Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
To have this be a legal marriage means everything to both of us
West Seattle women to be first same-sex couple to get a marriage license in King County
http://westseattle.komonews.com/news/people/805019-west-seattle-women-be-first-same-sex-couple-get-marriage-license-king-county
Just after midnight tonight, two West Seattle women will be the first same-sex couple in King County to receive a marriage license since our state legalized gay marriage.
Jane Abbott Lighty and Pete-e Petersen of West Seattle have been together 35 years, and were featured in a Referendum 74 ad (see video above), according to a press release from King County Executive Dow Constantine.
Petersen, 85, was born in Manhattan but grew up in a small Alabama town with her grandmother. She served five years in the Air Force as air-evac flight nurse during the Korean War. Petersen adopted her sister's daughter at almost three years old.
Lighty, 77, was born in Fremont, Neb. but mostly grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. She was also a nurse.
The couple had a commitment ceremony years ago but say a domestic partnership just isn’t the same as a marriage.
"To have our 35 year loving relationship publicly honored and celebrated and have this be a legal marriage means everything to both of us," said Lighty
Jane Abbott Lighty and Pete-e Petersen of West Seattle have been together 35 years, and were featured in a Referendum 74 ad (see video above), according to a press release from King County Executive Dow Constantine.
Petersen, 85, was born in Manhattan but grew up in a small Alabama town with her grandmother. She served five years in the Air Force as air-evac flight nurse during the Korean War. Petersen adopted her sister's daughter at almost three years old.
Lighty, 77, was born in Fremont, Neb. but mostly grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. She was also a nurse.
The couple had a commitment ceremony years ago but say a domestic partnership just isn’t the same as a marriage.
"To have our 35 year loving relationship publicly honored and celebrated and have this be a legal marriage means everything to both of us," said Lighty
I am so damn proud of my state and even the red-leaning county where I reside. Washington state voted 54% in favor of marriage equality last month and in my neck of the woods, R-74 passed with 50% of the vote.
Here's another article on preparations for marriage license applications:
http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/county-auditor-readies-for-same-sex-marriage-applications/article_dcbab30b-61d6-5a89-b6b6-3ff7a95c3860.html
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Marriage" is a religious term. Civil unions are another matter. If we want to talk "marriage" then that falls into the religious realm. Im not trying to parse words, just trying to be clear.
I am a liberal, Christian Democrat. The church I attend is a healthy mix of liberal and conservative Christians. My pastor is a great man and defies stereotype (you'll just have to take my word for it 
) He is staunchly liberal on many issues (workers rights, social justice, environment, etc) even so he is opposed to gay marriage. Form our talks he feels that being gay is not a sin in itself, but engaging in homosexual sex is prohibited. Many of my fellow parishoners feel the same way. They recognize that being gay is not a sin, but having gay sex is. I disagree with them but I understand why they think that way.
In terms of accepting gay marriage/civil unions, I think some Christians might view it in a similar way to legalizing prostitution: you know it may have positive benefits for those involved (better treatment for women, safer, taxed, regulated, etc) but they are afraid that by doing so, they are sanctioning it as "OK" when they feel it isnt. Does that make sense?
"The marriage ceremonies your pastor performs are legal only because the state licensed him/her to perform them." Yes, we (America) have put ourselves into a situation where we have entangled church (marriage) and state (a legally binding union). I think they should be two separate issues.
"No one would force an unwilling pastor to perform a marriage ceremony. Yes, I know that and so does our pastor.
"In your world I suppose it's ok for a couple to have 4-8 marriages between them, yet deny a gay couple who has between faithful to each other for 30 years the right to be married." In my world? Do you mean me, AlecBGreen, or my church? I personally support the right of gay couples to be joined, both in the eyes of the state (civilly) and the church (religiously). Neither my denomination, the majority of my local church nor my pastor share that opinion. Im workin on it
"No one would force an unwilling pastor to perform a marriage ceremony. Yes, I know that and so does our pastor.
"In your world I suppose it's ok for a couple to have 4-8 marriages between them, yet deny a gay couple who has between faithful to each other for 30 years the right to be married." In my world? Do you mean me, AlecBGreen, or my church? I personally support the right of gay couples to be joined, both in the eyes of the state (civilly) and the church (religiously). Neither my denomination, the majority of my local church nor my pastor share that opinion. Im workin on it
Middle name "why". 
"I used to think that having civil unions and marriages would be the answer until I finally realized that would be setting up a 2-tier system...and those never treat people equally."
Lets assume a hypothetical reality where gay couples could be wed civilly and have their partnership legally recognized by the state with all the benefits currently enjoyed by todays married citizens. Lets also assume that the majority of American churches would still refuse to 'marry' them in a religious ceremony, although there would be exceptions as there are today (UU, some Episcopal, some Lutheran, etc). Do you think that this system would a true 'two-tier' system that would make things worse? I think it would be a step UP from our current situation and would be the logical next step into full acceptance for our gay brothers and sisters.
"It is your world if you are going to a church that would deny gay people the right to marry." Equality & gay rights are important issues to me and it is an issue on which I disagree with many Christians. I feel that gays SHOULD be allowed to marry and not be forced into a life of celibacy. I absolutely do not think they should be denied the right to spend their life with whomever they pick. I have spoken to my close church friends and pastor about this frequently. As Dr MLK Jr said, "The moral arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice." I see myself as part of that process.
"If God made "mankind"in His image as sexual beings, why would He be so cruel as to deny some of those beings the ability to act on their sexual feelings?" This is a question that could take up several days of thinking and writing. What it really boils down to is, does the OT commandment of "A man shall not lay down with a man, as with a woman (etc)" mean what we think it means, and if so, does that still hold true? My thought is no, it does not. While we Christians are not given license to sin however we wish, we have been told that we are no longer "under the law." That phrase and ones like it is all over Paul's letters. Ex: Romans 7:6: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
Anyway, I could talk about this all night but its late and I have work and I just got done grinding up a whole hog leg (ha! there's another OT commandment we seem to ignore
) Anyway feel free to respond if you wanna keep talking about this. Its a subject that is very important to me. Gnight! 
Lets assume a hypothetical reality where gay couples could be wed civilly and have their partnership legally recognized by the state with all the benefits currently enjoyed by todays married citizens. Lets also assume that the majority of American churches would still refuse to 'marry' them in a religious ceremony, although there would be exceptions as there are today (UU, some Episcopal, some Lutheran, etc). Do you think that this system would a true 'two-tier' system that would make things worse? I think it would be a step UP from our current situation and would be the logical next step into full acceptance for our gay brothers and sisters.
"It is your world if you are going to a church that would deny gay people the right to marry." Equality & gay rights are important issues to me and it is an issue on which I disagree with many Christians. I feel that gays SHOULD be allowed to marry and not be forced into a life of celibacy. I absolutely do not think they should be denied the right to spend their life with whomever they pick. I have spoken to my close church friends and pastor about this frequently. As Dr MLK Jr said, "The moral arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice." I see myself as part of that process.
"If God made "mankind"in His image as sexual beings, why would He be so cruel as to deny some of those beings the ability to act on their sexual feelings?" This is a question that could take up several days of thinking and writing. What it really boils down to is, does the OT commandment of "A man shall not lay down with a man, as with a woman (etc)" mean what we think it means, and if so, does that still hold true? My thought is no, it does not. While we Christians are not given license to sin however we wish, we have been told that we are no longer "under the law." That phrase and ones like it is all over Paul's letters. Ex: Romans 7:6: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
Anyway, I could talk about this all night but its late and I have work and I just got done grinding up a whole hog leg (ha! there's another OT commandment we seem to ignore
) Anyway feel free to respond if you wanna keep talking about this. Its a subject that is very important to me. Gnight! 
