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.
.

Today's Pro-R 71 editorial confused me: Why would the Columbian support legalized discrimination?

.
I admit it: the Columbian managed to thoroughly confuse me today when they endorsed the pro-discrimination referendum pandered by the homosexual lobby and other fringe left publications.
.
It wasn't that long ago that I've forgotten it. The morons in the Columbian whined and snivelled like cut cats over I-200, the anti-Affirmative Action initiative that passed a few years back.

The only problem is that absolutely NONE of the fall out the Columbian claimed WOULD happen, DID.

That's right.... NONE.

Oddly enough. my son, who is a minority, had no difficulty entering the University of Washington long AFTER I-200 passed; and he had no difficulty graduating with honors.

Why the Columbian felt he WOULD have a problem with either of those things is a mystery to me.

So, when the Columbian tells us nonsense like "'...if you approve of fairness and equality for domestic partners, vote 'Approve,'" without spending one word on the built-in discrimination against everyone not homosexual but younger then 62, one should object.

As I have pointed out, EVERY homosexual male or female has EVERY right I have.

Like me, they can feel free to marry anyone they like... as long as that person is of the opposite gender and otherwise qualified. That this frequently despicable stain on journalism chooses to equate giving people something they WANT as a "right," then where does it end.... or does it?

We all know the slippery slope argument. We all know that this rag's efforts to disassociate this with their ultimate goal of homosexual marriage is disingenuous at best; this rag is a fringe-leftist publication and the vast majority of the fringe-leftist nutbergers WANT gay marriage instituted: and this rag wants gay marriage as well.

This is the favorite tactic of the left. It's the "camel's nose under the tent flap" approach so favored by the fringe left.... and it's another stepping stone to gay marriage, which, when it's rammed down our throats will be done so to the strains of this despicable rag's support.

Like our local Cowardman, Brian Baird, who claims he's not sure how he's going to vote on socialized medicine, I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote on this. But this paper's support of this, like their support of almost every tax increase and their opposition to almost every effort to rein in wasteful spending makes it that much more difficult for me to support R 71.
.

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.
.