Washington Poised To Become The Seventh State To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

Author: January 23, 2012 2:16 pm

The State of Washington is poised to become the seventh state to boldly progress towards full equality by legalizing same sex marriage. Washington will likely soon follow the lead of states such as Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and the District of Columbia, after Washington Democratic Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, announced sheould be the 25th vote needed to pass the same sex marriage bill out of the Washington Senate. Washington will be the second largest state in the country to legalize same sex marriage, coming in behind New York and edging out Massachusetts. At roughly a 20% increase in the population living in states that allow same sex marriages, almost 14% of the country’s total population lives without the restriction of basic rights for the LGBT community. One state at a time, the GOP’s mandated hate is melting away.


// ]]>

Senator Haugen had previously said she was taking her time reconciling her religious beliefs with her beliefs as an American. In the end she says, she couldn’t deny other American’s the rights that she enjoys. If only more American’s could use good logic as our nation grows in this issue.

Same sex marriage affects no one other than those whose rights are being denied. As a nation that prides itself on freedom, equality, and freedom of religion (followed closely by a separation of Church and State that mutually protects both), it is high time that we, as a nation, follow the lead of the states that have legalized equality. Kudos to Senator Haugen; another victory for freedom and equality!

For more from The Progressive Cop, pay me a visit at http://www.theprogressivecop.com.  If you like what you see be sure and click to Facebook like for routine updates from a progressive minded cop

facebook comments:

1 Comment

  • That’s pretty good, and a lesson for the other religious finger-pointers. Would have been even better if her religion could just own up to the ghastly mistake it is making on homosexuality in the first place, instead of placing on the shoulders of Senator Haugen this most public burden.

    While it’s a shame the Senator has to feel she is betraying her belief in the meaning of marriage with this act of self-sacrifice, her gesture of considerable significance because it portends the demise of the legitimacy of religionist anti-homosexual activism.

    In a democracy the majority gets to decide on who is to lead the country, but minority rights will often lose out in a majority vote because the majority are voting on the rights of people other than themselves. For example in 1915, a bill to give women the right to vote was lost. The reason? Only men were eligible to vote.

    http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/jan-12-1915-congress-votes-against-womens-suffrage-amendment

    Other minorities like left-handers, geniuses and people with red hair may not fare so badly, but their civil rights aren’t really something to be voted on, because under the principle of Equal Protection, and the International Declaration of Human Rights, they are intrinsic and inviolate, and exist whether they are recognised at law or not.

    While it is better for LGBT issues to be embraced by the majority, sometimes the judiciary and the legislature have to fly ahead of the country, as was the case with inter-racial marriage which in 1958 was supported by only 4% of the electorate compared with almost 80% today.

    Married people in 1966 “believe they entered into a marriage contract that was defined at the time as being exclusive to” same-race couples. When the Supreme Court in 1967 opened up marriage to all inter-racial couples, many married people for whom such sex or marriage was immoral were very outraged.

    Here are the numbers for public opinion on inter-racial marriage:

    “Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites?”

    1958: 4% Approve, 94% Disapprove
    1968: 20% Approve, 73% Disapprove
    1972: 29% Approve, 60% Disapprove
    1978: 36% Approve, 54% Disapprove
    1983: 43% Approve, 50% Disapprove
    1991: 48% Approve, 42% Disapprove
    1994: 48% Approve, 37% Disapprove
    1997: 64% Approve, 27% Disapprove
    2002: 65% Approve, 29% Disapprove
    2003: 73% Approve, 23% Disapprove
    2004: 76% Approve, 19% Disapprove
    2007: 77% Approve, 17% Disapprove

    Now, should the Court have taken those people’s feelings into account when deciding whether or not to allow interracial marriage equality?

    I believe they were justified to have the government treat people equally.

    People are free to exclude other religions, races, orientations, marital status et al. from their churches, but none have the right to exclude on these grounds, other citizens from a legal benefit or right offered by the Government of the United States.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Click "Like" to get the latest updates