Same-sex weddings in Washington state to begin on Sunday

By RACHEL LA CORTE

World Dec. 09, 2012 - 02:30PM JST ( 19 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

19 Comments

-7

jforceDec. 09, 2012 - 03:44PM JST

The lawyers must be so happy this went through. I mean true love lasts forever and now it's completely legal for your gay spouse to get 1/2. I guess this is a win for men everywhere - at least. I wonder what the courts will do with no woman to hand all the money over to?
2

zichiDec. 09, 2012 - 04:17PM JST

“We waited a long time. We’ve been together 35 years, never thinking we’d get a legal marriage. Now I feel so joyous I can’t hardly stand it,” said 85-year-old Pete-e Petersen, who with her partner, 77-year-old Jane Abbott Lighty, were the first to get a license.

They will marry on Sunday. Wonder if they smoke marijuana too?"
-10

BertieWoosterDec. 09, 2012 - 04:38PM JST

marriage |marij|

noun

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
7

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 09, 2012 - 04:49PM JST

Marriage is a personal decision. Best wishes and best of luck to them. Government has no business interfering.
2

jumpultimatestarsDec. 09, 2012 - 04:52PM JST

That's funny BertieWooster because if you had kept reading, MY dictionary at least also says:

"B: A similar institution involving partners of the same gender"

Now, whose dictionary is correct I wonder? LOL
0

lostrune2Dec. 09, 2012 - 06:30PM JST

The U.S. Supreme Court has just decided to hear this issue. Ruling in the summer.

But remember this name: Theodore Olson. He's the veteran ultra-conservative lawyer who has argued many cases in front of the USSC and won more than a handful of 'em, including the highly disputed ruling that won George W. Bush the Presidency in 2000. He'll be in front of the USSC again and arguing for same-sex marriage.

Yeah, you heard that right. Not only that, but his co-counsel in the case is lawyer David Boies, the very opponent he faced in that Bush v. Gore case. As a conservative, he simply came to believe that same-sex marriage is a constitutional civil right.

As they say, politics do make strange bedfellows.
3

sctaber56Dec. 09, 2012 - 09:05PM JST

Congratulations to all the happy and courageous LGBT couples getting married on this most historic day in towns and cities all over the state of Washington in the U.S. on Sunday, Dec. 9th, including my daughter, Olivia Luna, and her longtime partner, Regina Buenaobra. Much love and support to you both - a successful marriage isn't easy, no matter the dynamics!
3

DentShopDec. 09, 2012 - 09:33PM JST

Same-sex divorce to start about a week later.
1

JimizoDec. 10, 2012 - 12:06AM JST

Congratulations. Hats off to the voters of Washington state.
3

TriumvereDec. 10, 2012 - 01:32AM JST

Same-sex divorce to start about a week later.

Hey, fair is fair, right? That's equality for you...
2

YuriOtaniDec. 10, 2012 - 02:45AM JST

Wish them all of the best in marriage.
0

jeff198527Dec. 10, 2012 - 04:11AM JST

Now gays can be just as miserable as straight people, at least in WA.
1

KariHarukaDec. 10, 2012 - 07:19AM JST

Good for them. Love is love no matter the sexual orientation.
-3

BertieWoosterDec. 10, 2012 - 09:42AM JST

jumpultimatestars-san,

I actually have nothing against people of the same sex doing to and with each other whatever turns them on, provided it is enjoyable for all concerned and no damage is done.

I have nothing against people of the same sex living together. Why on Earth shouldn't they? And if they want to stay together, that's great.

I agree completely with KariHaruka-san:

Good for them. Love is love no matter the sexual orientation.

But why call it "marriage?"

I would have thought that same sex couples (or triples or whatever) would welcome the chance to create a new relationship that doesn't have all the baggage that goes with marriage.

I do know that some dictionaries have "updated" their entries to include same sex couples, but that doesn't change the fact that the common perception of marriage is the creation of a family and that means man + woman.

If you don't believe me, ask around.
3

tajDec. 10, 2012 - 03:19PM JST

"common perception" changes, often within a single generation.

As to why people might want "all the baggage", please consider what that baggage includes: legal recognition of familial relationship, survivor benefits (pension), right to visit at hospital / take medical decisions, etc.. Have you ever been married, Bertie? If so, why? Why not just live common-law? Avoid the expense, hassle, and baggag?
5

zichiDec. 10, 2012 - 03:43PM JST

@BertieWooster

The principle of the matter is choice. There are Hetrosexual couples who live together without getting married. My eldest son and his life partner met each at school when they were just 16 years. They have lived together since they were about 20 years. This year they were both 38. They have two wonderful (my opinion) children. They never married at is there choice.

The are GAY couples who live together and are against marriage while others want to marry.

It not about whether people should marry, but if they want that then they should be able to do so.

It's just about choice and an equal one for hetrosexuals and GAYS.
-1

BertieWoosterDec. 10, 2012 - 08:58PM JST

zichi-san,

I get what you're saying.

If it hadn't been the easiest way to get a visa years ago, I doubt that my wife and I would have gotten married. This doesn't mean that we have an "open relationship." For us, marriage meant a family, and since we are unable to have children by natural means, and didn't want to adopt, we would have lived together like your eldest and his partner.

But the word "marriage" and a lot of associated vocabulary are based on the concept of man plus woman; husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and so on. So, it seems to me that if we are going to extend the use of the word "marriage" to same-sex relationships, we are going to have to come up with other terms for husband, wife, etc.

One gets the feel that one is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I would have thought, as I said before, that it would be an opportunity to create a new set of terminology; a "trust relationship," for example. And, if we are going to go that far, why restrict it to two?

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this concept, but what is regarded as "normal" - ghastly word, I know - is that a family consists of a mother (female), a father (male) and their own kids. Homosexuals who wish to step outside this framework openly should, of course, be free to do so. In that I completely agree with what you are saying about choice.

Now, Zichi-san, I'm probably horribly out of touch. I haven't lived anywhere except Japan for getting on for forty years. In Japan, in the circles that I mix with, a same-sex marriage would not be accepted. Oh, they might smile sweetly and feign acceptance, and then turn around and bad mouth them.

I have a question.

Is same-sex marriage broadly accepted in other societies?
3

zichiDec. 10, 2012 - 09:17PM JST

@Bertie Wooster

Is same-sex marriage broadly accepted in other societies?

Depends where you are looking. In Europe, many of the countries accept same sex marriage, Spain being the surprising one since its very Catholic. Many of the Catholic countries don't recognise it, like Italy and some like Poland are against it in their constitution. Other European countries recognise civil union.

In America, it depends on which part you are looking at. Since Pres. Bush I think Federal Law opposes it. Only a limited number of States recognise same sex marriage.

My view is that if its legal for a couple of the same sex to live together then they should have the choice to marry if they want to.

Today, many children can have two parents and two step parents, Brothers and sisters but also step brothers and sisters. Marriage is no longer what it once was, at least in many countries.
0

Michelle BradleyDec. 11, 2012 - 02:13AM JST

Calling it "marriage" is very important because there are 1,400 federal benefits as well as many state benefits as well as benefits in the private sector (many contingent on federal laws) that apply to those in a "marriage" but do not apply to those in a "civil union" or "domestic partnership". This is a matter of equality and the ability for couples to receive the same benefits regardless of their gender.