We can all hope, but reality tells me that until the 60+ generation dies out we will not see true progress.

Wrongo! It was the 60+ generation that put these laws over the top!!!

Exactly. The "60+ generation" aka "the hippies" (with "a little help from their [younger] friends")!

So a shout-out today to all our really Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers (and Sisters)!

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

;-)

love the photo above.

everyone looks so HAPPY!

Me too - that is the best photo of the day!

Born in 1950 I am amazed that I lived long enough to see Marijuana legalized...again. A blow against this puritanical socienty which has dominated my entire life time.

And to all the southern states who think they have the right to succeed...the Indian tribes have been asking you to get out and respect THEIR secession.

ROFL! AWESOME!!!!

I'm trying to not laugh in the middle of my work day but holy crap it's hard.

Now that's funny!

Very good. How did you run across it?

@ Jeffrey Jones: Thank you for the great big belly laugh...we ALL need to laugh out loud more often, it's a healthy thing to do....OMG! Could THAT have been Rep's problem all along? Have I tumbled to an easy solution to their curmudgeon attitudes??

You have just pointed out the importance of accurate translation. Mis-interpreting the meaning of the word "stoned" in the bible has really set us back. Who knew that the good book was telling us to kick back and get high, not judge and throw rocks at each other!

thank you @jeffreyjones you just made my day by finding this, So stealing this.

You're right - it is KING county (I live here and noticed it right away - it's common for folks in the East to add an 's', no biggie). But it was not Steve who wrote it.

If you are going to jump on ppl for being wrong about one little letter in a name, maybe getting the name right at all would be of concern to you, no?

Yep...I assumed it was Steve. Slap me OK?

It's not about social insurance programs because the irony you didn't mention is that the more conservative the state the more they depend on government benefits. It's more to do with culture and social attitude. Look at where the red states are and who lives in them. we are still dealing with the legacy of the civil war and the influence that those attitudes still hold over rural whites.

Dragoon21b, you are so right. I was reading Gone With the Wind during the election and it amazed me that the racial rhetoric and political maneuvering of the people of the south was so similar to the GOP campaign.

So the Black Churches that find Gay marriage morally repugnant...where do THEY fit into your mentally challenged assessment? Somehow, the left holds Atheism and Deviant sex as somehow being "Progressive". Being degenerates as well as Biological deviants really doesn't qualify as progressive anywhere but in your mind.

Scott-3860658 if you personally do not believe in gay marriage then don't marry a man, but this countries laws are based on the constitution not your religious beliefs. What the left believes is that one personas religious beliefs are just that one persons belief and that is perfectly fine but, laws should not be based on religious beliefs but constitutional law.

aGAIN...nobody CARES ABOUT YOUR SEX LIFE...just stop using nomenclature intended to incite the religious in this nation. Civil Unions are no different than the term Marriage. Quit being selfish arrogant individuals.

Quit being selfish arrogant individuals.

Why? Is that "job" already taken by the "religious in this nation"? (Or, some of the more simple-minded amongst them, at least?)

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

;-)

So, in other words...being atheist allows you to be ignorant and not do things in such a way as solve problems such as calling them "Civil unions"?

Scarecrow
A) how do you know that Katherine is in fact a Lesbian

B) Some of the most Religious people of this country incite the most fear and hypocrisy

C) you are one of the most selfish arrogant individuals on this entire blog

D) obviously you care about her sex life, because you project your homophobia on her, and made her into a lesbian, without actually knowing if she is one.

E) you are correct that Marriage and Civil Unions are the exact same thing, on a legal bases. It's just that the Religious sector of this country believe they hold a monopoly over the term "Marriage". As if it holds solely some religious/ moral meaning, when in fact it do not.

nobody CARES ABOUT YOUR SEX LIFE...just stop using nomenclature intended to incite the religious in this nation. Civil Unions are no different than the term Marriage.

scott - you have made the point - anyone's sex life is not your concern and if the terms are equivalent they are interchageable

So, You can generalize about all things religious.....you know, kind of like generalizing about calling all in a certain racial groups "welfare recipients or criminals" does it REALLY work like that? And Just being as The Church KIND OF HAS had a "monopoly" on the whole" man,woman and marriage" thing LONG before these LGBT started taking offense to it. And your bias against all things religious speaks a lot to your narrow mindedness. Even Bubba sponsored "Don't ask, don't tell" because he was REASONABLE and knew NOBODY CARED about how you decide you enjoy getting off.

Actually I'm not biased towards ALL THINGS RELIGIOUS, I'm Catholic and proud to be Catholic in fact. I just choose not to impose my Religious beliefs on anyone else. And I'm also capable of separating my Religious and Political beliefs.

Second I clearly did not generalize about all things religious, I seldom make generalizations about any group as a whole.

Thirdly I could never grasp the hypocrisy of people who say that the LGBT are 'shoving their life style down their throats", when a lot of the Religious people of this country, are trying to do the exact same thing with their Religions.

Fourthly DADT wasn't about people not caring how other people got off. It was about people actually caring how other people got off, and homophobia. I served in the US Army right after DADT was implemented. And trust me people cared how other people got off, and they cared about other peoples sex life way too much.

And WHERE did I use the name "Katherine"? I spoke of the LGBT community. Get it right my friend. So that whole "some of the most Religious people" jab was not a generalization? How do Churches where people GO to attend "shove" anything down the peoples throats when they go to attend? And yes, I was in the USA during Bubba's time in office and heard nobody saying anything other than they do not speak of their Heterosexuality to other's on a daily basis, so why should they listen to other's sexuality being thrown in their face? And again...explain to me wht having Deviant sex makes one a "minority"as I REALLY do not get that one.

When you said NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR SEX LIFE, while replying to Katherine and not mentioning LGBT at all in your response. You in effect left the interpretation to mean, her, not the LBGT community, because you clearly did not mention them in your response. So when your intentions are to speak to/about a community and not an individual, state that in your response. Thirdly we are not friends, get that right.

We are...you don't know me well enough to hate me...nor I you. We can disagree...without being disagreeable.

And no saying some is not a generalization, saying ALL OR EVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN. And I clearly did not say ALL RELIGIOUS people, I said SOME. Which implies some or a few and not all and every.

When you have people of a faith, say or suggesting that people who do not abide by there belief structure are going to hell, or are defying God's Law. And are trying to impose their religous views on other people, that is in fact shoving it down their throats.

People complain about LGBT shoving their sexuality down their throats, and all they can be doing his being affectionate towards the person the care about in public. They see that as having it shoved down their throats. But whats the difference in them doing that and two heterosexual people doing? Nothing, except the fact that the people who have a problem with it don't like it.

And people do speak about their heterosexuality to other people on a daily bases. When they speak of their husband/wife, girl/boy friends. The guy or girl the had sex with, went out on a date with. They are in fact talking about their sexuality to other people.

There is no such thing as deviant sexual behavior. Just sexual behavior you may or may not agree with.

And you are correct we don't know each other well enough to hate each other. But I also do not know you well enough to like you. And thus we still are not friends.

Look up the definition of "Deviant". I had nothing to do with the definition.

I know what it means, it means not normal from a socialital standard. But the term "normal' isn't concrete, it's fluid, like the term 'moral'. What is not normal to you is normal for someone else. And thus you are just left with a personal opinion/view that differs from yours. So as I said there is no such thing as deviant sexual behavior, just sexual behavior you may or may not agree with. Because 'deviant' is purely perspective and not concrete.

Civil Unions do not grant the same legal protections and benefits as marriages. That is a common misconception about the two. They should grant the same benefits, but they do not.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Also scott you do realize deviant sex doesn't make sense yeah? What is deviant about the sex? And how do you know about this deviant sex?

Oops double post

Meh, I'll just break poor Scott's brain anyway ~_^

I'm not a lesbian. I'm bisexual and transgender.

Hey Scotty the nation is run on a constitution that grants equal rights to all citizens in a reasonable and respectful manner by rule of the people. The people of WA(it's about time someone started paying attention to us up here) have spoken. Gov't is about everyone not just your dumbass little beliefs. The troglodytes can chant how gay marriage will affect them but if you're not gay...no it won't... no matter what bull@!$%# you make up. Deal with it or self deport just don't come to WA we don't want you....

I think the simplest and easiest way to circumvent all the ugliness of what could happen is. To just offer the illegal weed 'providers' a way to get a legal license, and a free pass on past infractions. As long as they set up shop in a real shop and pay taxes.
That way you wont have this war between legal and illegal supply chains of weed. And you have state taxes being paid and 'experts' in the field. Probably with little to no backlash at all, plus it's cheaper than fighting a drug war that's unwinnable to begin with.

It's very complicated. People have literally worked their whole lives creating and tinkering with strains. The tobacco companies have already attempted to hijack and patent these peoples work. The distrust is palpable and real. Growing medical marijuana is high skill work, and requires capital investment. The corporations would love to get on board, but they have no foundation, no skin in the game. I respect all sides of this, but I tend to favor the growers who have thusfar taken all the risks, over a bunch of drooling profiteers chomping at the bit to make millions.

"A bunch of drooling profiteers"? Does it not seem to you that business as a rule has avoided this beyond the Hemp industry? And do you HAVE to be anti-business to be a Liberal? It would appear so.

Does it not seem to you that business as a rule has avoided this beyond the Hemp industry

....the airplane went way over your head there scott. Because they cannot patent their product they can't use traditional means of protection against theft. That was the point being made in the quoted excerpt. Try reading for better comprehension next time.

And do you HAVE to be anti-business to be a Liberal

...how is saying you want to protect small businesses from theft and corporate monopolies anti business?!

....the airplane went way over your head there scott.

No I think the plane went through his head since clearly there's nothing in there.

Scotty it's best to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder whether you're dumb or not than open it and remove all doubt.

Exactly Nobody really cares about deviant sex or even same sex couples. It's these groups that wish to shove these things down your throat as well as make the church sanction that which is clearly against their teachings is only where the problems begin. "Civil Unions" provide all the benefits of a religious union, but these homosexual groups are just not happy unless they have attempted to make a part of Government in laws and such where it has NO business being. Deviant sex REALLY does not make one a "Minority" and going out of your way to offend Religious types in no way makes one "Progressive"...rather just an egotistical A**hole.

Jes: You have remarkable disrespect for the wishes and dreams of others. Try a little respect, just a little bit. Equality is equality, it's not up for debate with semantics.

"A little respect" for the Church and it's teachings and people with a religious bend would go a long way. Civil Unions can entail ALL of the same benefits...but these Homosexual and Lesbian groups just want to hear the church say "uncle". And again I ask what is it about Deviant sex that makes these groups a "Minority"?

Churches don't have to perform or recognize same sex marriages or interracial marriages if they don't approve of them. Churches don't have to perform or recognize marriages of inter-faith either. What the state does in terms of marriage has never directly impacted that the church does or teaches. These two are entirely two different issues.

Civil Unions can entail ALL of the same benefits

Civil unions and marriages do not contain the same benefits

but these Homosexual and Lesbian groups just want to hear the church say "uncle"

No. In every state where marriage has been legalized including Massachusetts the church has never been forced to recognize same-sex marriages.

And again I ask what sex is deviant? I do not think deviant sex means what you think it means.

If you were committed, what did the paper that said you were married have to do with anything. Why must gays push for the "Married" thing.

These two statements are in direct contradiction of each other. If you state that marriage isn't a big deal you cannot then turn around and state that you care about gays getting married. If it's not a big deal then you don't care whether or not gays get married. If it is a big deal you then care about whether or not gays get married. It's either a or b, but it cannot be both a and b because these two options are mutually exclusive. So which one is it?

If you have the same legal rights as married people, why is it so important to call it a marriage. Why can't it be a legal union or anything

Unions do not afford the same legal rights as marriages. Additionally we do not socially relate to the term "marriage" the same way we do to the term "union" which in and of itself connotates that the two cannot be considered equal. Additionally housing complexes and employers are allowed to discriminate against persons on the basis of their being "married" versus "civilly united" versus "single." That dichotomy already exists with straight people and by stating that gays can never achieve the level of marriage you are guaranteeing that gays will face more discrimination in the private sector than their heterosexual counterparts.

I don't want to be on the road with drug affected people any more than we are already

Well this is a ridiculous argument. Has the legalization of alcohol lead to the use of alcohol on the road being legal? NO. So why then would you make this GIANT leap in logic assuming that the legalization of marijuana necessitates that you can now smoke while driving?! That is not written in the statute, for the record. You aren't allowed to smoke while driving and if a preliminary screening shows that your judgement is impaired or if you are found with a light marijuana cigarette or blunt you can and will be arrested for DWI. Why would you assume otherwise?

"I grew up in a generation that didn't see the big deal about getting married period."

No you didn't. You are mistaking your own beliefs with those of your generation.

Cartoonthenew. You are right. I don't care whether they get married or not. I just still don't understand why that particular word is so important if the legalities of the situation could be made the same. Why are they hellbent on calling it "marriage" I wouldn't care if it were called some ridiculous word like "flifnflaP if the benefits were the same.

Because the legalities aren't the same and even if you do make them the same you cannot change the social structure and colloquial relation to the terms. If someone called it flinfnflap that would not convey the same concept to the society and community that, that person is marrying before as...marriage. The very fact that I had to use "marrying" in that sentence exemplifies the point. So not only are the benefits different between the two, but the social implications between the two are different. And, as I said before, this won't prevent businesses from discriminating against you on the basis of whether or not they agree with your particular legal contract. Straight couples who are in civil unions- unions via the court- are routinely discriminated against in employment and housing. That already happens with the gay community, but if you take the stance that you're going to favor never allowing gays "marriage" then you are guaranteeing that this level of discrimination is permanent. Again the two aren't interchangeable so the argument fails.

Civil unions don't provide the same legal rights that marriage does.

Nor is "marriage" a religious ceremony in this country. It's a civil action that is often, but not always, also celebrated with a religious ceremony. If marriage in this country was solely a religious ceremony, then everyone would be required by law to have a religious ceremony. They're not.

The idea that marriage in this country is some sort of religious ceremony has developed because most ministers/priests/rabbis/etc have been allowed to act as deputies of the City/Town/County Clerk or Registrar when it comes to the recording of a marriage and of a Justice of the Peace in performing one.

Anyway, Americans, we need to talk about Gover!...

I AGREE!!!

(not that there's anything wrong with that!)