My take on Referendum 71.

.
Precisely like our strangely-silent-on-the-issue of Referendum 71 Cowardman, Brian Baird's reticence about his vote on the empty suit's health care overhaul, I'm not committing to voting for or against Referendum 71.

I have a take on the issue... some concerns brought about by the black letter discrimination contained within the Referendum, discrimination that seems to be perfectly acceptable on the part of R-71 campaign supporters.

One of the more thuggish supporters of the many of that ilk, wrote this just this morning:

To enter a domestic partnership in Washington, at least one partner must be 62 or older, unless both partners are of the same sex.

This is, of course, blatantly discriminatory on its face. And the rank hypocrisy of many R 71 supporters; whining and sniveling about discrimination on one hand, blithely ignoring the statutory discrimination inculcated in R 71 on the other, concerns me.

Rank hypocrisy is rarely a basis to support legislation. The obvious discrimination to those younger than 62 is reason enough to vote against this thing for the same reasons those trumpeting this issue want us to vote for it.

I've always been troubled by the idea of trading one level of discrimination for another. If, as we're told, gays are discriminated against and R 71 would, in part, address that; why is it OK for this SAME legislation to institutionalize discrimination to the largest segment of the entire population?

I'll tell you why.

This Referendum isn't about "discrimination." It's about power.

Are those 62 and older discriminated against? No? Then why is this aspect of this sorry piece of work included here?

Not because it has anything to do with their discrimination; on the contrary, it's a cynical ploy by the homosexual lobby to desperately woo the support of seniors... those least likely to support this kind of legal extortion.

I, personally, oppose the concept of legislating gay marriage. I see it this way:

Is this a bad time to point out that our rights are not determined by our sexuality?

A gay male has EVERY right I do. He can marry any female old enough, unmarried, of sound mind, etc, etc.... just like me.

So what's the big deal?

Yeah, yeah.... I know... it's not the same thing for those supporting gay marriage.

Unfortunately, however, rights are rights: and applying the term "right" means that while *I* can marry someone of the opposite sex, for example, it only becomes discriminatory if someone else can't do EXACTLY the same thing.

And by "exactly," I mean EXACTLY. If I can't do something, and you can't do something, then it's not discriminatory. If I CAN do something; and you can't do EXACTLY the same thing, then it IS discriminatory.

A case in point is the debate about insurance companies being required to provide birth control because many of them provided viagra or some such.

Women threw a fit. But no one stopped to look at the issue: Viagra or something like it is used to treat a medical condition so that something works properly. Birth control is the exact opposite: it is used as a treatment to STOP something from working properly.

The differences are both clear and obvious... precisely like the issue of gay marriage.

These insurance companies didn't cover birth control for EITHER sex, thus no discrimination was taking place. But, like the gay marriage kerfuffle, politics determined, based on a completely fallacious discrimination argument, that insurance companies would be REQUIRED to provide birth control to women.

Not because it was right. Not because it was Constitutional. Not because it was discriminatory... but because women whined, sniveled and bitched like cut cats until they got what they wanted.

Sound familiar?

Correspondingly, I don't have the non-existent "right" to marry someone of the same sex. That someone gay also doesn't have that right is called "equality."

And that's the problem with this entire argument from the gay perspective.

They demand a right that isn't a right; that is, they demand the ability to marry someone of the same sex, when that "right" doesn't exist.

As a hetero, I have no problem denying homosexuals the "ability" to marry the same sex, since it is not a "right." I don't have that ability... homosexuals don't have that ability... so what's the problem?

And, BTW, I don't need to go to the Bible to determine this... human rights were around, if not in place, before there was a Bible. This is not a moral issue for me; this is a legal issue.

Those demanding the ability to engage in gay marriage should feel free to file an initiative, or whatever, to get the laws changed.

Society makes the determination as to which norms are practiced. If gays want an ability that straights do not have, then they should seek society's approval to gain it. If they can't get our approval, well, that's just too damned bad.

Meanwhile, I reserve judgment, just exactly like our Cowardman, on how I'm going to vote on this matter.

There. See? It's easy when you think about it.
.