Frequently Asked Questions
Simply click the appropriate link below to reveal more information.
No. In fact, it is impossible not to legislate morality.
The distinction between secularism and religiosity is meaningless because every idea, whether secular or religious, is moral. All law is a statement of belief that a particular behavior is either good or bad. Such a statement is the very definition of morality. Whether your morality comes from Confucius, Mohammad, Oprah, Freud, Dr. Phil, Dr. Seuss or Jesus has no bearing on the fact that all legislation will be moral legislation.
No citizen should feel hesitant to participate in the democratic process out of fear that they will be legislating morality because those with different ideas will be legislating morality as well. As a result, every individual citizen should feel completely free to zealously advocate for his or her ideas through all legal means.
Our constitution ensures that there will be a distinction between religious law and secular law because it does not give legislative authority to religious institutions. However, it does not exclude religious thought from the marketplace of ideas. It simply guarantees that ideas with religious roots will only become law once they have gone through the legislative process and satisfied constitutional requirements.
Most thoughtful citizens have no interest in legally imposing their religion. That is one of the many things that make America great. However, we must remember that good ideas are not disqualified from public policy discussions because they happen to have religious roots.
No.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the United States or Washington State Constitutions. Regardless, the fact that people of a particular religious faith share common ideas does not mean that those ideas are necessarily unconstitutional because they are religious.
To the contrary, our laws against stealing, killing, lying, perjury, incest, rape, battery, and destruction of property were all religious tenets before they were laws. No one wants to repeal the criminal code because its major themes were first recorded in the Bible.
The idea that a preference for heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional simply because it is consistent with a religious doctrine is legally and constitutionally unsupportable.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid a situation where a religious organization wrote the law for the country. However, they did not intend to create a country in which citizens and elected officials were forbidden from reading, discussing, thinking about, or legislating ideas that happened to be religious in nature.
It isn’t.
Not only is it not illegal for gay couples to live however they wish, current law allows gay couples to receive virtually every right that a married couple has. They can live together, own property together, visit each other in the hospital, and in most states, including Washington State, they can adopt children. A homosexual couple has the ability to obtain virtually every right that a heterosexual couple has. Moreover, the ability to register as domestic partners provides many of these rights automatically.
The only freedom at stake in the debate over gay marriage is the freedom of those who have a moral or religious objection to the homosexual lifestyle to be able to respectfully live their life in accordance with those beliefs.
No.
Discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival. In fact, the inability to rationally discriminate (or exercise discretion) is one of the ways psychologists diagnose mental illness.
In its most basic form, discrimination is simply a choice. People discriminate on the basis of cost, value, personal preference, convenience, comfort, competency, effectiveness, and danger to self and others. When you refuse to allow a sex offender to baby-sit your child, you discriminate against him.
The law discriminates against people because of their age (voting laws, drinking laws,) income bracket (for tax purposes) physical disabilities (driving restrictions) and even their gender (women are not eligible for the draft). Most thoughtful people agree that discrimination is essential to life and orderly government. However, the word “discrimination” is frequently used in an effort to silence people whose opinions are not appreciated.
The proper question is not if we should discriminate, but how we should discriminate. Contrary to their rhetoric, gay marriage advocates are not attempting to end discrimination in marriage. Gay marriage proponents simply want to make gay marriage the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, but continue to discriminate against those who would like to have a marriage involving a close relative, a minor, or someone who is already married.
Both sides agree that discrimination in marriage is a good idea. However, one side is not transparent about that fact.
No.
Referendum 71 is about much more than equal treatment
Over 180 times, SB 5688 states that “for all intents and purposes, same-sex domestic partners must be treated the same as married spouses.”
The drafters wrote the bill in a way that not only extends benefits but also takes a strong moral position that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
When homosexual relationships are given equivalent recognition to married couples, there is inevitable conflict with the conscience and religious freedom of citizens who disagree. As a result, this kind of law has threatened the individual’s ability to run their businesses freely, threatened the ability of religious leaders to teach their religion faithfully, and prevented individuals and businesses from competing for government contracts and/or receiving professional licenses. This bill does much more than provide health benefits and inheritance rights. It threatens every citizen’s freedom to disagree.
Public opinion has never favored gay marriage.
No state or national poll has ever found that a majority of the public supports same-sex marriage. In fact, the opposite is true. Public opinion consistently holds that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and this is reflected in the way they vote.
Currently 30 states have amendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. These amendments have passed in every state where they have been placed on the ballot. The recent decision by California voters to pass Proposition 8 demonstrates that public opinion does not favor gay marriage, even in very liberal states.
While it is never a good idea to govern by public opinion poll, it is inaccurate to say that the public is in support of same-sex marriage.
DOESN'T CURRENT LAW DENY HOMOSEXUALS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY THAT HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES ENJOY?
No.
Homosexuals have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals; they just choose not to take advantage of the legal institution of marriage.
When a couple applies for a marriage license, there are several limiting factors. You cannot marry a relative who is closer than a second cousin. You cannot marry someone who is already married. You cannot marry a minor without parental permission and/or permission from the court. And, of greatest concern to gay marriage advocates, you cannot marry someone of the same gender. These restrictions apply equally to everyone. As a result, every person, gay or straight, has precisely the same options in marriage.
Current law does have the effect of preferring certain relationships to others. This is the concern of gay marriage advocates. They want their relationships treated the same as heterosexual relationships while continuing to deny other non-traditional relationships the recognition of marriage.
There is no movement in Washington that wants to prevent individuals or couples from living life as they choose.
This issue is not about the freedom to live life as you choose. That already exists. We are debating whether our government should formally take the position that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships and force all citizens to live accordingly.
Eliminating marriage entirely in favor of universal civil unions is unlikely to eliminate the current debate.
In the absence of marriage laws, the government would still need a way to manage the relationships that we call marriages. That would likely be done through civil union legislation. However, it is improbable that we would actually open up civil unions to “all” relationships. Washington State is probably not prepared to provide benefits to “civil unions” involving adult family members or polygamists.
Unless you opened up civil unions to every conceivable relationship, the government would still be in the position of preferring some relationships over others with civil union status. As a result, the debate would be precisely the same, except we would be discussing civil unions instead of marriage.
They aren’t.
State law has always preferred monogamous, heterosexual relationships to all others. It is the supporters of gay marriage who are trying to revolutionize state law and force their belief that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships on those who disagree.
Yes, and we are.
The majority is always limited in what it can do by the state and federal constitutions. This is appropriate. However, on the issue of gay marriage, the Washington State Supreme Court has already stated that the people of Washington State are free to define marriage as they see fit.
They have clearly stated that there is no constitutional right to marry anyone you want. As a result, it is perfectly legal to continue to define marriage in the way it has been defined for the entire history of the state.
