Jim Jacks Co-Sponsors Same-Sex Marriage Bill, HB 1745

by lewwaters

Our newly elected Representative for the 49th Legislative District is off and running in his new office. He has his web site up including contact links.

If you recall, Jacks was most known for his blurb during the League of Women’s Voters debate in August against Debbie Peterson.

Jacks easily won the election, though, regardless of his admission about our tax problems of, “I don’t know how to fix it.”

I do see, looking over his site under Sponsored Bill’s that he has prominently affixed his name as co-sponsor on HB 1745, Concerning civil marriages.

The Bill, introduced and sponsored by openly Gay Representative, Jim Moeller, also of the 49th Legislative District, states it is an “AN ACT Relating to civil marriage equality, recognizing the right of all citizens of Washington state, including couples of the same sex, to obtain civil marriage licenses.”

No surprise that it isn’t going before voters as across the nation voters reject Same-sex marriage. So, it is either courts or legislatures forcing acceptance of same-sex marriage on citizens.

40 Democrat Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of this bill!

We we treated to S5336, Domestic Partnership in 2007, but now the push is for full same sex marriage.

It was just days ago we were being told the desire was to “only expand domestic partnerships,” or, “Everything Except Marriage.”

HB 1745 cannot be any clearer to me. This is a full and outright sanctioning of same-sex marriage supported by Democrats.

Don’t be fooled thinking it is about “equal rights,” it is special right that no one has yet to explain what benefit society receives for such a drastic change.

I urge you to contact Jim Jacks, or your Representative to oppose this step. Inch by inch and ever so slowly, same-sex marriage is being forced upon Washington State, regardless of what citizens over have said.

13 Comments to “Jim Jacks Co-Sponsors Same-Sex Marriage Bill, HB 1745”

  1. I question why society must benefit from the removal of a restriction of an opressed group of people. The equal right to all institutions is a benefit to all of society, when those institutions are being denied a certain group then you are leaving the door open for any group to be opressed the same way. I can also tell you that there is huge benefit to society in allowing same sex marriage, and that is because the Homosexual population is a part of society. This is so commonly overlooked, we speak about benefit to society, they are society, and allowing the same access and rights to all people is a benefit to all of society. I am not sure why this is less than obvious.

    Like

  2. Cam, would you extend those “benefits” to Pederasts, Polygamists or those who feel they should be allowed to intermarry with siblings, parent child or even animals?

    After all, they too, along with many more, are also a part of society and also seek normalcy for their positions. Most gays I know dislike those others as much as heteros do, but fail to see that once the traditional and in some states, legal definition of marriage, one man to one woman, is done away with, you open the door to every perversion known to man to seek normalcy through legal marriage.

    How would you propose re-closing that door once opened and not being accused of discrimination?

    Like

  3. Homosexuality is in genetics. There are benefits for homosexuals, and nothing bad happens to heterosexuals. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and no one is harmed from it. It is not being “forced” upon straight people. Peopel will not be allowed to marry relatives, because that is incest. Neither will they be able to marry animals, because they have no legal standing. Comparing gay marriage to marrying an animal is very ignorant and insulting.

    And just before you jump to conclusions, I am straight and neither a Liberal or a Conservative.

    Like

  4. I misspelled ‘people’. My apologies.

    Like

  5. Sorry, but the misbelief in the “gay gene” was discredited long ago since it cannot be replicated since its so-called “discovery.”

    Explain how such firviolus marriages will never happen because they have no legal standing, once you remove the legal definition of marriage of one man to one woman from the states that have it.

    You apparently don’t read much because such “marriages” have already happened in Europe, as well as multiple marriages and inter-marriages.

    But do tell, once that door is opened, where and how do you close it again and not be accused of discrimination by other others who desire legitimization?

    How do you propose retaining incest laws, bestiality laws and such, once you have removed the barrier built long ago by them?

    It’s easy to say there are laws, now, but how do you propose retianing them once you tear down the wall?

    Like

  6. Awesome I enjoy most of the articles that have been written, and especially the comments posted! I will come back!

    Like

  7. Glad you enjoyed it, Viola.

    Since you enjoy my wiritng so much, I’m sure you won’t mind me disabling the spam link in your comment either, will you?

    Like

  8. It is a I love examples of the articles which have been written, and especially the comments posted! I will come back!

    Like

  9. Glad you enjoyed it, Lydia. And, as I said to Viola, since you enjoy it so much, I’m sure it won’t bother you that I removed the spam link in your comment.

    Like

  10. Lew wrote, “would you extend those “benefits” to Pederasts, Polygamists or those who feel they should be allowed to intermarry with siblings, parent child or even animals?”

    Sorry Lew but I don’t agree with your reasoning here. If you believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, that’s your right, of course. But if this is really your reason, it’s flawed.

    Just as an example, in America people are allowed to own firearms, but the type of firearm is quite often stipulated. Most states do not allow fully-automatic weapons, many do not allow even semi-automatic rifles of the type often referred to as Assault Rifles, and of course other military-type weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, explosives etc. are illegal.

    Now if your reasoning that allowing same-sex marriage is going to open the door to all those others, wouldn’t that be true in the case of weapons too, as well as many other examples that I don’t believe need to be mentioned? Yet I haven’t heard of a big movement of people saying, “If they can own a pistol or hunting rifle, why can’t I have an RPG launcher?

    I don’t believe opening the door a little necessarily means you are going to be forced to open it all the way. Yes, it happens sometimes. Not always. I believe that same-sex marriage could be legalized and without a problem prohibiting incest, polygamy, marriage with animals, etc. Really Lew, are you being honest using that as an argument, or are you just again gays and that seems a good argument to use to avoid saying you really just don’t like gays and don’t want them to be able to marry? In case you’re wondering, no I”m not gay myself.

    Like

  11. Well, Jim, you do show what an emotive discussion same-sex marriage is. But, weapon ownership, protected as a basic right in the second amendment and changing society in such a radical manner are nowhere near similar. That’s one of the furthest stretches I have ever read.

    Many states do have a legal definition of marriage of “one man to one woman.” To allow same-sex couples to marry, that legal definition would have to be done away with and changed.

    There is no way around it.

    You that support same-sex marriage might not want to look at it, but once that definition is gone, where is the door closed again without more cries of discrimination?

    You already have groups such as NAMBLA trying to modify consent laws to make their desire easier and legal.

    Sorry, but you are fooling yourself if you think it is “opening the door a little.” Many of us were willing to do just that by going along with Civil Unions.

    Look what happened with them in California and what it now has led to.

    Marriage has been under enough assault and watered down enough already. Further weakening it won’t do anything but continue towards destroying it.

    Then again, maybe that’s the ultimate goal?

    Whether you’re gay or not is inconsequential, it gives your argument no more weight.

    Like

  12. “Many states do have a legal definition of marriage of “one man to one woman.” To allow same-sex couples to marry, that legal definition would have to be done away with and changed. ”

    Good grief, laws are changed all the time, as well as “bending” of the Constitution, I’m sure you are aware of that. How is changing this law a problem? It’s not, and you know that.

    As for keeping out the rest of the stuff, merely changing the law from “one man, one woman”, to “two legal consenting adults, not directly related” (of course worded in suitably more precise legaleze) would pretty much suffice, wouldn’t it?

    You are extrapolating beyond reason. Or maybe you don’t even believe it yourself and just use it as a scare tactic to support your argument, as is very common when one really hasn’t got a good argument.

    Like

  13. First off, Jim, define “legal consenting adults” in a way that prevents the groups I mention from filing charges of discrimination.

    And, what about that “not directly related?” Have you not heard of liberal Europe’s cases of brothers & sisters demanding to tie the knot?

    Surely you don’t live in such a bubble.

    What about those scant few who so far have held marriage ceremonies with animals? Scare tactic? Hardly, if it has already happened, even if on a small scale.

    And yes, laws are changed all the time, not always for the better. Often, they end up repealed, after harm was done.

    Take off the blinders, Jim and look at what has already happened elsewhere with such moves.

    Feel good doesn’t always justify radical changes to societal norms.

    Like

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: