Wanna save a Billion or two? Just roll-back/decertify R-71 as this will save mega-bucks in needless health care expenses treating the Gays stricken with "all" kinds of preventable diseases.
It is such a "travesty" that R-71 is being resoundly defeated in the majority of the Counties Statewide. However, the uttermost liberal County, king (a.k.a Queer County) is so far making this closer that it should really ever be! Therefore I beleive that the merits of R-71 should only apply (if) you reside in (Queer County)!!
This is precisely what will happen (if) R-71 is approved by the voters in Washington State. The Gay community won't rest on having thier so-called equal rights (which will not be equal for straight couples under the age of 62). They will next try to get the (legal) right to marry all in the name of "normal behavior???"
So tell me, why can't a heterosexual couple register as a "domestic couple" and (immediately) recieve the same benefits that Gay couples will recieve IF R-71 is approved. I keep reading (all) the postings by the Gay community that they want equal rights. Where are the equal rights for a "straight" domestic couple in R-71? Why in the hell do they need to wait until age 62? Can any R-71 supporter explain how this is true equallity??
R-71 is "NOT" equal rights for "ALL!" It's rights for Gay's and Lesbians. And rights for a handful of straight couples (who) have to be 62 years of age or older. What is equal about that??????
No, it's B.S. that the Pro R-71 folks think that this is equal right for everyone.
What about the hetero couple under the age of 62? Why don't they get the same rights that the same-sex couple (of any age) will receive if this becomes law??? Level the playing field for all and this might just pass!
On your #1: Suppose a straight couple (both divorced with children from past marriges) are living together. The man (he does not have custody, his ex-wife does) makes 75K a year. His partner, the woman,
(also has 2 children, but her ex-husband has custody) and she makes
55K a year. ***note: neither of thier ex-spouses have re-married and also earn less income.
If this couple who (Can Legally Marry) as you state, do in fact get married, just how fast do you think they'll be hauled into Court because they now "jointly earn 130K a year????
The Gay community cannot "bear" children nor be hauled into divorce Court. Again R-71 is not on a "level playing field" for all. And it should be if it has any chance of passing!
What about 30 or 40 year olds that are "divorced" with children from a previous marriages that, if they tie-the-knot, thier ex-spouses will head striaght to Court to raise thier child support payments??
Gays and Lesbians cannot bear children so this law is really skewed in favor of them!!
(If) this law was truly about equality for "everyone" (which it is not) people might be receptive to voting in favor of it. This proposed law is primarily a "Pro-Gay" peice of legislation only. Where are the exact same (rights) for a heterosexual couple that choose, for a myriad of reasons to be partners for life and not get married? I wish a Pro R-71 backer could explain to me why this isn't just strickly a "Pro-Gay" inititive. It does little to nothing to benefit a straight couple.
I would agree with you Snowstorm (if) R-71 was a "level" playing field. But, it is not even close. Gays and Lesbians, if this is passed will receive benefits right away. However, a Heterosexual couple will have to wait until the ripe old age of (62) for the same benefits. Where is the equality in R-71 for "everyone" regardless of sexual orientation???
Take out/eliminate the age 62 requirement and this (might) pass. If not, it is destined for failure!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch