law there is a problem. My thing is, if its a government thing it needs to be open to heteros as well as homos. If the religious people want marriage to be kept for the heteros, they shouldnt have allowed government to require licenses for it, nor should they get any government type of rights from it. Now that its set the way of having government involvement, which includes parent child rights and visiting your partner in the hospital, then the religious folks need to suck it up and deal with the change. They are called equal rights for a reason. Not to be offensive, just making a point.
@last boyscout @noneofyourbizzness Yes...it would!!!
@last boyscout IMO although it's not nessesarily supported by the LGBT community is that everyone get a civil union that provides all of the federal benefits that's included in a marriage.And then the Religous folks can have their own ceremony and call it marriage.My other opinion which will never happen is the government get out of the marriage business altogether.It's amazing how many conservative are pro-limited small government except for when their not when it comes to issues that don't line up with their relgous/political views.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @last ~ noyb, your 1st expressed opinion (civil procedure for everyone, in order to qualify for gov't benefits that are available to "legally recognized" couples; religious service for those who want it) pretty much meets what I think.  That would effectively separate the religious issues from the non-religious issues insofar as the gov't is concerned, and the churches would be free to either accept or reject same-sex marriage/unions.  Â
Â
I think that as long as we have gov't benefits (eg: income tax structure) that are all or partly dependent on whether a person is "single" or "married", the gov't will need to be involved in it to some degree. Â Neither the gov't nor the churches, however, should be dictating to the other what they can or cannot do insofar as accepting or rejecting same-sex marriage.Â
 @noneofyourbizzness Thanks. I appreciate the answer.Â
An excellent Christian sermon which I recently heard as an excellent argument FOR marriage equality. Glad to see not all Christians are hateful people: http://vanucc.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Audio10-07-121.mp3
This comment has been deleted
PINK POWER!
The right knows this is a losing cause. Â Time is against them now. Â Marriage equality will be the law of the land.
I don't care if gay cows want to marry, not any of my business. Who are these people hurting by getting married? The good name of marriage? Times change, interracial marriage wasn't fully legal in all U.S. states till 1967. Gay marriage will pass and life will MOOve on.
"Supporters, opponents make final push on same-sex marriage" God I hope so! Sick of hearing it, sick of money wasted in courts debating it, just sick of the whole damn thing!
 @iamtroglodite Just think how you would feel if it effected you directly.Â
Marriage is between a man & a women. Â Throughout history and every culture marriage is between man/women. Â Anything else is a fraud.
 @sortbait You obviously don't know your history!
Â
 @Harvey 1701  @sortbait s/history/anything
 @sortbait Blah, Blah, Blah.. How does what a gay couple does in their bedroom effect you? It doesnt.
 @sortbait It's easy to say 'Marriage is between a man & a woman' because that is what we have always been used to. But in reality, a lot of rights are not given to the gays and lesbians with the way the laws are written.  Gays and lesbians were silent mostly throughout history until the last few decades.  Now that we are recognizing there are a huge number and they are having meaningful relations,  they should be afforded the same rights as what's been accepted in mainstream for everybody else. It's a matter of being sensitive to the times.
Let me dispel a few of the top "excuses" people keep trying to use to discriminate against homosexuals being allowed to get married. 1. âHomosexuals canât procreateâ. Procreation has never been a legal criteria for allowing two consenting adults to get married, let alone have a relationship. 2. âTraditional marriage, IE 1 man & 1 womanâ. What some people consider to be âtraditionalâ is nothing more than a societal abstract that has been flexible enough in the past to be able to change & embrace interracial marriage, which at one time was thought to be just as wrong by some as same-sex marriage is now. 3. âThe Bible says homosexuality is a sinâ. So what? Why should that automatically disqualify homosexuals from legally getting married? According to the Bible getting divorced & remarried is tantamount to adultery. And yet people do it all the time. âSinnersâ get legally married every day. Trying to single out homosexuals only demonstrates the hypocrisy involved in saying one "sin" is worse than another. 4. âThe Bible says/Jesus says/God says.....â. Let me state this as simply as possible. What your Bible says is irrelevant. Since we are in no way a theocracy, the simple fact of the matter is that religion has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. What people think their religion says about homosexuality carries zero legal weight in this discussion, or in a court of law.The reason why some people are so opposed to gay marriage -- and all of the rights and benefits that come with a marriage certificate -- is because the thought of homosexuals expressing physical affection for one another totally repulses them, and the notion that such a relationship could be officially sanctioned through marriage pours salt into the wound of their prejudice.
@noneofyourbizzness "The reason why some people are so opposed to gay marriage -- and all of the rights and benefits that come with a marriage certificate -- is because the thought of homosexuals expressing physical affection for one another totally repulses them," WELL SAID! I am repulsed by the whole damn thing! Wasting money on stupid crap, tying up courtrooms with this stupid crap! Just get over yourselves and get back in the closet so we don't have to see it.
@iamtroglodite Unfortunately for you,gays aren't ever going back in the closet.As far as the money being spent fighting for gay marriage in the courts? I have the perfect solution: How about you and your rightwinger posse start leaving the gays the f alone?Mnd your own matters and stop trying to control what the gays are doing.I don't understand why it's so difficult foy you and your ilk to understand.
@iamtroglodite I'm sorry for your childhood abuse.I can't help but think of the millions of men who are forever scarred from the abuse by the catholic priests.
@iamtroglodite Pedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different issues. Generally speaking the most common pedophiles are indeed heterosexuals. I'm sorry that you and 3 other boys were subjected to such behavior. But your experience is a reflection on pedophilia, not a reflection on homosexuals.
 @iamtroglodite You've mistaken "gay" for "pedophilia".
No matter what you say cannot change what is in my mind that has been there for over 50 years. A couple of your "gay" freaks had their way with me and 3 other boys that were kidnapped for a couple days. The oldest of us was 11! They "did" eachother and us several times. Now, if a bear or wolf does wrong people instantly want to eradicate the whole population of that area. A wolf knows no better, being a animal. But so called humans are supposed to know better. I would love to leave the gays alone, but as long as they are still targeting little boys, open season, I say!
Wow! The posters on this board never cease to disappoint in making statements full of religious bias and hatred and just plain homophobia.Â
 @peckishpete Not all Christians hate gays. This pastor in Vancouver is very much in favor of gay marriage: http://vanucc.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Audio10-07-121.mp3
Really weird when a woman calls her girlfriend her wife. These homosexual sick puppies have already hijacked a perfectly good word "gay" and perverted it. I refuse to let them do that with marriage. One man+one woman=marriage. End of discussion.
 @The Resistance Get used to weird then.
@The Resistance I think people such as yourself, and men who beat their wives have perverted the word: marriage.
@pdxI'm sure my homosexual friends back in the mid 70's would be for same sex marriage if aids hadn't killed them because of their liberal life style. I'm not the religious type, but I know the difference between right and wrong, to grant special rights to a life style choice is wrong. Homosexuals and their sympathizers can keep ignoring the will of the people and keep putting amendments on the ballot and I will keep voting it down.
@Solipsist01 The Resistance 22 pts Mr. Hoff, You 'll be wanting to marry a sheep or a donkey next. I guess it's not your fault how you feel, you have your poodle ancestors to thank. Jack, go back to your crack, maybe it will curb your unnatural urges.
@The Resistance...George...it's ok....we're not here to judge you.
@Solipsist01 ---Is that the best you can do? If you aren't straight, you are crooked! I'm guessing you'd give Lombard Street a run for it's money down San Fransicko way.
@The Resistance....George, don't you think it's time your wife knew the truth about who you are?
@The Resistance "I refuse to let them do that with marriage" So your mighty powerful majesty ruler of the universe,how exactly are you going to accomplish your mission? I'm afraid the world will continue to evolve for the better despite your demands.
" they have no right to redefine marriage" This
Man mounts man = same as man mounts dog; immoral,foul and a bad influence on children.
 Woman hates men so mounts women; The antithisis of the familly unit, ie... Mairrage,immoral,foul and a bad influence on children.
Â
Â
@!!! Oh haven't you heard? Some heterosexual couples enjoy engaging in oral, and anal pleasures. It's not just the homosexuals who engage in oral/anal activities. Now it's time for you and @the resistance to pull your heads out of your rumps, unless you enjoy it too much.
It's going to pass. The polls show an overwhelming support of equal marriage, and not just in Washington. The anti-marriage equality zealots are just going to have to accept they are on the losing end of this issue.
@Harvey 1701 I was polled last night that started out as a Washington state poll. It soon turned to a R-74 poll. The questions were worded in such a confusing way I had to answer No Opinion. The questions were formed in such a way to give a pro R-74 response. I left them with no question how I felt about the issue . 1 man + 1 woman
 @Harvey 1701 If is a sure deal harvey,why are they making another push for gay marriage today.
@riderofthelegend @Harvey 1701 When you go in front of the Supreme Court ,how are you going to present your case against gay marriage? What will be your justifiable legal reasons to ban gay marriage? What will be your reasons for government to legally discriminate against a whole segment of the U.S population?Please be as specific as possible.The reason I'm asking is because regardless of how this election turns out the courts will eventually have the final say.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @riderofthelegend  @Harvey As they should. The civil rights of a minority group should never go up for a public vote. Ever.