Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
In Maine, the governor had signed a law from its legislature last summer that permitted same-sex "marriage". Yesterday that state had a ballot measure in its election, asking the people if they wanted that law to be cancelled. The people voted to strike down the law.
In the state of Washington, the Governor had signed a law months ago, saying that same-sex unions had all the rights of heterosexual marriages EXCEPT they couldn't call it a "marriage".
Yesterday that state had a similar ballot proposition to Maine's, asking if the people wanted to reject that ruling. The issue was voted down by a very slim margin, and the law was permitted to stand.
It's another nail in the coffin of gay "marriages". Nobody objects to a same-sex partner having hospital visitation rights, unwilled inheritance rights, etc. But there has been a lot of objection to gay advocates changing the fundamental definition of marriage.
Gay advocates have been trying for years to force people to accept their new definition of "marriage". At the same time, they have been insisting that all they wanted was the same rights as heterosexuals had in real marriages.
This Washington law reveals the gay advocates' longstanding lie: it GAVE them all the rights they were demanding. But they screamed and protested that it wasn't good enough. It's easy to see why: The law as it stands, blocks them from calling their unions "marriages", the way a law might block calling a table a chair.
Clearly, equal rights was NOT what they wanted. They wanted to force everyone to change the definition of marriage. And now the lid has been nailed a little tighter on the coffin of that lie.
In the state of Washington, the Governor had signed a law months ago, saying that same-sex unions had all the rights of heterosexual marriages EXCEPT they couldn't call it a "marriage".
Yesterday that state had a similar ballot proposition to Maine's, asking if the people wanted to reject that ruling. The issue was voted down by a very slim margin, and the law was permitted to stand.
It's another nail in the coffin of gay "marriages". Nobody objects to a same-sex partner having hospital visitation rights, unwilled inheritance rights, etc. But there has been a lot of objection to gay advocates changing the fundamental definition of marriage.
Gay advocates have been trying for years to force people to accept their new definition of "marriage". At the same time, they have been insisting that all they wanted was the same rights as heterosexuals had in real marriages.
This Washington law reveals the gay advocates' longstanding lie: it GAVE them all the rights they were demanding. But they screamed and protested that it wasn't good enough. It's easy to see why: The law as it stands, blocks them from calling their unions "marriages", the way a law might block calling a table a chair.
Clearly, equal rights was NOT what they wanted. They wanted to force everyone to change the definition of marriage. And now the lid has been nailed a little tighter on the coffin of that lie.
