Gay Marriage
Since Governor Christine Gregoire first threw her support behind the legislation, until now, 97.3 KIRO FM's hosts have been debating the issues on air and in their blogs, revealing that there are many more facets to a same sex union than a yes or no vote. (AP Photo/File)

KIRO hosts cast their vote on the legalization of same-sex marriage

On Wednesday evening, Washington state Senators passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. The House and Gov. Christine Gregoire are expected to also pass the bill, which would then make Washington the seventh state to legalize gay marriage.

Since Governor Christine Gregoire first threw her support behind the legislation, 97.3 KIRO FM's hosts have been debating the issues on air and in their blogs, revealing that there are many more facets to a same-sex union than a yes or no vote.

Opening the door for the unknown

As it stands in Washington, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If the government can change the language so that marriage can be a union between two men or two women, how are they going to change the language so that it doesn't open up the door for even more combinations?

That is Dori Monson's concern. He talked to Pastor Ken Hutcherson at the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland about the possible ambiguity the legislation could inspire. In fact, Dori talked about the slippery slope with a woman who married a building on Sunday. Babylonia Aivaz wants to save the 10th and Union Warehouse on Capitol Hill and she believed a wedding ceremony was a good way to call attention to her cause. Right now, Aivaz's marriage seems to be a publicity stunt, but what if the definition was changed and she gained some type of legal rights?

Dori has said that he is not against civil unions, but given the uncertainty that lies ahead if the law is changed, marriage should remain defined as one man, one woman.

The wrong side of history

A common argument against same-sex marriage is based on religion, as Hutcherson discussed with Dori. According to Ron Upshaw, if you're using religion as a guide, you may end up on "the wrong side of history," once the law changes.

Fighting for the morality of marriage shouldn't start with a definition. Instead, Ron believes religious leaders should make efforts to outlaw adultery and divorce, the real threats to marriage.

He thinks hiding behind the semantics of marriage is a cop-out. Gay marriages may lead to gay divorces because it's it's not that same-sex marriages will be any better or different than marriages are now. If you're arguing about semantics, you might be disguising your disapproval of homosexuality altogether.

In November, candidates will have to defend their positions

John Curley sides with Ron, if there is an issue with marriage, it's not about who is marrying who. "[Legalizing same-sex marriage] won't do anything to destroy what you have right now, you can do that completely on your own by not communicating wholly and honestly with one another."

Instead, Curley wonders why it is only now becoming an issue in our state, and his theory is that it has everything to do with the gubernatorial election. Gregoire has put the issue out there and will walk away leaving current Attorney General and Republican candidate for governor Rob McKenna to defend his position against Democratic candidate Jay Inslee.

While Gregoire no longer has to face debates, elections and her constituents, but other state lawmakers will be forced to defend their positions. Curley thinks no matter what a lawmaker votes, they will face concerned constituents.

"It's something that you want to take cover on if you come from a place where constituents have a real problem with [how they voted.]"

Who should decide if Washington state should recognize gay marriage?

Groups opposing same-sex marriage are already preparing referendums they hope will be included on a November ballot. If included on a ballot, voters will get a chance to redefine marriage.

But is the right to marry an individual's right? The right of an individual should not be subject to the majority, according to KTTH's David Boze. If it is an individual right, then a state Senate vote on Wednesday is the right way to decide the legality of same-sex marriage.

Boze says that while you may have the right to marry, the right to redefine what marriage is not an individual's, so, it should instead be included on a ballot.

The consequences of the same-sex marriage bill passing in the Legislature

Dave Ross and Luke Burbank listened to speakers from a January debate in Olympia that addressed discrimination, and one argument stood out for them: What of those who work in the wedding industry that disagree with same-sex marriage? Could they be sued for refusing services at a same-sex wedding ceremony?

Dave and Luke found a conservative florist who does weddings in Iowa - where same-sex marriage has been legal since April 2009. Elaine, from Down to Earth Florists told Dave and Luke "Their money is green too,". She has already worked at same-sex weddings, and before that, commitment ceremonies. If it came to an instance where she would prefer to turn a wedding down, for whatever reason, she would just say that she's unavailable on that given day.

But, a couple probably doesn't want someone to work for them if they're not going to do a good job at the wedding anyway.

In the hands of the Washington state Senate

The bill to legalize same-sex marriage now goes to the state House for approval. Both the House and Gov. Gregoire are expected to pass the bill.

Opponents can't file a challenge until the bill is passed by the full Legislature and signed into law by Gregoire. They then must turn in 120,577 signatures by June 6 to get a referendum on the November ballot. If opponents don't meet the deadline, same-sex couples will be able to wed in June. Otherwise, they'll have to wait until the results of the November election.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Alyssa Kleven, MyNorthwest.com Editor
Alyssa Kleven is an editor and content producer at MyNorthwest.com. She enjoys doting over her adorable dachshund Winnie - named for Arcade Fire front-man Win Butler.
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (25)


  • Add A Comment

  • sjedmunds wrote...
    Same-sex marriage
    Why would I care how KIRO hosts vote on same-sex marriage? I have no plans to read the article.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Goldman60 wrote...
    sjedmunds...?
    Then why... whats your point exactly?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sjedmunds wrote...
    same sex marriage
    Goldman60 I do care about the issues. I just don't necessarily care how others feel about the issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    Still missing most the point
    1) Rights are equal in this state-2009 Anything but marriage law 2) This is an attempt to normalize homosexaulity. Hutcherson is right. This will be tought in our schools as is already happening 3)Marriage has histiorically been between a man and a woman only. The reason for marriage is based in protecting family structure. Sorry, gays cannot have children 4) Marriage is not a status symbol or a right. It is a DEFINED relationship.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Whidbeyboy wrote...
    But....
    You say that they cannot have children, bt they can adopt the thousands of unwanted children that exist in this country. I always wonder why the anti choice folks ignore the children not aborted that have no home or are on the street. If they really cared about abortion, then they we shouldn't have even one child born who is homeless. In addition, I doubt this will have any effect on the family structure. It's not like their will be a decline in marriages between and man and a woman...that's just the usual non sense argument we hear from those that think the Bible was real to the core. But why don't we see ANY proof of that now, and we have mass communication. One Jesus video on Youtube doing a miracle (a real one like curing a amputee, not the old "hey you lived, it's a miracle" type. And the whole world would be saved!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • EverettGal wrote...
    Dori's slippery slope
    Here is the bill as it will read:

    (1) Marriage is a civil contract between ((a male and a female)(strikeout) two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise CAPABLE.

    CAPABLE. Good luck getting this law changed so people can marry buildings, pets, etc. The argument is ridiculous.

    Dori, I listen to you sometimes, I rarely agree, but I do listen. I've always respected your decision to not talk about same sex marriages in the past on your show. I always thought it was because of your libertarian beliefs to 'live and let live.' But my respect for you has changed, and I think you are just taking the opportunity to whip your base into a frenzy.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Dori's usual right wing stance while claiming to be libertarian...
    Dori's doing his usual. Claiming to be libertarian and then showing that he's nothing more than a right wing 'us egovernment to force others to act like I want them to' game player. Marriage has evolved or 'had it's definition changed' many, many times since it's creation, this is nothing more than one more change in that process. And as far as Pastor Hutchinson goes - he's as blatantly bigoted as anyone I've ever seen or heard. I don't mind if he's religiously against gay marriage - it's his right. HOWEVER - he does not have the right to use his religion to force me or anyone else to adhere to HIS version of what he thinks God wants. You know - Government is not controlled by religion here folks.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Whidbeyboy wrote...
    BS
    People really think their will be a rise in people marrying inanimate objects? Really? I mean, is thier as large following for that now? I am not surprised that he minister friend is so hateful towards Gays...he's a Christian who thinks he's is Jesus like so many others out there.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Capable
    Then this should allow for Poly Marriages as well...right? Consenting Capable adults should be allowed to marry as many people as they want at the same time. Go for it! If you are against Poly Marriage, but for Gay Marriage you are willing to oppress the rights of Capable Consenting adults in any number greater than two.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FishLips wrote...
    Poly Marriages

    The polygamist argument is a very thin one.

    First of all, allowing gay marriage by the government does not create any more legal paperwork than a marriage between a man and a woman (marriage cert., prenup, possible divorce, etc...). The last thing the government needs is to deal with the mountain of legal paperwork it would require with poly marriages, prenups and divorces.

    Second, it is widely believed that people are born gay - which means they don't have a choice as to what sex they are attracted to. You can't be born a polygamist - it is clearly a choice that some people make. Sure, it's argued whether people are actually born gay, but I think in time this will be proven to be true.

    Finally, polygamy has no affect on my life anyway. If it were legal I would have no problem with it. I just think government should limit marriage to 2 capable people for the simplicity of it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Ah yes - the false comparison with polygamous marriage.....
    "Then this should allow for Poly Marriages as well...right? Consenting Capable adults should be allowed to marry as many people as they want at the same time. Go for it! If you are against Poly Marriage, but for Gay Marriage you are willing to oppress the rights of Capable Consenting adults in any number greater than two." --------------- ok - One More Time.... 1) that's soo far off topic that it's a laughable arguement. Might as well bring up marrying dogs/Llama's/your Ford Explorer too. 2)Most polygamous marriage attempts in this country fail the legal consent test (underage female, undue control by an adult or cult/religious leader, etc.). 3) IF you can find me a number of folks who want to marry in a polygamous fashion, have them bring the request forward and work to get that type of marriage legalized. 4) You can't eat an elephant in one bite. You have to nibble away at it slowly. Same goes for changes to marriage laws. Calling bigotry or a failure of gays because they don't include polygamy in thier request is blaming a person for not eating the entire elephant in one bite.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    I may be wrong but......
    I can't believe there are more then 10% of Washingtonians that have strong feelings about this issue.......I also have noticed that the vast majority of the staff at your station seems enthralled over this issue as it is believed by many of you to be some sort social movement……..I also know there are at least 50% of Washingtonians that do have real concerns over the state budget deficit but I have yet to see any of your staff putting the legislature at task for their failure to even engage in summary antidotes other than increase in taxes……..which leads me to ask…….what is the KIRO agenda here and why is it that the lawmakers are given a hall pass by your new staff? Is it because they will not do interviews if you ask the real hard questions?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • itiswhatitis wrote...
    $$$$$$$$$$$
    As stated in the article, their money is green too. I know many gay people that love each other and have the same ups and downs as us men & women do. If they want the right to marry, divorce, take care of their family, no matter how they got it, then so be it. There are many successful business people and you may not believe in their lifestyle but are we not all part of the human race?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    glad we are working on important issues such as gay marriage . . . .
    budgets must not be important. Most of the host are clowns.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Howard goldman wrote...
    Again, the smokescreen
    This bill will do nothing to our economy. This bill will not add jobs or create wealth. All this bill will do is polarize us more so the policial parties can pick us apart. This is complete waste of time to talk about. The Democrat Trial lawyers love this because despite what the politicians say, lawyers of all religous creed will start suing churchs in the name of discrimination.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • EverettGal wrote...
    No jobs or wealth?
    Let's see.... I've already been invited to 3 weddings plus invited to be a bridesmaid... and trust me... these will be FABULOUS weddings!

    Tell me that this sudden influx of weddings isn't going to create stimulus for the wedding industry!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Smokescreen? Holy Smokescreen, Maybe. How many of you anti's "worship" the government?
    We're completely hung up on the wrong question here. The question isn't "How should the state define marriage?" or even "Should gays be allowed to marry?"

    The question is really, "What the Sam Heck is the state doing, poking it's nose into the definition and administration of a religious sacrament?"

    Is the state suddenly a religious organization?

    Shall we allow the state to dictate whom, how, and whether, we worship? Should we worship the state, maybe?

    The bill simply reduces the state's concern to the only level that has ever been appropriate; the legal, contract, formalities of creating a domestic partnership.

    It should work like this: Any two consenting adults can create a domestic partnership. Gay, straight, bi, whatever. Whether they are having sex, with whom, and what type of sex they are having is none of the state's (or anybody else') business. Keep the cops and everybody's lurid imagination out of the neighbor's bedroom- please.

    If the domestic partners then want to become "married", which is a religious function and not a legal function, then let them find a church who feels they are worthy to marry and who will perform the ceremony.

    Those who argue that marriage is a legal institution, not a religious sacrament, and who oppose gay marriage are shooting themselves in both feet at the same time! If it is a legal institution, why should the benefits of that legal institution be denied to a minority of persons because the majority has *moral* (not legal) objections to their lifestyle? It is not "illegal" to be gay. It hasn't been illegal, (anywhere in the US) since about 2003. If you are not breaking the law, how can society deny you the right to enter into a property contract with another consenting adult of legal age?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Whidbeyboy wrote...
    Idiot
    Do you think conservative lawyers will not jump on the bandwagon? You are in a bubble my friend, time to come out and smell the roses, and reality. Whyb don;t we look at the other states....not one arguement here but the anti anything liberal folks has come to pass....they use the smokesceen, not liberals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Bill Falls Short!
    Once again another state approves a measure that excludes Asexuals. Many of my friends are asexual and they are tired of being shunned by Asexualphobic liberal and conservative groups that tell them to go and (you-know-what)themselves! At least give them a tax break like hetero & homo married persons at the state level. If they could just get organized and hold an "A" Rally for awareness/Equal-Rights, raise some money to Lobby in Olympia, or give to a Super-PAC, they could get written into the Bill too I think. (google: Asexuals - Who Are They, And Why Are They Important?) They are "A" and not Gay!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    I understand that most Conservative leaders are against the term, not the definition itself.
    The are okay with Civil Unions that give parties the same rights, but say the word Marriage should be reserved for One man, One Woman. I agree with them on that point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }