Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: It’s time to stop discriminating

Letter by Kristina Nielson, Tacoma on Jan. 5, 2012 at 10:00 am with 31 Comments »
January 5, 2012 3:28 pm

Re: “Gay marriage gains traction” (TNT, 1-5).

It’s about time that our state stops discriminating against a portion of our citizens. The rules regarding marriage should be the same for everyone. After all, it isn’t a church ceremony that makes a marriage legal. It is the license received from the state.

Kudos to the governor, and here’s hoping our Legislature will do the right thing. “Equal” rights are not “special” rights.

Leave a comment Comments → 31
  1. aislander says:

    There is no discrimination. The rules are the same for everybody…

  2. If you hate everyone, there is no discrimination.

  3. muckibr says:

    Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967.

    Discrimination against miscegenation mostly followed the mainstream Nazi anti-Semitism, which considered the Jewry as being a group of people bound by close, so-called genetic (blood) ties, to form a unit, which one could not join or secede from. The influence of Jews had been declared to have detrimental impact on Germany, in order to rectify the discriminations and persecutions of Jews. To be spared from that, one had to prove one’s affiliation with the group of the Aryan race.

    The above quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

    It’s time for Americans to stop acting like Nazis when it comes to the matter of gay or lesbian couples who would simply like to be married couples.

  4. There is an ontological difference between the racial issue and the issue of same-sex marriage.

  5. muckibr says:

    Only to an ontologist!

  6. on·to·log·i·cal (nt-lj-kl)
    1. Of or relating to ontology.
    2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
    3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.


    How about this? Making marriage legal for same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples hurts no one. Keeping it illegal for one set IS discriminatory.

    Now I realize I won’t win the Scrabble game with such simplicity, but it is a simple fact whose denial demonstrates a bigotry that is rather sickening and remindful of discrimination of recent history.

    I’ll save the navel contemplation for others

  7. muckibr says:

    My dictionary defines it much simpler:

    ontology |änˈtäləjē|
    the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

    I think, therefore I am!

    Therefore, am I an ontologist?


  8. For the easily swayed, the discussion of ontology in this context will seem like a waste of time I suppose. For those who like to go deeper than the latest social winds will blow us, it’s quite significant.

    Ontology is about what it means to be a human being. Clearly being a human being involves more than simply our animal nature. We have a moral code that transcends nature. We are able to exercise restraint for example, though you’d never know it based on current cultural trends. Still, nature informs our understanding of life and procreation.

    It was absolutely wrong for laws to be on the books preventing human beings from marrying other human beings of a different race. There is, in interracial marriage, no defiance of the natural or moral order.
    The marriage of a male to a male, however defies the natural order, and for those who follow certain books of holy writ such as the Q’ran and the Bible, it defies the moral code as well.

    And before you leap to the keyboard to point out that homosexuality DOES occur in nature, remember that it is anomalous; contrary to the natural order.

    So the question remains, is marriage the appropriate term for the union or the bond between two men or two women? Is it?

    For those of you who want things to be easy (which is very different than “simple” X6) this is hardly navel contemplation. It’s called critical thinking.

  9. concernedtacoma7 says:

    X6- allowing two men to “marry” lessens the significance of the ceremony and ritual of marriage. It affects everyone. It is another toward the destruction family/ family values driven by the far left.

    Muck- you must be real proud of that wiki link. Enormous leap to deny two guys/gals to marry to Nazis.

  10. concernedtacoma7 – the only thing that lessens the significance of a marital ceremony is when either of the couple decides that the vows they took are meaningless. Heterosexual couples are doing that just fine, without “gay marriage”.

  11. muckibr – note how someone is “polluting” the definition of “ontology” for their own political purposes.

    Not very “cool”.

    As to “moral code” – my morals say that what two adults want to call their joining is their business, not mine. I’d be morally wrong to stick my nose in their business. I’m glad to see that someone realizes that holy books, regardless of which side of religion chosen, are manipulative texts for political purposes, disguised as morality.

    Meanwhile, discrimination is SIMPLE.

  12. aislander says:

    X6 writes: “As to ‘moral code’ – my morals say that what two adults want to call their joining is their business, not mine. I’d be morally wrong to stick my nose in their business…”

    I quite agree, but by asking my state to sanction whatever it is they call “their joining,” it becomes my business, even though I didn’t ask for it to be. They are then FORCING me to call their joining “marriage…”

  13. muckibr says:

    X6, what these bigots refuse to recognize is that there are two different and distinct types of marriage. One is a religious ceremony, and they have a real problem with that one. The other is the civil contract, which is initiated by the issuance of a government marriage license that has nothing to do with the religious aspect of marriage. Neither has anything ontological about it.

    Even when the state sanctions same sex marriage, churches can continue to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples. One would think that would satisfy the bigots. They can go to their church councils and refuse to allow same sex couples to take those vows. Oh happy day!

    But, the government should not be allowed to discriminate against couples simply because they are same sex. If two people want to engage in the contractual obligations of a state sanctioned marriage how does that affect the church version? Not at all.

    What I keep seeing, in situations like this, is that there seems to be a deeply ingrained streak in some types of people that requires they have someone to legally discriminate against in order to make themselves seem more important. That’s their real problem with gay and lesbian marriage. When it happens, and it will, they will need to find some other group to discriminate against. That means they’ll have to do some work, and they don’t like that.

  14. aislander says:

    I reiterate that there is NO DISCRIMINATION–everybody operates under the SAME rules.

  15. muckibr says:

    Reiterate all you want, you are still wrong. Just because you repeat the same wrong thing over and over again does not suddenly make it right. Wait a sec, you said that very same thing in another thread not so long ago, didn’t you? There is discrimination against same sex couples, and that’s why this marriage double-standard needs to be taken down.

  16. volvo1999 says:

    aislander is correct, rules are the same for everybody, sad these idiots cannot see that, I guess I would expect that from a narrow minded liberal pukes

  17. Well volvo… you are what we would expect from a narrow-minded conservative puke.

  18. beerBoy says:

    contrary to the natural order.

    Even the Catholic Church recognizes the arcane nature of arguments based upon “Natural Law”.

  19. beerBoy says:

    And, while you have come out against laws against miscegenation (very progressive of you, I’m impressed!), you mustn’t forget that Natural Law was cited in support of anti-miscegenation laws……they went along these lines: A bluebird and a cardinal are each quite lovely birds but they would never inter-breed.

  20. Natural law may have been cited but wrongfully so. This does nothing to alter the argument at hand. As for you using the Roman Catholic to back you up, how very…condescending of you.

    And you’re right muckibr re the difference between a civil union and a relilgious one, but aislander is also right when he insists that the state is demanding that citizens describe the civil contract as marriage.

  21. muckibr says:

    No sozo, your hero aislander is WRONG yet again.

    As long as the state issues a paper document entitled “Marriage License” through county and city offices, then the civil contract for same sex couples should be the same as the civil union for different sex couples. The government calls it Marriage for one type of couples union, then it is the same name for all types of couples unions. To do any different is, and I know this will upset aislander but I’m willing to risk that, as I say to call one joining of a couple a Marriage and the joining of another couple something else is DISCRIMINATION!!!!

    The churches can do what they want to do. The state has no authority over them. If you personally do not want to recognize a couple as being married, then that’s your problem, or choice.

    But the state is the servant of The People. The state (and by this I mean all government) is paid for and funded by taxpayers. Gay and lesbian Americans are taxpayers, and they have a RIGHT to get a document entitled “Marriage License” just like any other taxpayer. To deny them that RIGHT is DISCRIMINATION.

  22. “allowing two men to “marry” lessens the significance of the ceremony and ritual of marriage. It affects everyone.”

    Baloney. My wife and I are very happily married. Other marriages don’t affects ours at all.

  23. “by asking my state to sanction whatever it is they call “their joining,” it becomes my business, even though I didn’t ask for it to be”

    It’s not your state. You share it with several million others.

  24. “there is NO DISCRIMINATION–everybody operates under the SAME rules.”

    That argument was also used to support the anti-miscegenation laws: Everyone has the same ability to marry someone of the opposite sex and the same race.

    That argument was also used to support to segregation laws in the South: Every kid of the same race follows the same rules and goes to school with other kids of the same race.

  25. aislander says:

    sozo: As I have demonstrated in that other thread, anti-miscegenation laws are not analogous to retaining the historical definition of marriage, since there is NO substantive difference between blacks and whites as people, but there are profound differences between men and women.

    Therefore, discrimination based on racial characteristics is unconstitutional, but different treatment based on actual differences is not….

  26. aislander says:

    And the state puts all sorts of other restrictions on the ability to marry, and keeping marriage between a man and a woman is in the same vein. No discrimination…

  27. muckibr says:

    Okay then, why don’t we have laws that prohibit women from becoming firefighters, or prohibit men from becoming nurses. Men and women are “substantially different.”

    You are WRONG AGAIN aislander. Discrimination against genders is against the law in job opportunities, so it only follows it should be against the law in marital opportunities as wel.

    (How can one person be so wrong, so often? Easy, when he keeps saying the same thing over and over again. Just because you keep repeating yourself aislander, it still does not make you right.)

    BUT, I have an alternative for you aislander!

    Let’s have all Gay Men, and all Lesbian Women, file paperwork to make themselves each a Corporation.

    Then, as Corporate Persons, they can marry (or merger) any other Corporate Person they want to. Or, are you going to tell us that Corporate Persons have Gender Identities too?

  28. Pacman33 says:

    I have an alternative. Instead of infringing on other’s rights, why don’t gays observe their own rights to freedom of religion and establish their own religion that recognizes gay marriage?

    It doesn’t matter how many religious institutions gays defile and redefine, until they figure out how to procreate and provide a mother and a father for a child, they will never be Equal.

  29. muckibr says:

    “… they will never be Equal.” to whom Pacman33? To you?

    YOU ARE CORRECT, they will never be Equal to You, because they will always be SUPERIOR to the like of YOU!!!

    “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. EXCEPT FOR Pacman33, who is not equal to the rest of us because of his inferior bigoted thinking on the matter of equality for all Americans.”

  30. beerBoy says:

    Pacman – the discussion isn’t about religious ceremonies – it is about government recognizing a contract between two consenting adults.

    So your post about gays creating a religion that will perform marriages is moot.

    And – whether or not gays will ever be equal to heterosexuals in your eyes isn’t the point. It is about equal protection under the law not achieving procreative equality.

  31. Pacman33 says:

    Everything But Marriage Law,
    State Registered Domestic Partnerships (SRDP) in Washington were created in the aftermath of the Andersen v. King County decision. Subsequent legislation has made a SRDP the equivalent of marriage under state law. Senate Bill 5688 would amend many state laws and place domestic partnership on an equal footing with civil marriage.

    Well now that misinformed and ignorant distortion of facts by beerBoy is cleared up.

    It’s all about religion. It’s about a radical and vindictive group of intolerant bullies getting their revenge against those who would dare not submit the demands to change their beliefs.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0