Domestic Partnership on the Ballot In WA State - Ref 71

The talk radio airwaves are full of advertisements calling for the rejection of Ref 71 in Washington State, a referendum addressing Gay Marriage versus Domestic Partnership Laws. The text of the referendum reads:

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688[4] concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Should this bill be:

Approved ___
Rejected ___

Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

The problem is two fold. Social Conservatives see this as a bridge to Gay Marriage recognition in the state of Washington, and Gays and Lesbians who may otherwise be sympathetic to the Tea Party "Limited Government" cause are being turned away from "Conservative" issues because of the dictation of "Social Morality."

The rift in the Republican Party is the loyalty to social causes, regardless of the impact on true liberty. In this way, Republicans use the power of elected office to dictate social morality. This is wrong. It is this abuse of power that is the cause of concern when democrats dictate social morality when it comes to expression of religion or attacking Fox News as a legitimate news source. This is wrong. This is not the intended use of government in the United States. It is not a force to rule, but rather a mediator to the Just Rule of Law, protecting Persons and Property - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What is the TRUE ROLE of Government? What authority do we want to give the government, understanding that if we give a certain power, it is bound to be used against us when the "others" are in control... which holds true for whichever side of the aisle you find yourself seated. How much liberty are you willing to surrender?

Considering Domestic Partnership. I cannot advocate more for the cause of liberty, especially when it comes to an individual's free choice to grant power of attorney or trust over their own person or property. The law should not dictate morality. Rather it should allow for equal protection under the law. As such, as a true advocate for absolute liberty and with an understanding that government has the most limited role in our daily lives, it is only right to support legislation that protects equal rights for all.

Considering Gay Marriage. Marriage, as is defined in the Pierce County (WA) Marriage License, is a "blessed event". As such, the government should eliminate all forms of licensing or regulating marriage. Of course, protection of minors, the population from incest, etc. should be expected and upheld, but the concept of marriage as a "blessed event" should be eliminated from government control. We should advocate for a move to a single service system of "Common Law" property and legal authority to protect individual and joint property - a contract between two adults with a common interest in the legal protection of property.

Let us take into consideration a group of three women, 60 years or older, all of whom are heterosexual, widowed or never married, and who all decide that for their safety and friendship they will live together. They all use equal sums of money to purchase a home, are equally responsible for the maintenance of the property, and have equal share in the decoration and furnishing of the home. Because of their common interest they choose to also investigate the legality of being labelled as the "care-taker" for one another to allow access or medical decision authority in the case of emergency. These women should have the ability to willingly allow certain legal privileges to their "domestic partners". Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this case, but should the women happen to be intimate with one another, the legal basis for their desire to allow legal authority over their person or property is no less substantiated.

Because of relocation issues, I was not eligible to register to vote in this November 3rd election. However, as a staunch conservative and Liberty Republican, I openly support Referendum 71 as a cause for Personal Liberty in this State.

For those of us who support the cause of the tea parties, the cause of liberty from excessive government control, and who support true reduction in the size of government, it is necessary to consider the power which you are willing to grant to government. As I said, it is a power which may be used against you at some point in the future.

Miss California USA, the Gay Mob, and My Outrage

Carrie Prejean answered a question on same sex marriage the way that about 80% of Americans would - that she believes we should live under a set of rules that limit legal marriage between one man and one woman. Instant outcry from the Gay Panelist Judge, Perez Hilton, created an instant internet buzz and eventual media blitz. The media reported the question and answer as "Controversial"... and I have promised to stay away from junk news, until now... where there is an actual story.

There are three issues within this story -

1. When is an issue considered "controversial"?
2. The defamation of character as a tactic of the left.
3. The insane anger of the gay-lobby.

From the beginning of this "story" the media reported that Miss USA California was asked a "controversial" question, or that she gave a controversial answer. The question was: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or Why Not?" Her answer: "I think it is great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. In my family, I was raised, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to any body out there, but that is how I was raised and that is how I think it should be, between a man and a woman." The answer she gave is the same answer that Obama gave during an election cycle interview:


The controversy of this statement made by Miss USA California is not in what she said - but that she dared to say it directly to a Gay judge. What began the story is not her answer, but the angry tirade that followed by Perez Hilton - where he called her an explicative "B" word, which he openly reinforced by following it up on MSNBC by calling her an explicative "C" word. The controversy is that an individual dared to challenge the gay-lobby, and openly admitted to her belief in traditional marriage.

In response to Carrie Prejean's answer, the enraged gay-lobby began an investigation into Carrie's background - looking for anything that may be used to discredit and destroy the high-profile advocate for Same Sex Marriage. What they found where images of her modeling for lingerie - and further semi-topless art photos that are completely tasteful and artistic (photo courtesy of TMZ.com). They have set out on a crusade to destroy this woman's life, attempt to destroy her career, and to attempt to defame her character - all because they see her as a threat - one who is not afraid to take the state and suggest that she supports the same position as a super majority of Americans when it comes to traditional marriage. As I previously mentioned, this is a common tactic of those on the left - hold conservatives to the higher standard to which they subscribe, while living in a set of morals that are of a lower standard and thus suggest that they can "get away" with their actions. This double standard tactic is often used by the left - and is nothing but a straw man. It is a distraction with pure malicious intent.

I believe that Miss USA California should take the podium, acknowledge that the photos are of her and that she took them willingly, reveal the photos in larger than life B/W prints behind her from beneath a curtain, and deliver a speech on the history of artwork involving the human body - dating back to the earliest days of human civilization... reference the Venus De Milo, with both breasts exposed (oh, the horror!) She should end her speech with a resounding "SHAME ON YOU" to Perez Hilton and his ilk for attempting to vilify a woman because of her traditional beliefs, and for her artistic free expression of her body.

Finally, what needs to be addressed is the insane anger of the gay-lobby. This includes grassroots gay-activists, as well as "celebrity gossip columnists" like Perez Hilton. After Prop. 8 recognized marriage in California's Constitution as a legal union between one man and one woman, the gay-lobby was so enraged that they attacked Mormon temples, assaulted members of churches, burned copies of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Again, we see another case of outrage and anger - to the point where their specific intent is to DESTROY the opposition. I argue that their anger is misplaced, as is the the focus of their fight... from a military standpoint, the worst combat decision for a minority force is frontal assault - blunt force will not work when you are outnumbered. Even when you attempt to snipe advocates of traditional marriage, your tactic is still blunt force... it is wrong, and grossly misplaced.

I am outraged that such attacks against NON-GAYS are not classified as "hate crimes" - a protection that a gay-rights advocate can claim if ever attacked, physically or otherwise... There is unequal footing, and it does nothing but add to the frustration and outrage on both sides.

The solution is simple - Leave government out of marriage. Stop making laws regulating religious rights - it is in violation of the Constitution. Stop providing tax benefits for marriages, stop issuing marriage licenses, stop treating marriage as a legal right, and return it to faith.

Marriage, the Government, and Liberty

As an advocate for traditional marriage, I often ponder my role in the marriage debate. In fact, I find myself considering anyone's role in the marriage "debate". And time and again I find myself coming to the same conclusion: It's the constitution!

The Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof".

Marriage has always been a religious or spiritual bonding of two people together. Under the guise of being in the best interest of the general social welfare, US states began issuing marriage licenses. The purpose was to protect spouses from STDs (which is why some states still require blood tests), to keep accurate historical records, and to provide the couple to be married ample tome to consider the bond which they are making (with divorce rates upwards of 50%, I think this last one has lost meaning!). So with good intent, the states had intervened and begun regulating marriage.

Enter the federal government. Tax code, all 60,000+ pages of it, mention marriage. Since the states had found a way to regulate marriage as a non-religious and purely record keeping process at the state level, the US government took clear advantage. This was the key to skirting the Establishment Clause. The US government regards marriage as little more than a business contract, and as such has made tax laws regarding this business matter.

C'mon... we all know we got married for the tax benefits, right! And that is why we will have kids too... another deduction, yeah!

Instead, what has happened is the systematic undoing of the most sacred and spiritual bond that two people can make to one another. And this state regulation of religion into some form of a business matter has allowed the federal government to not only make laws respecting an historically religious event, but now there is talk of a marriage amendment to the constitution.

Please allow me to apply the brakes gently for a moment.

The very people who are fighting to "save marriage" are playing into the hands of those have destroyed it's original intent... and the original intent of the constitution for that matter!

To use the constitution to define marriage is to acknowledge that marriage is not a religious or spiritual bond. If you believe it to be, then the 1st amendment would not allow such an amendment to exist... unless, of course, you intend the Constitution to regulate our religion in this nation. And again, as with the 18th amendment, the constitution would be used to limit liberties.

If marriage is as sacred as those fighting to protect it believe it to be, they should start by fighting the tax codes/laws respecting this religious bond. They should fight a legal battle challenging the US government's laws regarding this religious right. They should further fight the state's regulation of marriage, and limit the state's role from "granting marriage licenses" to "recording marriage for historical accuracies". The efforts of the defenders of marriage are doing little more than attempting to establish a religious rule in the Constitution, and is doomed to failure under a truly free society.

The constitution is a means to say the government cannot impose themselves on us in these manners, and should warily be used to say we want the government to impose themselves upon it's people in these other manners. It is a document who's intent is to limit government, not create cause for increase and regulation of our lives BY government.

It is well known that the right thing is often the hardest thing. For those fighting for a marriage amendment to the US Constitution, look into your hearts and find why this is right. Are we a society that limits the liberty of our fellow citizens, and do we want to be a society where the government is allowed to regulate our religions? When you answer these questions, you will find the answer... and it is not in a liberty limiting amendment.