Limiting marriage to one man/one woman unconstitutional: WA trial court


BRO cautions that the Washington law was a state statute, where as Oregon has a constitutional amendment on the November ballot (#36).


I agree with the court. All citizens are entitled to the same rights, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. But I think this thread will do much better in GD, where thoughtful arguments may be advanced in one direction or the other, or in the Pit, where less thoughtful but hotter arguments may ensue. This topic does not seem mundane or pointless to me. It’s way too important to be so dismissed.

I’m glad it’s in MPSIMS. It’s nice every now and then to talk about gay marriage without having to debate gay marriage, if you follow my meaning.

Yeah, I’d rather chat about this right now. I get enough argument with my neighbors.

So once again I applaud Washington, and reapproach Mr. TeaElle to consider Seattle rather than Williamsburg/Jamestown for our vacation. :cool:

Me too. I’ve gotten so bloody tired not only of hearing the same arguments (as I’m sure is the case for those on the opposite side) but of feeling like I must justify myself to those who don’t have that onus themselves. Just … seeing this … without anyone coming in to say something negative about it … is a nice change. Let someone in GD open a thread there.

Focusing on the word “one”, does this also allow multiple spouses?

Hey.Surely it can’t be limited to humans…thats speciesism :slight_smile:

Oh, har har, FruitPie.

I’m hoping this can stay civil as well. I’m glad to hear of this, as Michigan is putting a “protection of marriage” constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot. The language of the proposed amendment would ban civil unions too. This stupid state is so backwards sometimes.