Same sex and senior domestic partnerships are quite different. I wish it were two different votes.
I can't imagine how torn a senior citizen will feel having to vote for same sex partnerships in order to get benefits for themselves.

I'm proud to support the domestic partnership law for both senior citizens and same sex domestic partners. All Washington families should have access to vital protections in times of crisis. I plan to vote to approve referendum 71 to keep domestic partnerships.

Two people in love is beautiful and rare. Let them be domestic partners and take care of each other and especially their kids. I'm going to vote to approve the law. You should too.

Two people in love is beautiful and rare. Let them be domestic partners and take care of each other and especially their kids. I'm going to vote to approve the law. You should too.

I can't wait to vote approved on Referendum 71. Seniors and gay and lesbian couples need to be able to care for one another just like the rest of us. Wills and powers of attorney just don't cut it. If they did, nobody would be getting married or a domestic partnership.

Every one deserves equal protection under the law. That is what our country was founded on. The people who stand against 71 are behaving like those our forefathers fled Europe to escape. I am going to approve 71!

Referndum 71 is vital to Washington's community. It shows people in the LGBT community that their families are valued here, it goes beyond domestic partnerships in other states by allowing senior citizens to recieve formal recognition of their relationships without interfearing with social security benefits by remarrying. Without the dommestic partnerships Washington is telling us in the LGBT community that our love is not good enough, that we are not valued, that we should go elsewhere. Approve 71 has so much support from large companies like Boeing & Microsoft because they know that valued employees are more productive, it is just good busisness. I encourage everyone to APPROVE Referendum 71.

Approve 71! If those US States who legalized gay marriage have not fallen off of the face of the earth then WA wont either by APPROVING 71! Keep religious views out of political policy.. after there is something called: Separation of Church and State

My grandmothers were both senior citizens. I'm going to vote YES on 71 to protect senior citizen rights.

Both of my grandmothers were senior citizens. I'm going to vote YES on 71 to preserve seniors' rights.

I have been in a committed relationship with my partner for 18 years. We work, we own a home, we pay taxes, we do everything that is expected of a responsible citizen of the state of Washington. I was the same protections that others take for granted. Approve ref 71. Decades from now ( hopefully much sooner) we will all look back and wonder why we even had this debate.

I have been in a committed relationship with my partner for 18 years. We work, we own a home, we pay taxes, we do everything that is expected of a responsible citizen of the state of Washington. I was the same protections that others take for granted. Approve ref 71. Decades from now ( hopefully much sooner) we will all look back and wonder why we even had this debate.

One of the arguments for not approving Referendum 71 is that "marriage" is for procreation. If they truly believe this they should invalidate any marriage that happens and children are not a result of that marriage.

Marriage is a contract between individuals. This contract does not and should not require permission or regulation from government. These contracts may/should be registered with the county clerk. Laws discriminating against contract persons are wrong. Individuals under privacy laws should be able to register their desires to be considered as family.

These contracts should have no influence upon employment contracts or terms of employment.

I don't understand how any one minority's rights could even come up for a vote. Where is the justice in that? What if only gay people got to vote on straight peoples relationships? How would that make them feel?

My religion doesn't treat people like they are worthless even if they are gay. What would Jesus do? Love all of us of course. Why can't the religious right do that too?

Masssachutes has had same sex marriage for many years and the sky has not fallen nor have any marriages been distroyed. They also have the lowest devorce rate of any state. Churches should not be allowed to determine the laws or the lives of others.

The Declaration of Independence declares Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness for all. How dare tonight's opponent inject his inherent bigotry and barely hidden hate against this basic American document of freedom. All one has to do is look at his face to see his agenda. Perhaps Libiya has a home for him.

I have a DOMESTIC PARTNER of a diffent sex than me. Im a Female with a Male Partner, we have 2 Children together. We cant get married we are part of the working poor. He pays Child support for another child he has. So i dont want the state to take The money i make for my children, or my tax return at the end of the year for any owing back support he owes. Thats not fair to our other kids.
So, we choose not to get married. We have been together for 13years. This DOMESTIC PARTNER REF 71. SHOULD BE FOR EVERYONE. NOT JUST SAME SEX COUPLES. I WOULD APPROVE THIS IF THIS BILL INCLUDES US. HE WOULD FINALLY GET MEDICAL FOR MY IMPLOYER WHO DENEYS HIM BECAUSE WE ARNT NOT MARRIED.

This nation was formed by Christians and blessed by God. Undermining the foundation of this country will only cause God to take His blessings away from us. What has made this country great will be destroyed if this referendum becomes law. Once you undermine God's law its a slippery slope into more Ungodly things.

Jessica, by voting to reject this law how do you expect to further any opportunities for people like you in a similar situation? Wouldn't it behoove you and other straight domestic partners to approve this law so that they too can make a statement for their rights?

Just my 2 pennies...

This isn't about marriage, it is about fairness to all Washington couples who can't marry for economic reasons or because of their sexual orientation. All citizens should be free to protect their families equally. The legislature and the governor got it right when they crafted this legislation that gives all couples registered as domestic partners the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations for their families as those couples who are able to marry. I have been married for 49 years and believe that by denying the rights and priveleges my wife and I share to other couples who can't marry is unfair and in no way diminishes our marriage. We will enthusiastically vote to approve referendum 71.

This issue is another example of humans immaturity and dysfunctional outdated mythology. Responsible relationship is responsible relationship.

Most humans are not monogamous, let alone homosexual. Check the statistics regarding the percentage of divorce or the number of supposed monogamous people who cheat on their spouses.

Those with religious and moral superiority issues need to evolve rather than project their neuroses onto society at large.

Such immaturity is not only a waste of emotional energy, and contributes to the waste of economic resources that could be used better elsewhere given the current state of the economy...

Wallace, what about separation of church and state do you not understand?

We have been in a partnership for 30 years and yet we are unable to cover one another on health insurance. We are not asking for special rights just the same rights. We raised 3 beautiful daughters, have 4 grandsons and one great grand-son on the way. No one can tell me that we are not a family. We support Referendum 71 and believe all people should have equal rights.

This isn't about marriage, it is about fairness to all Washington couples who can't marry for economic reasons or because of their sexual orientation. All citizens should be free to protect their families equally. The legislature and the governor got it right when they crafted this legislation that gives all couples registered as domestic partners the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations for their families as those couples who are able to marry. I have been married for 49 years and believe that by denying the rights and priveleges my wife and I share to other couples who can't marry is unfair and in no way diminishes our marriage. We will enthusiastically vote to approve referendum 71.

This issue is another example of humans immaturity and dysfunctional outdated mythology. Responsible relationship is responsible relationship.

Most humans are not monogamous, let alone homosexual. Check the statistics regarding the percentage of divorce or the number of supposed monogamous people who cheat on their spouses.

Those with religious and moral superiority issues need to evolve rather than project their neuroses onto society at large.

Such immaturity is not only a waste of emotional energy, and contributes to the waste of economic resources that could be used better elsewhere given the current state of the economy...

BRITTANY SPEARS WAS MARRIED AND DIVORCED IN THE SAME DAY. This idea of marriage being sacred is a dying idea by an overly conservative christian following. Thank GOD there is a CLEAR SEPARATION of church and state in this country. Religious beliefs should stay out of politics, especially when they take away rights from families.

Anne Levinson did a wonderful job in this debate and didn't get sidetracked and off the simple message that we want to APPROVE Referendum 71 to protect families in our state.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that many of the couples who are gay or lesbian ARE senior citizens - or will be. They all deserve the same rights that I have.

If Ref. 71 passes, then it likely would become illegal for Jews, Christians, Moslems, and others to discriminate against homosexuals; and I don't believe the majority of Washingtonians want that kind of conflict.

Geoff, exactly what kind of discrimination against homosexuals are you referring to that will become illegal if Ref. 71 passes?

Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in "The Constitution"?

Gabi, I think that it would become illegal for churches, for example, to publically teach Bible verses such as these two:

--Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (NIV).
--1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (NIV).

Agree?

Referendum 71 is about protecting families' rights, and not about marriage. We should all have equal rights no matter who we call family. Everyone deserves equal rights; especially in times of crisis. I'm voting YES on November 3rd for Ref. 71 & I hope you will too. Please get out and vote - it is our responsibility as citizens of these United States.

Woops. Gabi et al., I forgot to include the previous two verse in the second ref.:

--1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Geoff, since when has a state law ever determined what can and can't be taught in church? The answer is "never". All you have to do is look at all the other states with domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage equality to see that your fears are completely unfounded. You can call us all kinds of nasty names to your hearts content (provide you're not inciting violence), and it'll still be legal because your speech is protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which trumps any state law. Call me a sinner, I don't care and I won't try to stop you. You're entitled to your opinion, and no domestic partnership law can change that.

I really have a hard time believing that in the 21st century we have to still be debating what it means to have equal rights for all. By approving Domestic partnerships is in no way going to hurt the religious institution of marriage. the heterosexuals will still get married and divorced no matter what. My biggest fear, and this is way out there, is that the extreme right will then try to influence other 'partnership rights'. who will they go after next? will it be that whites or blacks or the native americans should not be allow to marry across race lines again. Should Christians, Jews, Catholics not be allowed to marry across religious lines? I haven't heard one good reason why Ref. 71 should not be approved.

I will be APPROVING Ref. 71. The fact that we are even allowed to vote on whether or not to give certain people rights is insane. The people voting to reject this referendum are jealous, righteous a**holes who feel the need to control the lives of others. Same-sex marriage will not threaten procreation, there will always be people getting pregnant. And those who say that marriage is for procreating need to wake up and realize that some people actually love each other, and don't marry for the sole purpose of having sex. If this were the case, all marriages that don't produce children should be invalidated.

Geoff, you wrote "Gabi, I think that it would become illegal for churches, for example, to publically teach Bible verses such as ... "

You didn't answer my question. You wrote:

"If Ref. 71 passes, then it likely would become illegal for Jews, Christians, Moslems, and others to discriminate against homosexuals; ..."

Ref. 71 has absolutely nothing to do with what you can teach in a faith community.

I asked exactly what kind of discrimination against homosexuals are you referring to that will become illegal if Ref. 71 passes?

So what I'm asking is what bias acts and prejudice-based treatment you are claiming that "Jews, Christians, Moslems, and others" will be constrained from doing by Ref. 71?

By the way, the majority of Washingtonians want equal civil rights for all, and that includes persons of faith. See http://www.approvereferendum71.org/faith-coalition

Lurleen: Most Christians are not just concerned about what is "taught in church" but what is spoken publically OUTSIDE the church when it comes to interviewing, hiring, academic curriculum, etc. re two people that are equating their relationship to being married and expecting equal treatment socially and financially. I'm not questioning a couple's heartfelt commitment. And please believe that most Christians don't hate homosexuals, just as we don't hate people who are alcoholics or abuse (mentally and/or physically) children; our words come from the Bible, confirmed in both the Old and New Testaments -- which are considered more sacred documents than The Constitution.

Gabi: Does my response to Lurleen help clarify my answer. Now, related to your statement about "the majority of Washingtonians want equal civil rights for all, and that includes persons of faith," we shall see. My prayer is that the "majority" of WA registered voters do indeed VOTE. Off to church...www.thecity.org (click it out!) Geoffaith

What I find ironic here is that this isn't about marriage. Out of respect and consideration for religious institutions, the word "Marriage" is not being used.

This is about two people that are in a committed relation that want to make a contract that is sanctioned by the state to ensure that the committed relationship is protected. This is not an issue intended legitimize a lifestyle or sexual preference.

Anyone that has been in a committed relationship for an extended period of time knows that "sex" is not what the relationship is all about.

Our laws are agreements between many people of many different backgrounds and faiths. To claim that this is a nation of just one religion and that we should all follow the phrases of one set of text is arrogant.

The most ironic about this whole debate is that we are debating with one faith about something that has nothing to do with the word marriage. What's next? Making anything but "missionary" illegal?

Wow, it's nice to see Geoff playing the old "compare gays and lesbians to drunks and drug addicts and child abusers" line. That's really what it all boils down to for you, isn't it, Geoff? "We don't hate you people who happen to love people of the same gender, just like we don't hate these people over here who beat their kids and shoot up and drink all day long." Time to come up with a new tack, Geoff, this one is getting played out and I (and a lot of people, Christian and not) find it patently offensive (not to mention totally ridiculous) to compare the two.

The comment this morning about how will the state respond to polygamist's etc etc is an old one. If the concern is that we are going down a slippery slope, then why not abolish marriage all together? I'm not seriously suggesting that but it's obvious that when people start talking about freedom and rights, what they are really saying is they want the rights for themselves and those who share their beliefs only. Any one who does not share their beliefs don't deserve those rights. That's NOT American! That to me is the essence of discrimination.

First of all this is about benefits to domestic partners. NOT DISCRIMINATION! Discrimination was constantly mentioned in this mornings broadcast. Gays are not a minority, no matter how hard they try to convince everyone they are. IT IS A CHOICE TO BE GAY. One is born Black, Indian, Chinese, or which ever flavor you choose, but you are not born gay.

I am not religious but I am tired of government providing for all of these special interests groups. We have bigger fish to fry. LIKE GANGS, DRUGS, and UNEMPLOYMENT.

And most importantly government should not have a right to tell private business they have to cover Domestic couples as well as discipline businesses for turning gays away because of the minority/domestic partner issues.

This is a private issue and it should stay that way. Insurance is available to single people so go out and get your own insurance. I have relationships with women in my lifetime where we cohabitated. We were not married but we managed. So quit looking for a freebee because you people think you are a minority.

Vote to approve Ref. 71! Equal rights are an American value that is important for all. The religious views of a subset of our population are important, but should not be used as a tool to trample the rights of others. One person made the comment that the old and new testaments are more sacred than the constitution. What he failed to realize is that this is his personal view. Not everyone holds that same view. Diversity is a good thing. People can continue to believe what they want to believe, but not when it comes to discriminating upon those who don't share their beliefs. Since we pay equal taxes as married couples, we deserve and expect the same rights. This is a no brainer...VOTE TO APPROVE REF. 71!

When did you "choose" to be straight, John Crowell? That is a totally illogical statement for you to make. Why would any person wake up one day and go, "Oh gosh, you know just for kicks, I'm going to choose to be something that could get me fired from my job, kicked out of my home, disowned from my family, made a pariah in public in general, and possibly hurt or killed"? Who would ever do that? Also, who ever said people who want domestic partnerships were looking for a freebie? My partner and I work, pay taxes, pay our mortgage just like anyone else. It's not welfare, it's a basic human right.

"The religious views of a subset of our population are important, but should not be used as a tool to trample the rights of others."

There may be a separation of church and state, but let us not forget, religion is the foundation of this country. It has been this countries conscience.

Where I have a problem is where militant gays especially try to shoe horn their Sexual preferences into the minority category. Pretty soon gangbangers will want there own referendum that they are being labeled and unfairly treated....

VOTE NO FOR REF 71. THIS BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RELATIONSHIPS OF A FEMALE AND MALE. THEY ALSO DESERVE THE SAME BENEFITS. THEY HAVE JOINED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AS A FAMILY. THEY ARE RAISING CHILDREN. STOP THE MADNESS........

"Oh gosh, you know just for kicks, I'm going to choose to be something that could get me fired from my job, kicked out of my home, disowned from my family, made a pariah in public in general, and possibly hurt or killed"? Who would ever do that? Also, who ever said people who want domestic partnerships were looking for a freebie? My partner and I work, pay taxes, pay our mortgage just like anyone else. It's not welfare, it's a basic human right."

Illlogical to you maybe... maybe you have a Persecution Complex. When you put in those words it does sound pretty stupid, so why did you do it?

When I was living with a girlfriend, I paid taxes, mortgage, insurance, and so on. So what makes you so special because you are gay. Again, it is a choice! Not a birthright.

The biggest question of all, why should the gays get the rights but hetrosexual couples don't?

I think it is sad that in this day and age the rights of certain citizens get to be voted on by the majority (who happen to be christians, how convenient). It's not enough for conservatives and christians to be conservative for themselves. They must always push and force their narrow minded agenda and "morals" on others. They use the bible as some sort of "truth", but the bible is a work of fiction like any other fictitious book. Religion is made-up superstition. Religion is make-believe. Christians cannot prove that what they are saying is true, so their belief system should not be used as a system to deny others equality under the law. Christians can cite bible passages to their heart's content, but it doesn't mean anything. It is just nonsense that is severely outdated. It is only a matter of time until full equality for GLBT people is the the norm in society. It is wrong to treat people unfairly. Nobody ever voted on equal rights for black people, voting rights for women, or inter-racial marriage. I don't understand what makes gay people so different that people actually think it's ok to put our equality under the law up to a vote. I can't wait for the end of christian oppression. It will be a great day.

You DO have the same benefits, Rasheedah. It's called MARRIAGE. *rolls eyes*

And again, JC, I ask you: when did you "choose" to be straight? Pretty convenient how you keep ignoring that question.

Taint natural!

I just can't figure out how something against nature is a right!

If you use the Bible to hurt others, you misunderstand and misuse it. Look at the life, message, and actions of Jesus. Focus on Him and act out of love.

People like Joseph Backholm are bad for this country. America was founded on the idea of idividual freedom and people like Joseph Backholm are trying their hardest to take our freedoms! Strawman arguments are NOT valid and we do recognize your real agenda! Ref. 71 will lead to polygamy!? Laughably abusrd.

People like Joseph Backholm are bad for this country. America was founded on the idea of idividual freedom and people like Joseph Backholm are trying their hardest to take our freedoms! Strawman arguments are NOT valid and we do recognize your real agenda! Ref. 71 will lead to polygamy!? Laughably absurd.

It's a shame that law-abiding, tax paying citizens who are in committed relationships and simply wish to take care of each other and have the same tax benefits and responsibilities as it relates to real estate transactions, pension benefits, sick leave and the hundreds of other rights aren't able to because a small group of people think they are superior to another group of people. I don't remember reading about Jesus preaching that some people are better than other people or some people's relationships are better than others. We are all created equally under the law.

Ryan, you are right, everyone should be treated as equals. Which means no special privledges for Gays, Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Mexicans and so on. As for health benefits, we all know that we as individuals should all have to have a medical plan. Obama is trying to get that in place. Whether he succeeds, is to be determined. We are pushing in the wrong place. It should be EVERY Americans right to have health insurance. And NOT because of your religion, color, or sexual orientation. I believe in a Free and Democratic society, but we also need socialized medicine. Our Hospitals, Doctors, Drug companies and all in between are crooked as a stick. This is the real crime here, Not this ridiculous fight about gay rights.

Adam... you're such an infantile.... you put a label on me. "straight" I am as I was born and meant to be. Normal! I did not have to make a decision, by nature I like women like 90% of the people on this planet who naturally like the opposite sex.

Religious belief, belief in myths such as "this country was founded by christians" and bible quotes are irrelevant to the issue. Churches are free to create their own standards of marriage and perform those ceremonies, which are meaningful only to the church. The government must bestow rights and benefits to a marriage through law, and does so with or without the sanction of a church.

The government is not to follow the laws of any church or religion. The important issue is to respect the rights and equality of all Americans whether you share the same or different views and beliefs. Forcing society to comply with a particular viewpoint based on religion through the creation of law is morally and ethically wrong and definitely as un-american as it gets.

We vote for the laws to make America a great country for everyone, not to impose religion by force. Doing the right thing for society sometimes goes against what you personally believe for yourself.

I simply cannot believe how ridiculous some of this is! I am just dumbfounded!

Jessica: I understand your situation with not getting married because of child support your partner owes, blah blah, blah. I am in a boat very similar, I am choosing to not get married because I don't want the burden of his financial obligations. And I don't know if you caught that, but I said "I am CHOOSING to not get married" This is a choice for you. Your situation may very well suck, and believe me I understand, but you do have the choice to get married and take on those responsibilities and get any benefits that may come along with that. Why shouldn't everyone have that choice?
John Crowell: Exactly how can you be so sure that one's sexuality is a choice? I don't ever remember facing that decision, do you? I can't say either way, but I do think that with all the hardships the gay community must overcome, that would have be a community made up of some severely unhinged individuals in order to choose, of their own free will, such a difficult lifestyle. And on a side note: You know that you could have gotten married, right? With one of those many women you have lived with? Why didn't you? Your fear of commitment is not grounds for denying anyone else that right.
To everyone else: I am proud of this country and what we originally stood for: Freedom and the idea that everyone is equal. We just have to continue fine-tuning that idea. Not long ago, it was crazy to think that anyone who wasn't a white male actually deserved any rights at all. We're evolving, it's just a slow process. Don't lose hope!

The subject of legislation concerning ‘homosexual rights’ presents the most appallingly example of discrimination possible. To be permitted to achieve basic human rights only by claiming to engage in aberrant, deviant and, to many. repugnant behavior is ludicrous.

There is a sizable percentage of adults in our society not protected by the laws of marriage and family. All of these individuals should be encouraged to designate a person or persons to have rights and responsibilities concerning their welfare. Sex, age, or family connection need not determine the choice, and it should include a document subject to change as circumstances dictate. It could include financial matters such as providing for mutual support, rights of inheritance, life insurance, responsibility for joint debt,~~ or not.

There are numerous types of handicaps other than homosexuality that prevent individuals from enjoying the physical, emotional, and financial support of marriage. Feeling ‘homosexual tendencies’ is surely the least of these, and in no way calls for any special consideration.

The flaunting of homosexual relationships has been hugely detrimental to many who shared living arrangements and partnerships that were not in the least sexual. It has often made men, and some women, so uncomfortable they have given up the companionship entirely.

On the subject of homosexual rights in the military, at schools, or places of employment, there should be no need to address the issue at all. Intimate physical relationships should always be intensely private. Many people in the military are forced to live apart from their spouses, a sacrifice for both partners. Everyone already has the right to close personal relationships; anything more intimate should be kept private, not publicly displayed and certainly not a subject for legislation.

ITAKE ISSUE WITH ANY LEGISLATION FAVORING ANY ONE GROUP OF CIIZENS

Washington State resident

Some very fuzzy thinking is going on here. Redefining words to suit personal biases stands out immediately. Take the word family for instance. That's always been a good word that had for its foundation the marriage of a man and woman, no matter what other difficulties may have assaulted the institution. But there have been many pseudo uses of the word. Charles Manson called his little group a family. Organized crime calls their evil associations families. These are twisted uses of the word. Too many people here think they have some power to redefine this word and all the history that goes with it to fit their agenda.
The communists have done this, too. One example is how the Chinese communists chose to name their murderous rule "The People's Republic of China." They hijacked the word republic, which had a noble connotation, and started using it to describe their distorted form of totalitarianism. "The People's Prison of China" would have been more accurate, but they weren't concerned with accuracy. They stole the moral capital in the word republic to deceive the world into thinking more highly of them than they deserved. The same is going on here. A man can feel sexual attraction toward another man and call their relationship a family. But, sadly, it doesn't change the fact that it is really perversion. A prison is not a republic and perversion is not a family. Reject SB 5688.

Count me in, I will approve!

Geez,
I am convinced that the use of the term Christian has lost all meaning. From those who have the audacity to represent their creator and use the Bible to advance their agenda of hatred, bigotry and discrimination - I ask you, would you even recognize the God whom you profess to serve? I hope I NEVER find myself in any of your churchs, as it is clear to me the zealousness of your hatred far outweighs the Love one would expect of a church, and one who is Christian (Christ Like). I'd vote to approve referendum 71 even if I didn't believe in it, merely to prove to you that GOD loves everyone, not just those whom you'd invite into your church that are as closed minded and as full of hatred as yourselves. Shame on you, shame on all of you who use God to hide your own hatred. And this referendum doesn't hurt you - it helps your fellow citizens. So much for the so called charity the zealots profess. So do us all a favor, stop quoting the Bible, and start living your lives for God rather than do everything in your power to cause pain for those who are different than you.

This R-71 deals with 'deviant'behaiours, as the dictionary state, a 'sexual pervert.' These 'relationships' are with single people, who are in 'sick'and sad relationships. The majority of people in this state do NOT want this 'gay community' to get into our faces with their demands! Yup, reject R-71, stop this insanity of sweet people getting caught up in distorted relationships of deviant life styles! Let's prevent the teachings of this deviant life from being taught in our schools! REJECT R-71!

Reject this--it's nothing but deviant behaiours, with nice people caught up in a sick lifestyle, that would be taught in our schools, which most parents would object. Reject this to keep the sanctity of marriage of one man/one women intact!

I think that sexual preferences should be left out of politics. We live in an age where evil is called good and good is called evil. Marriage since the begining of time is ordained by God and he has made this institution to be between 1 man and 1 woman. Calling same-sex and senior domestic partners the same as those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage, is a threat to society as a whole. If this is allowed to happen soon a partnership could be defined as anything. Polygamists will come forward to receive the same rights, men and women who think that having sex with minors justifies a partnership, will be in line as well.
This is really all about sex not protecting peoples rights. Where will it stop?

If we pass this law, we are validifying a lie, a fantasy. We are treating two women or two men living together as if they are a husband and wife when they are not and never can be, no matter how much they may want to be. The same is true with a senior male and female who live together, but don't want to get married for the benefits they will loose, but want the benefits of being married. They want it both ways to skirt the laws already in existance. If we want to allow seniors to marry without loosing benefits, we can change the laws in regard to social security and other benefits for seniors who remarry so they can do it in an honest way. It doesn't have as much to do with religion as with truth and honesty.

So the Majority of 1800's Southerners were Church going Christians who quoted Scripture to support slavery. I think it is terrible that the Majority was overruled by laws that banned slavery. Those who choose to be born Black should not get special privileges against the believes of the majority of those land owners who can voter. They would be forced to hire free blacks against their religious teachings. Also, those who choose to be born female should not have the right to vote. GOD forbid that Ref 71 passes or I'll have to pull my children out of public school if it is forced to allow non blue eyed rats to attend and corrupt them. Also relieved that my first wife was stoned to death because I found her to be a non-virgin at marriage. The bible supports me having a wife and 3 concubines. I am so glad that the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. Deuteronomy 22:13-29

The "equal rights" argument is simply misdirection by proponents of this law that will employ any means to achieve their true goals. The supporter in the interview kept spouting the same talking points over and over, and telling stories meant to evoke sympathy. But this is not really about equality, it's about promoting the homosexual lifestyle! The goal of this law is to fundamentally redefine the institution of state sanctioned marriage, and in turn changing how our children are educated (indoctrinated?). Once this precedent is established, what is to prevent any other lifestyle choice from demanding the same consideration? Anyone could claim to be domestic partners in order to receive benefits, including those who are not actually in a "committed" or "family" relationship. There are many unintended consequences in play here that have not been considered. In addition, the state is trampling on the religious beliefs of many who object to the public sanctioning of homosexual partnerships.
Vote "REJECT" SB5688!

Many of the writers here do not seem to understand what the term "Separation of Church and State" actually means. The principle is that a religious body (the Church) cannot be allowed to dictate public law or policy. However, our country was also founded based upon the principle of "Freedom of Religion", meaning INDIVIDUALS are free to worship as they choose without State interference. This is the other side of the same coin! This does NOT mean that INDIVIDUALS should be prohibited from exercising their personal morals and beliefs when freely participating in the political process! This is where the line has become blurred. The opponents of this law have every right to their beliefs, and it is NOT a violation of "Church and State" to exercise them.

I have a question. Why are religous beliefs 90% of the problem here? I bet not one you that posted on here advertising to us "your" faith live by its commandments. Guess what, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONES FAITH. The other thing mentioned quite a bit was "TEACHING THIS BEHAVIOR" WOW. Again I'm sure you folks are not Saints either. Lets ask "your" kids what your teaching them. I'm sure its not pretty. This whole issue is about love and equality. Equality, isn't this suppose to be what makes living in American great, oh wait it can't be because we want to pick and choose when to employ Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Where are we now, I lost track. There was on post on here that states "Gay and Lesibians are not minorities" What the hell are you smoking? You obviously do not know the definition, so let me help you.
M I N O R I T Y:
Usage: often attributive
Date: 15th century
1 a : the period before attainment of majority b : the state of being a legal minor
2 : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control
3 a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group.
You may want to read number 3 a few time for it to sink in.
Hope that helped...
I for one honestly believe this is all about the verbage. Marriage and Sex Same in the same sentence. They has to be another way for this to work. I will be voting yes because I do believe in love and if both parties want to spend the rest of their lives together, who the hell are we to say no and then on top of it deny them the same benefits as others in love bound by contract. It just plain ridiculous.
Lets vote yes and move on to something bigger like our healthcare system and immigration laws

I will be voting to Approve.

Let's really think about family and equal civil rights.

Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiuCHLRLNM&feature=player_embedded

The subject of legislation concerning ‘homosexual rights’ presents the most appallingly example of discrimination possible. To be permitted to achieve basic human rights only by claiming to engage in aberrant, deviant and, to many. repugnant behavior is ludicrous.

There is a sizable percentage of adults in our society not protected by the laws of marriage and family. All of these individuals should be encouraged to designate a person or persons to have rights and responsibilities concerning their welfare. Sex, age, or family connection need not determine the choice, and it should include a document subject to change as circumstances dictate. It could include financial matters such as providing for mutual support, rights of inheritance, life insurance, responsibility for joint debt,~~ or not.

There are numerous types of handicaps other than homosexuality that prevent individuals from enjoying the physical, emotional, and financial support of marriage. Feeling ‘homosexual tendencies’ is surely the least of these, and in no way calls for any special consideration.

The flaunting of homosexual relationships has been hugely detrimental to many who shared living arrangements and partnerships that were not in the least sexual. It has often made men, and some women, so uncomfortable they have given up the companionship entirely.

On the subject of homosexual rights in the military, at schools, or places of employment, there should be no need to address the issue at all. Intimate physical relationships should always be intensely private. Many people in the military are forced to live apart from their spouses, a sacrifice for both partners. Everyone already has the right to close personal relationships; anything more intimate should be kept private, not publicly displayed and certainly not a subject for legislation.

ITAKE ISSUE WITH ANY LEGISLATION FAVORING ANY ONE GROUP OF CIIZENS

Washington State resident

This is the Civil Rights movement of our time. We live in a free country. This is about sharing a life with the person one chooses to do so with. The argument that it will hurt procreation in preposterous, this county needs more families that can adopt, our population is far from being hindered by the individuals that decide to live this lifestyle. Everyone deserves the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. No one should be able to take that away, especially the church.

I thought the report was fair. My one concern was that there was no mention of our Governor delaying her signature on this bill until the last possible moment in an effort to reduce the time any opposition had to move this to a referendum. I am not sure that was a balanced approached and this may have led to some of the frustration of those in opposition to the domestic partnership legislation.

This is quite the subject, the question I have is some people say that if you dont back Obama that your racist (Carter). So if you back same sex marriage are you gay?

I am against it but I was for it before I realized that the shoe has to fit before you can back something up.

There is a reason that it takes a MAN and a WOMAN to create a child. That is the only basis for marriage. Homosexuals should have equal rights as individuals, but no way should their relationships be sanctified as "marriage" or equivalent. REJECT!

I appreciate the opposing side's argument that this new bill would interfere with their religious beliefs. What I find funny is how quickly we forget. Go back in history less than 100 years and Christians leaders claim that the bible said women should not have the right to vote or be treated equally. Go back less than 50 years and many were trying to stop the end of segregation or give equal rights to blacks because of their so-called "biblical beliefs." Some we even tauting the "evil of left-handedness" as late as the mid 20th century. When will we stop allowing others to call their outright pure prejudice Christian religious beliefs? Approve 71!!!

This has nothing to do with civil rights or equality. It's about preserving the basic family unit, based upon BIOLOGY! That means father, mother and most likely children. Just because you CAN do a thing does not mean you SHOULD. I agree that same-sex couples should have the same basic rights as other couples. But you simply cannot redefine marriage and completely alter the basic building block of society, just to make an "alternate lifestyle" be accepted as mainstream. The argument that this issue is the same as racial or sexual discrimination is simply WRONG. As is labeling people that oppose this law as prejudiced or bigots!

Tim, are you serious? Rev 71 does not redefine marriage. You need to learn how to read.

Tim, are you serious or seriously stupid? Rev 71 does not redefine marriage. Learn how to read.

Jay: This law is just a sly stepping stone toward redefinition of marriage. Once established, the goal is to have people come to accept it as the same thing. For all intents and purposes, and in all practicality, over time there would be no perceived difference. The line would be sufficiently blurred, especially as children are taught basically that in school. Read between the lines! Get a clue! I'll bet you know (and hope) this to be true, and you seriously underestimate the intelligence of those of us that oppose it.

I agree with both sides on many of the points made here. BUT, I believe this legislation is more about promoting an unnatural lifestyle than about "equal rights". Supporting this behavior with "equal rights", amounts to subsidizing an alternative lifestyle by the state. AND as we all know, any time you subsidize something, you tend to get more of it.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman period, always was and by the power of GOD always will be. End of subject, if you don't like my opinion, that is fine, but please respect it.

I will vote to accept, to affirm equal rights for ALL our citizens. If you have a religion-based objection, then fine - I will respect your position; now you need to respect mine. This country has a broad variety of religious organizations within it - none of which should be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rights of individuals. We should not allow ANY religion to dictate civil rights for the entire country OR the entire state.

**APPROVE 71** The Bill Of Rights states that the rights of the minority are to be protected from the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. Domestic partnerships and marriage are CIVIL rights. People can go to city hall and get married. Religion is not a part of the equation! Isn't it is crazy to be VOTING on civil rights!?!?!? That’s a permanent insult. Maybe the bible thumpers should just be happy with that. Okay, you got us! We're insulted! You glad? Feel superior? Okay good, I guess we're done then. Thank god! Now shut up. Maybe we should have "voted" on blacks to be in the front of the bus? Or a referendum to put them back in the rear seats? Or vote to allow women to vote, or to allow interracial marriage? This is getting old RIGHT? Canada has already gotten beyond this issue. Have they collapsed off the map with their streets burning? I am so tired of being polite and tolerant of right wing bible thumpers. Grow up.

Garebear--

What kind of knucklehead equates rights and subsidies?