Of the Rights of Americans

Lynnwood Transit Center - 11.40 a.m.

The rally officially started at 11, but naturally as a newborn reporter I had to make a stop to pick up my Starbucks fill and some smokes. I don't smoke, but I wanted to get in character so I snugged one up against my head and beanie, and started off toward the intersection where there was already a growing crowd holding signs saying, "Reject SB-5688, Marriage -> One Man, One Woman". People kept asking me if I wanted a sign, but I could take sides just yet, that would blow my cover. On the way to the intersection, I met a young man named Maxim. He claimed his opposition to same-sex marriage was not religious but that, "Would you want your son f[loving]g another dude? It's just unnatural!"

44th and 196th - 12.00 p.m.

Once I got here, there was about 5 - 10 people on each corner all holding signs and hollering at everyone honking. Here I met two young anti-protesting girls, one named Tarra, with signs saying, "Equal rights for ALL people". I watched as Maxim and Tarra began to squabble about the whole ordeal, Maxim - "I don't have sin in my family, it's as simple as that. I love the sinner hate the sin!" in response to Tarra's "How does it affect you?"
Tarra - "Half puppy dogs can go to school too! I don't care!" in response to my "What if a man wants to marry his dog?" The young people are fervent, I give them that, but they have much to learn if they ever plan to do anything meaningful.

Moments later I met an older man, Peter, who happened to be trying to converse with the young people but wasn't making much progress. He informed me of a bit of background to the situation. According to him, bill SB-5688 was passed without being voted on by the people, after enough signatures on a piece of paper, Referendum 71 became available to the people so that they could vote to nullify the bill, should Washington citizens vote for the referendum. Peter claimed that disease was six times higher in same sex relationships, being unhealthy for those in the relationship and increasing the hospital bills, which the state can't afford.

"Well ya it's going to cost the state lots of money to help these people contracting Hep C and A, and this is problem that we should help them out of." a voice from behind slipped in- "So your doing this out of love of other people?" I asked- "Well yes, most of these people think they have to live this life, and they don't and their unhappy, not only that, but children with same sex parents are confused and damaged" These are the words of an older woman named Kerry, who threw many stats at me as well in support that same sex relationships with families are bad news, none of which I got down, but she was very knowledgeable of the situation and had been politically active on this issue for some time.


40th and 196th - 12:41 p.m.
Here I found a woman by the name of Laural. In a protest, the only people there are those actually protesting, however Laural was one of the few troopers who participated in the anti-protest. When referring to Kerry stats, Laural challenged me to check my stats, she too had a few stats that provided proof for her point of view. She was able to give me some more information on this bill. According to her, this bill gave all the rights that a married couple now has, to "domestic partners" on the state level. To Laural, she was finally able to protect her "family" under the rights granted in bill SB-5688. Obviously there are more definitions of "family" that one, to Laural "family" meant, her and her wife, who eloped in Canada and now live in Washington as domestic partners with marriage-equivalent rights under SB-5688. Without these rights, she says that she cannot protect her family as she should be able to. The educated anti-protesters side is always nice to see.

Along 196th - 1:40 p.m.
On my way back about to call it a day, I spotted a diamond in the rough, there was a man, standing virtually alone, and he stuck out because he was the only non-Russian picketer I saw.
Brandon turns out to be a programmer at Microsoft, but was out that morning pursuing bigger visions of his. He said he read 14 books on the subject of marriage in the States and it's gradual decline over the past 50 years. He was a well spring of information - all of which was nonreligious but purely statistical and interestingly biological - a side I had yet heard from. A few of his claims are as follows: Marriage is not a package of rights, it's a family environment biologically proven to be the optimal situation in which to raise children. Marriage is a safety net for children but the easy of divorce and changing definition of "family" is a direct dismantling of an institution set up to protect children. The best interest of children should come first, however domestic partnership rights laws are only effect due to same sex partners wanting something they can't have, under the current laws. "If it [SB-5688] had no effect on marriage as a whole, I'd be alright with it." People always use the hospital visitation issue as a reason for this, and I agree, that is a problem, however this bill is not the solution.

Brandon was concerned mainly with children and the effect its going to have on them. He recommended a book, "Families Without Fathers" as a source with much facts and conclusions drawn in opposition to this bill and the want to redefine the family.

My living room - 12:15 pm
I personally do not agree with same-sex partnerships or marriage or anything of the sort, but I get these beliefs from my religion. However, how do I share my view with someone who is not religious? They won't understand and my religious proofs or theories tend be meaningless. Plus, I cannot tell someone "no" (as a Christian in America), simply because my religion says no and expect them to understand my view, let alone agree with it. That's not good enough. To pass bills, to protest bills, to have any sort of political or moral weight we need to be like Laural and Brandon. We have to be careful with statistics (considering source, study methods, and numbers), we must do the leg work, or rely on proven resources to understand the situation. There is nothing wrong with getting ideas from our religions, however, if you expect others to follow or agree, you must prove that such ideas truly do support the greater good of society as a whole, or this case our great state of Washington. Protecting the children is a huge issue for many protesters, however, most reasons for such a view were religious and personal, "I don't want my kid learning about that in schools." We need to be like Brandon and Laural and get away from the subjective, and understand the objective. Facts and ultimately truth on any subject is always objective. Now, I am no expert on the matter, but this is my blog, and so here is my view on S:

1) I am proponent of Equal Rights, however if we decide to redefine the family as a "domestic partnership" allowing same-sex relationships and eventually marriage, where do we decide to draw the line? Does it just get redrawn with each new generation? Many take offense when I say, "Are you going to deny the right of a Man to marry his animal? We'll it doesn't effect you right?" Our minds haven't degraded that far, but even Laural started to admit that if that's what the state decides, then that's what it decides. We can't compare the homosexuals with this far degraded state, don't misread me. Whoever I believe the State and Federal Laws cannot waver to socially acceptable norms. Even consider the boyfriend-girlfriend that have been living together for six years, sure they're not married but they're "domestic partners" and so they want all the rights the unmarried gays have, marriage will be dissolved for good, it will merely be a option, but change no legal rights, or even have any luster at that time.

2) To the Gay: you believe in Equal Rights no? and Freedom of Religion? Well many on the streets spoke to the fact that this bill assaults a Churches freedom of religion. A Church, choosing to believe in The Bible, cannot act like a church, they cannot reserve the right to deny from membership those whom they believe are practicing the religion as they see fit. If a gay wanted to be a member of my church we denied him, we could get in trouble from the law for discrimination, when it's simply that we believe it's a sin (that is, morally wrong) to be a homosexual. Also, parts of The Bible would be considered "hate speech" and we could not read them aloud, possibly even in our private meetings. Again, we should be free to worship as we wish, we are not imposing our ways upon the gays, or saying that we hate them as people, we hate their sin, as we hate all sin, even our own, however SB-5688 attacks our freedom if speech and religion. Which is unconstitutional I believe.

3) I have heard of the social studies, biological studies, and others that supposedly prove that homosexual lifestyles and raising children in same-sex parented homes is unhealthy morally, financially, and socially. I have done a bit of research and I agree, however, dear reader do not agree with ME, do not take MY word. I challenge you to take just an hour, and go search for these studies and if you have time read some books, they are not to hard to find. Have an open mind and try not to be selfish, I think we all agree that we cannot always have everything we want and everything we do affects others. One of the plight of the gays is, "how does it affect you?" Brandon said, "If it didn't affect marriage, I wouldn't care." So look at the stats and honestly ask, "Who is this affecting, and how?" If Religious folk and homosexuals, want to connect on any kind of ground to come to conclusion about what is best for society and our children, then be responsible, do some research and educate yourselves on the issue, find the facts, or get as close as you can. It's not about you, it's about those around you.