There seems to be very little "sanctity" in marriage these days. Just look at the divorce statistics - something like 60% of married couples end up divorced! That doesn't speak very highly of the "sanctity of marriage".

I don't have a problem with domestic partnership as an alternative. Such arrangements would be used in many instances, not just gays. I venture that gays would be the smallest percentage of people taking advantage of these "business" arrangements.

Meanwhile, I favor "marriage" as a church-based institution. I also believe that ordained ministers, or whatever each organization calls their leader, should be the ONLY ones who are allowed to perform a "marriage".

Whereas those ceremonies performed by Judges and Justices of the Peace, should all be designated as "Domestic Partnerships" since the judges, et al, represent the government, not the church.

It seems to me that the solution is actually pretty simple. The state should be the authority for a civil union, legal in the eyes of the government. It would take the form of a simple legal contract that all couples could avail themselves. There would then be a legal document that requires that taxes be paid, that access in the case of hospitals, etc is granted, that the couple could jointly go into debt and be responsible for each others debt, adopt children, and disolve the union in a legal manner simuliar to what we now have as a divorce, etc.

The church then would have the function of officiating over a marriage. If a certain church wished to ordain couples of the same sex in marriage or not would be up to them.

Gee, isn't that what we have now? A solution to keeping the church and state seperate and still give everyone what they want.

Mr. Taylor,

Please find something else to do. Your argument smacks of real insincerity.
Bigotry had its roots in this country 30 years ago...and good people have been fighting it since then. There are alot of other issues in your district...maybe you should pick one that actually helps people. You are supposed to be a representative of the people...not just your church.
Please stop spreading hate...Even if you do try to disguise it as a political argument. These couples deserve the same rights as you do...the fact that you don't see that shows a lack of education on your part.
I am a bit ashamed to live in your community...and that we have allowed you to represent us. I hope we can correct that mistake.

Mr Taylor, keep this up and you may be invited into the local Eyman/Bruce Smith cloning club ! We need your voice in Sunnyside where representation is a word of the past! Councilor Restucci stated via Blog Sunnyside that the city council was a legislative body. When are elected officials going to wake up to the fact that city councils are an elected representative position that once in awhile legislates ! Has represenation lost it's meaning in the liberal vocabulary ? Go Taylor !!! I might have you cloned if you represent your constituents. Not like Chandler, Honeyford and Newhouse did !

Rep. Taylor regurgitates the most ridiculous and disengenous argument posed by the anti 71 homophobes - that this law is discriminatory against heterosexual couples who would rather take advantage of domestic partnership instead of marriage. Umm, heterosexual couples already have a right to marriage that homosexual couples do not - in fact, marriage contract laws are federally recognized whereas State domestic partnerships are not and there are more rights associated with that recognition - for example - married couples can move to Texas and their marriage is still legal - domestic partners are not afforded that RIGHT. So, let's try another diversion tactic - maybe the campaign should appeal the court decision against changing campaign finance laws - that wouldn't make your campaign look any more desperate than it does already.

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Your article today saddens me as a former constituent, a conservative, and a Republican. As a Republican, I believe in personal rights and it seems to me, Mr. Taylor than you are more interested in taking them away from senior citizens like me and from gay families. These rights are more important than ever, given our tough economic times.

It's your defense of discriminatory policies that I find to be disturbing, even more so than the lack of facts in your article. If this article is proof of the amount of research and heart you put into your votes, I am very worried indeed.

Shame on you, Mr. Taylor, for offering facts and valid, reasonable considerations into this discussion. We can't have gay marriage without a bunch of emotionalism and claims to "equal rights" being chanted over the opposition.

Give gays equal privileges WITHOUT challenging the sanctity of marriage? How dare you? Don't you know it's the corruption of marriage that they're after? If it weren't, they be willing to consider other options rather than just shout you down. The reactions of posters on here alone proves that.

For shame, exposing THEIR bigotry and irrationality...

Why can't gays be satisfied if they get the perks that go with marriage? Obviously, if the advantages aren't sufficient, then that is NOT what they really want...

What you're doing is imposing your personal religious views on others who do not share them--basically making your own religious interpretations the law for everyone. Surprisingly for a politician, you seem to have no idea that this is blatantly unconstitutional (nor do you seem to care, nor does it appear to ever have even occurred to you).

Since you do not support our Constitution and are more than willing to let your religion be the law for everyone else, I think it's your duty as an American to resign from office and let someone who actually has read and understood our constitution, and who believes that every American deserves equal rights and equal treatment under the law, take your place.

Do us all a favor. Go back to public life and stop making life difficult for other citizens whom you do not know, do not understand and refuse to treat as equal citizens.

But you're not going to do that, are you. Because you really, truly don't care that you are violating the constitution at all--it's not important to you. You're just one more wingnut making trouble for others.
Thanks for nothing, bozo...

Frankly - it appears that the fundamentalists among us have lost the ability to propose any logical arguments for their positions - it now comes down to ludicrous finger pointing repeating the same factless fairy tales and myths. For gosh sakes, that I would have anything to do with the failure of someones marriage and family that I have no connection with is beyond a needle in a haystack.

By the way, can we change our slogan from "the land of the free" to "the land where Mr. Taylor is free, but the gays have to do as he says"?
I think that's fair. Let's do it.

I'm still in awe over ELECT's post. Can someone that ignorant actually live in THIS country?

I find my beliefs to be pretty middle of the road...hopefully guided by (for the most part) common sense. I just don't see an ounce of that in this catch phrase "eroding the sanctity of marriage".
If a complete stranger to you has that much of an effect on your marriage or belief system...it really is time for you to change.
Another couple getting married(gay or not) HAS NO IMPACT on anybody else. It's not shaking the Christian faith to the ground...Christians will be there whether or not Gays can marry.
This is a biggoted line in the sand. "You are not the same as me so you must be inferior...and are not allowed the same rights that I am." That sounds eerily familiar to those who fought against civil rights. The only difference now is that it is taboo for ELECT and DATRUEF and all others of that hate filled ilk to put on a white pointy hood and burn crosses in other peoples yards. That makes these type of people cowards and ignorant...scary combination.

Taylor makes the following statement: "[A]s a Christian, I cannot support passage of Referendum 71." He then attempts to "move the discussion away" from religious and emotional arguments. In making these statements, Taylor is clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth -- he cannot have his cake and eat it too. As a lawmaker, Taylor took an oath to uphold and defend the highest law of the State of Washington – which is the state constitution, not the Bible. His personal religious beliefs, whilst protected by Section 11 of the Washington state constitution, may not become the mechanism whereby he inscribes his animus towards gay and lesbian citizens into law and public policy.

So the passage of Referendum 71 may make marriage and domestic partnerships similar in terms of the substantive benefits, protections, privileges, and responsibilities that flow from these two institutions. What of it? Do we not live in a country in which the rights of all persons are protected by the provisions of a written Constitution? Do we not believe in the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”? Are these merely empty slogans that we recite when trying to feel good about ourselves, or do they instead represent an enduring commitment to principles of fairness, equality, and justice for all?

Taylor makes it clear, in his essay, that he does not believe that gay Americans deserve the incidents of marriage – in short, he makes it clear that he considers gay Americans to be unworthy of equal justice under law. Like the federal Constitution, the Washington state constitution guarantees its citizens the equal protection of the laws – specifically, Section 12 of the Washington state constitution guarantees that “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.” Taylor appears to resent the application of this guarantee to the state’s gay and lesbian citizens – why else would he express dismay at the prospect of the state judiciary actually enforcing this guarantee as applied to the rights of gay residents of Washington?

Taylor then complains that heterosexual citizens of the State of Washington who are under the age of 62 cannot enter into domestic partnerships. Taylor overlooks the fact that such citizens may marry – which is the very crux of the movement to ensure that Referendum 71 passes, and that domestic partnerships are retained. The solution to this inequality is not to scrap domestic partnerships – it is either to expand the marriage statute to encompass gay couples, or to expand the domestic partnership statute to encompass heterosexual couples.

Taylor’s reference to the fiscal impact of domestic partnerships is the ultimate red herring. Six states now permit gay marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire). Another five states currently permit domestic partnerships that grant to gay couples all of the substantive rights of marriage, but without the name (Washington, Nevada, California, New Jersey, and Oregon). Another four states grant to their gay citizens a limited subset of the rights of marriage. In none of these states have lawmakers complained about the fiscal impact of such unions. To the extent that marriage exerts a stabilizing influence on people, it stands to reason that gay marriage should actually promote fiscal interests, not threaten them.

In short, Taylor is grasping at straws as he tries to justify his self-acknowledged religious bigotry. I couldn’t give a @#$% whether or not Taylor believes in the biblical proscriptions against homosexuality – however, I care very much about whether or not he is capable of fulfilling his oath of office, and passing state statutes that accord with the requirements of the state constitution.

PHILIP CHANDLER

There is always a risk in defending anything. It may expose a side of you that you prefer to keep private or worse it may make you appear to believe something that you have been asked to explain.

But when you move into smoke and mirrors to shift the focus and confuse others then it sounds like the old argument "it's not the lynching that is the story, the story is about people knowing their place."

Mr. Taylor, you are asking people to reach out to hurt a group of our fellow citizens. To hurt them financially, legally and emotionally to infact treat them as second class citizens. That is the real bottom line.

We have a dark history of hurting annd diminishing people - a history many of us were hoping we had moved beyond.

What really galls me the most in this debate is that these narrow minded hateful people most adamantly opposed to R-71 usually profess to be opposed "for the good of children". Well whether they like it or not, many same sex couples DO raise children, always have, and always will.
No matter whether one disapproves of same sex relationships or what one believes about the same sex "choice" (non-)issue, there is obviously NO disputing that the children of same sex couples do NOT have a choice, AND that those children deserve equal protection under the law.
So please explain why taking away these protections such as availability of pension benefits to a domestic partner and children of a police officer or firefighter killed in the line of duty "good for the children"?? That is exactly what rejection of R-71 would do!
The effort to reject R-71 is nothing more than bigotry wrapped in false self-righteousness and trying to impose certain peoples' religious views on the rest of us. All of their talk about eroding the "sanctity of marriage" is absolutely ridiculous. R-71 is NOT about same sex marriage, but even if it WAS, If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't have one! How in the world does someone else's marriage damage yours?
It is also interesting to note how many times the leaders of the reject group "Protect Marriage Washington" have been DIVORCED!! And how so many of the “faithful” that they have mobilized are Russian evangelical immigrants who supposedly came to this country to escape religious persecution!! Talk about hypocrites!
Vote to APPROVE 71!

Nothing makes the case AGAINST rejecting 71 than Rep. David Taylor's meandering anti-intellectual argument. I have listened to more impressive reasoning form middle school students.

GET RID OF DOMA AND THEN THE STATES CAN OFFER DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS TO ALL!!!! this argument is old and warn out... this is there new nich, is to get young heteros in commited relationships to start b(*&hing about that they don't get this privilege. It's called marriage gays can't do this remember? You can't have your cake and eat it to... REP Taylor I am still waiting to see where you took the church argument out of it??? I agree with some of this posters on this board when I say worry about Washingtons economy our roads our schools our insanely high unemployment rate... You and anyone who has passed DOMA will ultimately lose because whether our supreme court agreed or not my federal constitutional rights are being violated everyday by creating a separate but equal state.

As a Christian, I am reminded every time I read the New Testament that Jesus loved and forgave us all. That includes everyone, all the time. Wonderful same-sex partners have created families worthy of envy. Often they raise kids as well or better than other couples. And why not? They are often more educated and better politically and socially informed, unlike Rep. Taylor. They also often attend Christian churches that are smart enough to welcome them. I'm looking forward to Yakima getting out of the Dark Ages one of these decades. Or perhaps in all of the zeal to attract tourists and investment to the Valley we might be courteous enough to let all the people Rep. Taylor considers less than worthy of equal protection know that they will be shunned by the Holier Than Thou Christians in Yakima and apparently Sunnyside. And me? I might want to live with some partner in my old age without losing my benefits. Horrors! Call the Evangelical Inquisition!

"T"

"I'm still in awe over ELECT's post. Can someone that ignorant actually live in THIS country?"

Careful, that could be taken as hate speech.

Ok, let's settle this: If you're against gay marriage, you are hateful, bigoted, 'regligious', and oppose equal rights (?).

If you're pro-gay marriage you're kind, sensitive, respectful of other's rights (?).

We have a choice, everyone gets to make their own choice. Marking someone as 'bigoted' because they follow their convictions is kind how? What is happening is that the pro-gay factions is trying to sway voters by labelling them beforehand. Isn't it? Aren't you? Those of us opposed input our opinions and get slapped down. That's kind, that's considerate. If you don't want our opinions, give us a 'conservative' opinion board and you wouldn't have to hear any of our logic, wisdom, or advice. Obviously it doesn't do you any good anyway.

FenceRider,

Have you ever read the Bible? Honestly? Doesn't sound like it. "God is love" is the motto of the 'emerging church' but it's not the traditional or (if you read what is written) the exegetical view of the Bible.

"I might want to live with some partner in my old age without losing my benefits."

That right there tells me that you're not 'on the fence'. You can always have your 'partner', but now you want government (which ultimately is the People) to recognize and grant you privileges. That's another matter altogether.

Derek, I'll make it even more plain for you.

The gays don't want JUST the privileges of marriage. They want a full-blown marriage. Which means this 'civil union' baloney is a bluff. A step. A furtherance of their goals. If 'civil union' were all they wanted they might have gotten it. Since their real agenda is broader than that, I can't vote for any of it.

Let's take a tally of the opinions of people rejecting R71 just from the posts above, shall we?

"These couples deserve the same rights as you do...the fact that you don't see that shows a lack of education on your part." Objecters are uneducated - Tbone

"It's your defense of discriminatory policies..." Objecters are discriminatory - July

"Because you really, truly don't care that you are violating the constitution at all--it's not important to you. You're just one more wingnut making trouble for others.
Thanks for nothing, bozo..." Objecters are 'bozos' and 'wingnuts' and violate the law(?) - Derek

"it appears that the fundamentalists among us have lost the ability to propose any logical arguments for their positions - it now comes down to ludicrous finger pointing repeating the same factless fairy tales and myths." Objecters are illogical, ludicrous, promoters or myths and fairy tales - YakRob

"Mr. Taylor, you are asking people to reach out to hurt a group of our fellow citizens. To hurt them financially, legally and emotionally to infact treat them as second class citizens. That is the real bottom line.
We have a dark history of hurting annd diminishing people" Objecters want to hurt people and "keep the man down" (isn't that a black 'slave' slogan?) - JustBob

Yep, I want to vote with people saying these things against me just because of my strongly held personal beliefs. There is no "Constitutional" right to gay marriage, or we wouldn't be voting on instituting a 'civil privilege', so quit your slander. If we legalize gay marriage, then we still have people without rights: those who want a 'civil union' with their pets, those who want to marry their children (or someon else's), and the polygamists. I'd have to apologize to all them if I supported this one unethical form of marriage. Sorry, won't do it.

My sympathies Elect. Hate is a cancer.

Your preaching tone shows that you share your misguided opinions with others...even outside of this forum. I stick with my previous statement...and am dumbfounded that there are still people out there like you...willing to shout their biggoted views from the mountain tops.
And before you claim "i'm not a bigot".

(BIGOT -
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.)

From the article: "I would also like to state that, as a Christian, I cannot support passage of Referendum 71."

From a previous commenter: "Give gays equal privileges WITHOUT challenging the sanctity of marriage? How dare you? Don't you know it's the corruption of marriage that they're after? If it weren't, they be willing to consider other options rather than just shout you down."

In large part, it's precisely *because* I'm a Christian that I think full and equal marriage is worth fighting for. Strong domestic partnerships are better than nothing, if the choice must be between the two, but in the long run it's the division that harms "traditional" marriage the most. If I were allowed to marry, it would have to be a traditional marriage in the really important ways: commitment to sharing our lives for better or worse, etc. It's just that it would have to be to another man, that's all. But if we have to take domestic partnerships because we're somehow not "good enough" for marriage, that sets an example for straight couples as well, who may decide that if we don't need marriage then they don't either. Is that *really* what you want?

"T"

"(BIGOT -
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.)"

I have no problem 'tolerating' other 'groups', 'religions', 'races' (there's only 1 human race, BTW), or 'politics' as long as they don't prescribe to the destruction of our society... and much of liberalism does just that. I can 'tolerate' without agreeing with.

BTW, the Cambridge dictionary has a significantly different definition of 'bigot' than you...

"a person who has strong, UNREASONABLE beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong"

I've given my reasons. I have not been "unreasonable" except in the eyes of the unreasonable. That said, the gay proponents are in danger of meeting the same definition, since I consider their 'arguments' as being unreasonable, declaring a right that isn't recognized, and certainly isn't in the Constitution, yet demanding that it is... I still haven't seen a quotation or referenc yet...

hyhybt,

"I'm a Christian that I think full and equal marriage is worth fighting for."

The only kind of gay marriage you'll find in the Bible occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah before they were destroyed. Everywhere else homosexuality is a sin and is condemned in the strongest terms. If you're a Christian, you should know this. Don't let your 'sensitivity' overrule His written Word. If you belong to Him, then you need to speak as He would, not "as it seems good to me."

"If I were allowed to marry, it would have to be a traditional marriage in the really important ways: commitment to sharing our lives for better or worse, etc. It's just that it would have to be to another man, that's all."

Well, you're outside God's covenant then. Sorry, but it is so. I quoted Romans a while back. I'd rather not have to again, because it's quite stark and clear, but I will if you want...

Homosexuality is a sin and is against nature as God created it. "That's all".

Here's one for you to think about. It makes God's position pretty clear...

1 Cor. 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND, {6:10} Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Tsk tsk Elect.
It is shameful for you to use a version of the bible that you can mold into YOUR own judgemental views. Why don't you look up a verse on that? As I recall there are quite a few. Why is it that you feel the need to prove your point through your faith? Is it because there is no other argument? This is always the point that those who have lost their humanity seem to always fall back on. I can think of whole list of dictator, bigotted, genocidal "leaders" that quote their own religous texts the same way you just did. All in the name of imposing their own beliefs on someone else.
It is a cop out ELECT.
Come up with a human argument...one that you can REASON with. If you can, you will very quickly find out (when you think for yourself) that all people are equal and deserve to be treated that way. Not just the ones that sit next to you on Sunday.
This is me...shaking my head, completely ashamed to share a community with you.
I really hope that someday you will find a little love and compassion in your heart.

Elect - give it up. You lose - both on an intellectual and religious level. Your interpretation of the bible is clouded by your own hatred and need for superiority. You, and those like you, only wish to dominate others - well, that's what's wrong with our society and our world. I think the definition of bigot that you cite is clearly the more applicable to you - unreasonable. I'd still love to hear the other side of your "story" regarding the rude lesbian couple who accused you of discrimination. And I would still love to hear you rationalize how your able to JUDGE all gay people by one experience with one rude couple. UNREASONABLE. Now, get out of the way - the militant homosexuals are taking over starting tomorrow - we'll show you how a good marriage works.

"T",

Can't argue with the text I quoted? Didn't think so. Pretty cut and dry. At least I have an authority I recognize and follow. Seems you just make it up as you go. "Whatever I think, or however I feel must be right." Or is there a 'right' and 'wrong' in your world? Pretty confusing just thinking about it. So I won't bother.

Yak,

You must've read the same interpretation into the text I did. It was pretty clear. I'm not 'dominating' anyone, I'm resisting corruption. There's a difference. I've given you plenty of good reasons, you don't have to like them. Hence, and with all due respect, you're the unreasonable one. I cannot argue with your emotions, your "feeling" that you are right... since you've got no objective standard that says you are. I, on the other hand, do.

I made a judgment based upon a clear case of discrimination against myself (or should I say, reverse discrimination?) My boss at that very establishment was gay (he had left before this incident), and we got along very well. He didn't publish his proclivities, and I didn't "go there". We got along very well. He even had a boyfriend who wasn't as reserved. We respected each other, and didn't interact too much so as to avoid conflict. Polite but distant. As I said, you can behave as you want, but don't push it in my face. Pushing through an initiative to get legal justification for those actions is more than I'm going to allow.

"Now, get out of the way - the militant homosexuals are taking over starting tomorrow..." You know what they say, ignore the mistakes of the past and you're doomed to repeat them. Well, Sodom may just have company soon, but not for my lack of resistance.

You don't like emotions? Heh - you were expecting someone accussed of being a perversion of nature to respond unemotionally? Sure thing.

It's not up to YOU to allow or disallow anything that has to do with me - there are laws that we all have to abide by - come tomorrow, you will have to live with the fact that the law will be the side of ALL committed couples in this State.

I knew there was more to your "story" - so you got along fine with your boss as long as he didn't talk about his life - did you afford him the same respect by keeping your life to yourself? - I mean the fact that you are married with children - I thought not.

Elect.
Can't argue with your text? Let's qualify that as "I won't argue with a religious quote". What would be the point? You use that as a tool to hate...I don't think that is what the bible was meant for, but I guess it is up for interpretation. I couldnt argue humanity with any other person who takes belief to the point of zeleotry...sometimes, as is clear in your case, people can't be reasoned with.
Authority that I recognize and follow? haha...dude. Here's one. Let us know if you recognize it. With a name like "ELECT" you should.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

And since we are doing things in quotes...here's the definition of:
Liberty -
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

I'm sure you can come up with some off base biblical quote to argue with this...how did you put it? oh ya..."authority I recognize and follow". Or maybe there should be an earmark in that declaration...
"unless you are gay". Or how about..."as long as you are the same as me."
You can't have it both ways Elect. If you choose to live in the land of the free you have to recognize that all people are allowed the same rights and freedoms that you are. Otherwise...well...you are just a hypocrit.

If you really want Bible quotes, there's the ever-popular, even overused, John 3:16 ('WHOSOEVER', not 'everybody except the gays'), and you might as well throw in Galatians 3:28 and John 16:12 while you're at it, because Jesus is not recorded even once speaking on the subject: the closest you can get is truncating His answer to a question about divorce.

None of which is really relevant, because this is a discussion of a *law* in a country where the government is not supposed to interfere with religious beliefs. Not even the beliefs of those who say gay marriage is morally corrrect.

I am a Christian and am against R-71, but let me state that I do have friends who are homosexual and they know my views and accept my and I accept them even though I don't agree with their views. They voted for and I voted against, but we still are friends. I have noticed there is a lot of name calling and it should go both ways. If Christians aren't being fair about their opinions then it needs to go the other way and you need to give us ours'. If gay or lesbians can stand up for what they believe in and call me narrow minded, hateful, and a bigot. Why then can I not call them the same thing? We need less name calling and more actual talk. I don't agree at all in any way with R-71, but in the end they will be my friends and either way I'll still stand by them.

To all the Christians Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

My Goodness - you talk as if we're disagreeing on white or wheat bread - you're talking about your "friends" civil rights and your desire that they be kept in their subordinate place. With friends like you.....

Dave Taylor - Your religious bias disqualifies you from arguing against Referendum 71. It is apparent that you have allowed that bias to enter into the argument whether or not you admit it. The people of Washington State know full well what the referendum calls for and does not call for and have voted accordingly. Not be quiet and crawl back into your hole.