More Columbian lies in support of their homosexual agenda?

.
As the Columbian continues their in-kind campaign contributions to the "yes" on R 71 campaign, I have to wonder: is there even a shread of journalistic integrity left anywhere in that organization?

Support it or oppose it, does it do any good to lie about or bring in irrelevancies to this situation?

Lie One:

"Each woman has an irrevocable living trust naming the other as her beneficiary. Those trusts are not legally valid in Washington either, Fulenwider said."

It never ceases to amaze me how lax this rag is when it comes to fact-checking... it took me all of about 3 minutes to discover that in fact, irrevocable trusts ARE recognized in Washington State.

An irrevocable living trust may not be altered or terminated by the trustor once the agreement is signed. There are two distinct advantages of irrevocable trusts:

1. The income may not be taxable to the trustor; and
2. The trust assets may not be subject to death taxes in the trustor's estates.

However, these benefits will be lost if the trustor is entitled to (1) receive any income; (2) use the trust assets; or (3) otherwise control the administration of the trust in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.

Since a will may be revoked or amended at any time prior to death, a testamentary trust may be changed or canceled. Revisions can be made by drafting a new will or by using a simple document called a "codicil" to make changes or additions to your will. However, to be effective, any such modifications must be executed in the same manner required for wills. The trust instrument should be explicit regarding revocability or irrevocability. If it is not, the trust will be considered irrevocable.

Source? Just the Washington State Bar Association.

If THEIR, PARTICULAR trust isn't legally valid, that does NOT mean they couldn't get one that was, a fact completely left out of this disgraceful example of "journalism."

So, why would they fail to tell the whole truth? Who knows. What's important is that they DID mistate the facts, since irrevocable living trusts ARE recognized in Washington State.

So, why would this despicable stain on journalism print this garbage?

To further their agenda. But while that's a well-established history for this rag, it does nothing to enhance their credibility.

The two have had documents drawn up giving each "health care power of attorney" for the other, which allows them to make medical decisions. But when they travel to other states, those rights may not apply. They have put their assets in trust, naming each other as trustees, but documents drawn up in one state aren't necessarily recognized in another.

Which, while perhaps heartbreaking, will not be impacted one wit by the passage or failure of this Referendum. So why does this article include this completely irrelevant factoid?

"If we were a traditional married couple, my Social Security benefits would go to Harriet" as a survivor, Fulenwider said. But domestic partners, whatever their sexual orientation, are not eligible for those federal benefits.

Which, while perhaps heartbreaking, will not be impacted one wit by the passage or failure of this Referendum. Social Security isn't a state issue... So why does this article include this completely irrelevant factoid?

And here we were told by our very own local waste of wood pulp that this had nothing to do with gay marriage!

It's also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure.

If true, then isn't it just the tiniest bit odd that the concept was repeatedly mentioned in this Columbian puff piece?

Look: we were born on a Saturday, but not LAST Saturday.

R 71 is institutionalized discrimination and a cynical ploy to gain support from senior citizens by bribing them with the same privleges listed in this law.

The Columbian knows this, and it's printing this tripe anyway.

Go figure.
.