Just finished my ballot and dropped it in the mail. I’m not going to provide a diatribe about how I voted, just the highlights:
- I-1185: Yes
- I-1240: Yes
- R-74: Rejected
- I-502: Yes
- ESJR-8821: Approved
- ESJR-8223: Approved
- ESB-6635: Maintained
- SHB-2590: Maintained
- King County Prop 1: Rejected
- Seattle Prop 1: Rejected
- P/VPOTUS: Gary Johnson and James P. Gray (Libertarian)
- Senator: Baumgartner
- Congressman: Bemis
- Governor: McKenna
- Lt. Gov: Owen
I would, of course, recommend you follow my selections. But being as this is America, you are welcome to make your own choices.
The good news is that I’m in a lab most of tomorrow and flying all day Tuesday, so this political season is pretty much over for me!
Looks like we disagree politically, but I’m glad you voted!
Well done, on most things…
It certainly takes guts posting this information and I applaud you for that. I would like to know however how it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage. I eagerly await your diatribe.
Yay! Freedom! Merica!
@Per: We don’t have to agree, just fight each other fairly and with love (i.e. good intent). For what it’s worth, I voted for many Democrats in the other races.
@Gordon: I’m well done on all things.
@Leor:
I can’t guarantee that I’m 100% consistent, but I try to be, so feel free to call me out if you think I’m not being consistent.
I voted against Referendum 74 because of a small, but important nuance.I believe that mariage is an instrument from God (Gen. 2:2-24, Matt. 19:5-6, Eph.5:32, et al), not government. Mariage has _alway_ been defined as between one man and one woman—at least as far as I have been able to tell from my research in Oxfords English Dictionary. At some point, back when the church was immeshed with politics, someone had the cheeky idea to provide a legal recognition and advantage to people who were married. I’m not a historian or an expert on marriage, but I suspect that this legal recognition was more about making the woman legal property of the man (which was wrong, in case there is any doubt about my stance on that) rather than entering into a fair and mutually beneficial civil contract.
But that’s what it was: a civil contract.
Time went on, Mr. Washington thought the Brits were lame, the United States was founded, and we ended up with a constitution that includes all sorts of things which are good, including this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Here’s the rub though, while we separated ourselves from Britain, we decided it was a good idea to import their laws — and it was a good idea to not start over from scratch. However, it seems no one bothered to scrub it.
And so we ended up with marriage, an inherently religious covenant, in our legal system. No one really cared or probably put much thought into this, probably because two people of the same gender having sex back then was very taboo. But that’s what we have.
Flash forward to now; we have a legal system which defines mariage (which I believe is an instrument of Christ), but there’s something interesting to note is—and this is the nuance—if you look at
RCW 26.04.010, it states:
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.
(2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.
(Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.04.010)
Marriage is just a civil contract. In fact, I can draft up a civil contract with anyone I want, even multiple parties.
Why do we need to “redefine marriage”? Why can’t we just get rid of the legal element of it and let people enter in to whatever civil contracts they want? Then people can call it whatever they want: union, love pacts, marriage, same-gender mutually agreeable life bond.
I voted no on Referendum 74 because I believe that government should not define what marriage is at all.
@Rachel: Roll TIde
I think you may not have understood what was at issue in R-74. Voting against R-74 is not voting against government’s role in defining marriage, because R-74 is about how the government defines marriage. Voting against R-74 means you want to keep the current government-promulgated definition of marriage, and voting for R-74 means you want to change the current government-promulgated defintion of marriage. Your ultimate argument for voting against R-74 is completely inapposite.
Why?
What part don’t you understand? I tried be be as straightforward and clear as possible, so I’m not sure if I can break it down any further.
Why do you think I may not have understood what was at issue in R-74?
Also, I wasn’t trying to give a complete argument for voting against R-74, I was explaining how I believe “it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage.”
I think what Staples is getting at (and I agree with him) is that rejecting R74 wasn’t about rejecting the state’s role in marriage. For me, it was about rejecting the inclusion of same-sex couples in our society. I voted to approve R74 because the question of whether the state should have a role in marriage was not at all at stake. Whether people of privilege (straight people like you and me) would extend our basic rights to our family members, friends, and neighbors was at stake. (And I’m so proud that it passed, and I personally celebrated with much champagne, congratulations, and cupcakes.)
@Annie: Do you believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s design and is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments?
OH, now we get down to it! You were making an argument about the state’s role in marriage, but _now_ you’re asking about the Bible. Which is the real reason you voted to reject R74?
To answer your question, no, I don’t believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s design because God created gay people and Jesus proved his unending love by dying for all of us together–no exceptions.
I can’t accept the OT’s condemnation of homosexuality because I don’t stone adulterers or disobedient children like it explicitly says to, and–more importantly–because of who Jesus was, what he stood for, what he taught, and what he did.
R74 is a contentious issue, to say the least. I know it’s frustrating having a debate about how we are to love others and show them that love. It can be also be extremely maddening. The argument I made above about the state’s role was directly in response to Leor’s questions, “how it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage.” I can see how that qualifier has been missed and I’m sorry I didn’t do a better job of qualifying my response.
There is no one single reason why I voted to reject R74; it’s a matrix of myriad factors that I’ve tried to articulate in the past but have ultimately felt frustrated in conveying. A large part of why I voted to reject R74 —but not the sole reason—is that I believe it is against God’s design and because I believe and trust in the redeeming love of Christ. As God’s Word, I don’t believe I can reject scripture without rejecting Christ.
I’m not perfect, nor do I claim to be. In fact, I claim the opposite. I claim that I am a sinner and need God’s grace and salvation that he provides. I try to love, but I’m not perfect.
My rejection of R74 does not mean that I am rejecting anyone, gay or straight. It means that I don’t agree with the law. I will still continue to love as best I can and share the gospel as best I can.
Thanks for clarifying! I was just surprised that you brought up the Bible when I was talking about civil rights. For the record, I don’t feel like I can truly love someone and try to curb (what I believe) are their basic civil liberties that I myself have.
I know it’s a hard issue–believe me! I’ve been grappling with it for much of my life. I will just say one last thing and then we can continue to conversation elsewhere if you’d like and it’s with regard to rejecting scripture. I do not pretend that I live out the law of scripture to the letter. I don’t believe it’s possible, and I don’t believe that’s what God wants from me. Everyone–truly, everyone–picks and chooses and follows scripture selectively. So I have to ask myself, which parts will I choose? I make that choice every day, whether consciously or unconsciously, and I just do my best and I’m thankful that God’s grace makes up for it. For me, accepting people for how God made them has become more of a priority than trying to dictate how they live.
I look forward to reading your draft of the bill abolishing “marriage” as a government institution that you plan to get passed! Otherwise, all your Libertarian ideals have done is deny equal rights under the law to your fellow Americans.
Andrew, I know we don’t have to agree. You’re a smart guy who researched his ballot and that’s all that can be asked. I voted for a couple Republicans. I don’t just bat from the left.
Celeste Jalbert: I tried to lay out my line of thinking in a clear and concise manor and all you did was responding passive aggressively (“I look forward to reading your draft of the bill abolishing “marriage” as a government institution that you plan to get passed!”) and libel me (“all your Libertarian ideals have done is deny equal rights under the law to your fellow Americans”). I know it’s a heated topic, but I honestly think you have a better response than what you gave above, and I’d love to hear it. I’m on the east coast until late tomorrow, but I’m generally around if you want to get drinks and discus philosophy (and other things).
What can I say, Andrew? You fired me up so much I broke my own rule about not commenting on political posts on Facebook. We have different value systems, that much is clear, but I do respect you. Would love to get together soon! Traveling for work next week but let’s find a day…
Leave the “definition” business in the hands of dictionaries. Why conform to the old world using an old word? Why don’t any non-traditional subset of wonderfully loving couples be more creative to come up with a new term that trumps the word “marriage”. Why be so limiting? How about joiage? Joy/Join > Marry.
Andrew–I’m not sure whether there’s a statute of limitations on responding to facebook posts, but I’ve been mulling over your arguments, and I have a few points I thought I’d share.
To begin, thanks for giving an earnest account of your opinion. It’s a topic that raises a lot of people’s blood pressure and I respect your candidness.
Your main argument as far as I understand it is that marriage is in essence a religious covenant rather than a civil contract and you object to its latter characterization in R74.
Here’s the problem with that argument as I see it. I’m assuming that you know people who are both a) members of faiths other than Christianity and b) married. Now, if marriage according to your definition is an instrument of Christ, how is it possible that people of other faiths, who do not believe in Christ as the savior, can be “married”? We commonly regard such people as married, but are they really?
Possibility 1: they are not in fact married: since marriage is an instrument of Christ, these people’s exchanging of matrimonial vows does not actually qualify as “marriage.” The problem with Possibility 1? It has no place in a pluralist society.
Possibility 2: such people are “married” because the only possible definition of marriage all can agree upon in a society composed of people of multiple faiths/non-faiths is a civil contract. Marriage is the primary method by which society recognizes the lifelong commitment two people make to each other–it has been entrenched in our society and there’s just no getting around it. If a society characterized by liberal rights can allow for marriage, the definition of marriage as an instrument of Christ is socially inadmissible (given the First Amendment). Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying your view is illegitimate; it is perfectly legitimate and you are perfectly entitled to it. What I’m saying is that marriage cannot be officially defined the way you define it in a society in which different faiths use the term to mean different things. What is left? letting marriage signify whatever it signifies with respect to a person’s religion and recognizing officially only the legal/civil implications.
To me, this seems to be the option that best respects people’s freedom of religion conscience.
To address your other point, that Government should get out of the business of legislating marriage entirely, making everyone “civilly unioned” in legal terms and married in their own religion, while I agree in theory, it’s just not a realistic positon.
Politics is the art of the possible. When you make an argument, take a stance, vote for a candidate, you must take into account the practicality of your ideology. Is it actually possible? Is the practical alternative less or more just than the status quo? In this sense, Celeste made a very important point–getting the Federal Government to stop recognizing marriage is simply not something that will ever happen, and in the absence of such a measure, we must ask ourselves, what is the best way to ensure that all people are accorded the same rights? Extending the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is the only practicable solution. This is the very same reason that Gary Johnson cited in his support for same sex marriage.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I welcome any counter-arguments. I hope all is well.
Referendum 74 is sooo gay, bro!
Leor Maizel: I seem to have received a bit of flak for my opinion, so I think it’s worth setting the record straight on at least this part: my statement above was in response to “how it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage.”
It was never really intended to be a complete argument.
Having said that, I think you’re close with your presupposition of my main argument. I would need to spend some time taking the matrix in my mind and converting it to words, not an easy task for such a contentious issue.
Also, politics are kind of broken and I think they could be done better. This isn’t a Red/Blue statement, I’m talking about the (mostly) inescapable mathematical conclusion of our particular voting system (“winner-takes-all”) that tends to favor two-party systems. But that’s another story, my point really is that I’m not an elected official, I’m not running for office, I’m not a politician. I enjoy (mostly) having a conversations about things to learn about differing viewpoints and trying to make the best decision possible, but at the end of the day I vote for what I believe. Sometimes that means voting for something I don’t like because I believe it makes sense in the long run, sometimes it means I vote against the status quo because I don’t believe the solution is the best one possible.
I appreciate your mental matrix, AJ. Good work.