Reuters, Associated Press Wrecking Marriages

Let’s look at how the news wires continue to be biased in coverage of marriage neutering, this time when it come to the legislative vote in the State of Washington to neuter state marriage licensing.

The headline on this Associated Press article by Rachel LA Corte calls it "gay marriage", which is misleading.

Also, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire supports the measure and said she will sign it into law, which would make Washington state the seventh state to approve gay marriage.

That language is misleading. We are talking about state marriage licensing and whether licenses will be inclusive of both sexes or neutered. Sexual orientation is not involved in the law.

The Senate Rules Committee voted Tuesday to advance the measure for a vote by the full chamber with Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, president of the Senate, saying that he has emphasized tolerance and diversity at state schools for decades, which would make it "hypocritical for me to not support this bill."

How does that follow? I'm not sure he understands the meaning of the word "tolerance", which is an attitude or approach one takes when it comes to something they don't like or with which they disagree, and how is "diversity" being defined, especially it if excludes basic. historical diversity such as polygamy? I support tolerance and diversity in state schools (as long as state schools exist) and I am not being hypocritical by saying that the state has a legitimate reason to continue to distinguish marriage in state licensing and reserve the licenses for bride+groom unions.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have already promised a referendum battle at the ballot if the measure becomes law.

Deliberate choice of words, I’m sure. I no more oppose "same-sex marriage" than I oppose "stationary public transit". I oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses.

Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Neutered marriage licenses are issued. Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, parties, a vacation, and live together and call each other husband or wife regardless of where they live, and no law enforcement will stop them. The marriage neutering advocates want people to think that homosexual couples live in fear of someone breaking into their homes and breaking them up, or shutting down a ceremony, because it serves their political end. That is why they use words like "ban" and "illegal" or "legal".

Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007 and an "everything but marriage" expansion of the domestic partnership law since 2009.

So again, as it was in California, this is about preventing the state (and most everybody else) from having a word that distinguishes marriage from other kinds of voluntary associations, even though marriage is inherently different from a brideless or groomless union. When the marriage neutering advocates talked about how important it was to have those domestic partnerships, they were apparently lying, or at least not finishing their sentences.

Nicole Neroulias has the Reuters coverage, again with a bad headline, "Washington State Senate Poised to OK Gay Marriage". It is called "gay marriage" throughout the article.

The vote, scheduled to start following a floor debate, is considered pivotal given that gay rights advocates have previously failed to muster sufficient support in the state Senate to ensure passage.

It is possible to support "gay rights" without supporting the neutering of state marriage licenses. What these people are is marriage neutering advocates.

With passage in the state House of Representatives already seen as virtually assured, opponents of same-sex matrimony say they will seek the measure's repeal with a referendum asking voters to reaffirm marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

The reporter doesn’t know what "matrimony" means, obviously. Can't wait until we're called opponents of male matrimony.

Both House and Senate versions of the bill include language to allow gay couples from out of state to get married in Washington.

The bills would allow brideless or groomless couples, regardless of sexual orientation, to get state-issued licenses, just as people, regardless of their sexual orientation, can get already get marriage licenses.

They both include an amendment allowing religious organizations to refuse to rent out their chapels or other facilities as venues for same-sex weddings.

That's incrementalism at work.

Opponents point out that voters have yet to approve gay marriage in any state referendum and have in some instances overturned same-sex marriage laws enacted by legislators or the courts. Gay marriage remains outlawed in more than 40 states.

Ugh. Sloppy.

Oregon voters passed a law upholding traditional marriage in 2004, voiding same-sex weddings that some counties had performed earlier that year. California voters in 2008 approved a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It's not a ban.

Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have endorsed Washington's legislation.

Where's the outcry from the Left about corporate involvement in politics? Where are the Occupy people?

By the way, the title of this entry is meant to exhibit the same level of bias as the news wires.