Updated Feb 9, 2012 - 11:22 am

Ross: One of the most heartfelt speeches you'll ever hear

walsh09 Amidst the gay marriage debate Wednesday in the Washington state House, Republican Representative Maureen Walsh nearly brought the chamber to tears with what Dave called "one of the most heartfelt speeches you'll ever hear from the floor of the Legislature."

Walsh spoke of being married for 23 years to the love of her life and he died six years ago.

"I think of all the wonderful years we had together...I think to myself 'how could I deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life?' To me, it seems almost cruel."

But it was the reason she now supports same-sex marriage that really stuck out for both Dave and Luke.

Listen to The most heartfelt defense of same-sex marriage

"My daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago and you know what? I thought I was just going to agonize about that. Nothing's different. She's still a fabulous human being and she's met a person that she loves very much and some day by God I want to throw a wedding for that kid," said an impassioned Walsh.

Dave says he met Walsh on an education fact finding trip and found her to be someone who "followed what she thought was right." He praised her for what he called "a pretty gutsy thing for a Republican, even as far as we've come on gay marriage, to take a stand as she did yesterday."

From Luke's perspective, the change in opinion happens to many opponents once they actually meet someone or learn someone they know is gay.

"There's this idea of gay people that a lot of straight people in this state have and then there's the reality in my mind of what it actually means to be gay and what your life actually looks like and the truth of it is it looks a lot like everyone else's life," said Luke.

-Josh Kerns/My Northwest.com

(Photo of Maureen Walsh by Elaine Thompson/AP)

share this:

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 (30)

Add A Comment

0

0
wsualumn wrote...

And Most Of The GOP

February 9, 2012 10:40 am

Will make her pay for being compassionate and non judgemental. If they can only learn to "live and let live."

407868

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
hdcase wrote...

Sentimental Argument

February 9, 2012 10:44 am

This is nothing more than sentimentality. Marriage is about more than the two people involved. Its also about what's good for society, the nation and the survival of the human race. The sentimal arguments fly in the face of family values, order in nature and what it logically takes for any species to survive. No same sex arrangemnt can ever produce offspring to help humanity survive and it is therefore dysfunctional. Marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman, male and female. Nothing else is like it. That's just biological fact and it can't be disputed. The emotions of men and women are different in their expressions and the underlying needs. If homosexuals want to bond they should find a different term for the arrangemet because, no matter what people say, male-male and female-female arrangements are not marriage.

407869

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Rich White and Orange wrote...

Less government

February 9, 2012 10:55 am

Except, if you're a 'religious', when it comes to birth control, abortion, marriage and what orifice I can legally put my junk into.
The days of increasing the size of the tribe at all costs, and punishing those who do not breed, are over. At least for now. hdcase wants to live in a world before the invention of indoor plumbing.
It's about morality. We'll never agree on what that is. You are welcome to your version. Just don't go rubbing it up against me. If you're against gay marriage then don't be gay and get married.

407874

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407869

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Morality

February 9, 2012 11:17 am

Fine, Rich. But the live and let live mentality works both ways. Those who consider homosexuality morally repugnant are called haters by the pro-gay establishment -- and yet when put to the vast majority of people (not legislatures), the idea of gay marriage goes down in flames. I am supposed not only be tolerant but accepting, as well. Sadly, it doesn't work both ways, does it? I am not gay, am already married and, so, by your position, shouldn't be bothered by those homosexuals who want to marry. Here are my problems with that: You seem to have a problem with the "religious" among us who live by a standard that shouldn't change by whatever political winds come along.Man and woman are designed by nature, God, whatever you want, to be together, not man and man or woman and woman. It's not just a "religious" issue. It's an issue of nature, as well. Moreover, now that a vocal minority gets its way, what next? Further indoctrination that it's not only natural to be gay but cool, as well? Don't tell my kids in public schools that homosexuality is normal. Don't tell my kids in public schools that gay marriage is just as good as the real thing. And don't tell me that what is natural and right is left open for interpretation. To do that is to open this door wide open for anything.

407884

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407874

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Rich White and Orange wrote...

The fallatious slippery slope argument.

February 9, 2012 11:42 am

Leaving the door wide open for anything? Like what? Oh, yeah, right, bestiality, incest and all that false bs bigots trot out to defend their hateful argument.
You fail to realize that people have been exhibiting 'gayness' for as long as there have been people. It is therefore 'natural'. It is part of nature. Gay people are 'God's creation' too.
You seem to imply that any marriage is all about procreation and sex. Wrong. Ever known any married gay people? They are more 'normal' than most heterosexuals as they tend to stay together forever. The persecution they endure makes their bond very strong. They also make fantastic parents to a lot of those unaborted babies. You should be all for that.
You should be more worried about the morality of Catholics and their church. What's Newt and Limbaugh on, their 3rd and 4th wives? Good Catholics, though. Pullease. And of course there's the evil coverup of the years of abuse in the church. So don't preach your morality to me. Hatred and bigotry is immoral.
My big problem is the need for a lot of people to have some group to persecute. I guess it keeps your group together. I see the anti-gay bigots and then Fred Phelps and his church (protesting the 2 boys funerals over gays) and I can't help but think you all have something in common. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and yet the sky hasn't fallen.
Your morality is based in religion. Fine. Mine is not. I'm able to live and let live, you are not. I think discrimination is a civil rights issue and is wrong. Period. Gay marriage is based on love and intimacy. Not simply sex and procreation. We need to encourage love, not stomp on it.
You know what Jesus would've said on this? I do.
We'll never agree. That's ok. I'm not even gay but I'll always resist people who want to make their religion-based morality law.

407900

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407884

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Still with the hate, Rich?

February 9, 2012 2:16 pm

Have I said anything to you suggesting that you hate straight people? Why, then, do you write that I am full of hate, like Phelps and his bunch, toward homosexuals. Come now, Rich. Let's have some rational and even debate here and not resort to emotional attacks. You're all over the map on this one. But let me answer to each point: I don't call homosexuals animal lovers or baby rapers. Show me evidence that people are born gay. I will prove to you based on thousands of years of history and billions of people having lived on this earth that homosexuality is not natural. Marriage has been about the union between and man and a woman. Period. You cannot deny this based on history. I am sure anyone can be a good parent, gay or not. But having a mother and a father is the best model for that child. I am not Catholic. I am not here to defend Newt or Rush. You're right, hatred and bigotry are immoral. I am not a bigot. My opinion is not hateful. Your attitude and attacks toward me are, though. I am not persecuting anyone and I am not part of any "group", unless, of course, you call the VAST MAJORITY of people who think marriage is to be between a man and a woman, then, yes, I guess I am part of a group. My morality is based on Christianity. I am to love my neighbor as myself. That doesn't mean that I accept everything my neighbor does. You can show kindness and love toward someone but not agree with them. And what would Jesus say, Rich? If you morality is not based on "religion" then what you say Jesus says serves no purpose. Jesus said to repent. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. Is it then being intolerant and hateful of me to say that if you don't believe in Jesus then you are not going to Heaven? If you want to have an honest discussion, watch the hate speech, Rich. I am not calling you a hater. But yet that is your position toward me...simply because I don't believe gay marriage isn't marriage and that I find homosexuality unnatural. And until we can come to disagreements without throwing out the conversation-blocking word "hate" (which is coming from you), then we're just wasting bandwidth, my friend.

407974

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407900

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

The "Hate" card...

February 9, 2012 2:29 pm

is a by-now very old and tired re-run of the "Race" card. Give me a freaking break.

407980

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407974

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

Well put, GloScot.

February 9, 2012 2:30 pm

Talk about intolerance. The liberal and gay communities here are severely lacking in this regard.

407979

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407884

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

Rich Whie, you have to be KIDDING me.

February 9, 2012 11:25 am

"PUNISHING those who do not breed?" 'What orifice you put your junk into?" And "just don't go rubbing it up against me?" (What do you think the extreme minority gay community is doing?) This is SO not about punishing anyone, or what the he11 you do in your bedroom, or, as Maureen Walsh would LIKE you all to believe, denying her right to throw her daughter a wedding, or (play violins HERE) denying someone a bond." WOW. But throw that mis-directed sentiment at an issue like this and pull on those heartstrings, folks! It's about upholding a societal model and standard and fundamental that is clearly the best and most healthy for kids and family: a MAN (father) and a WOMAN (mother). That's a standard that MANY people value, and the gay community -- about, what, 2-3% of the population? -- simply cannot tolerate. So their accusations of "hater," "discrimination," "intolerance" (that's a good one, when no one is trying to deny them any RIGHTS) and "prejudice" take hold with too many spineless politicians, and our state leaders OVERTURN the Defense of Marriage Act that the PEOPLE of Washington passed a few years back. So much for democracy. Gay parents are not and never will be the same as hetero parents, and how our society defines that, like we have for centuries, is the only way we have to uphold that model. They can THINK and HOPE all they want that they're the same, but they're not. No more than a Caucasian is the same as a black is the same as an asian -- but we have differences there, right? Yet they all, in theory, have the same rights, right? Wow.... should we all just be called "skin color" so we don't HATE, INTOLERATE or DISCRIMINATE against anyone???

407891

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407874

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Fuego wrote...

@hdcase

February 9, 2012 11:20 am

Your correct if you want civil society to continue. I don't care what the G/L community does privately but don't wave a marriage license in my face and claim to be equal. I procreated with my wife and there's nothing more powerful in life than that, and the G/L community will never be on equal ground with me.

407885

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
wsualumn wrote...

Fuego

February 9, 2012 12:06 pm

I see you're worry here. You seem to be worried that some people of the homosexual community will come looking for you so they can wave their marriage license in your face and they will want to let you know that they are equal. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. I don't see that happening. Kudos to you for procreating with your wife. I guess I won't be on equal ground with you either since I never procreated with your wife. On the other hand, you won't be on equal ground with me either because I procreated with my wife and you didn't.

407910

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407885

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

WSUalum...

February 9, 2012 2:33 pm

You couldn't have missed his point more if you'd wanted to. Wow....

407982

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407910

0 Reply Report this as abuse
wsualumn wrote...

Sean

February 9, 2012 3:54 pm

After reading your posts, I wouldn't expect to to be able to get my point.

408013

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407982

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Forrest wrote...

To the outspoken opponents of gay marriage, it all boils down to this:

February 9, 2012 11:39 am

Giving a gay person equal rights to marry their partner does not infringe or take away the rights of a heterosexual couple (or single person against gay marriage). It will however make it illegal to enforce your prejudice and hate towards the gay couple. The illegality of the hate and prejudice against gay marriage is what worries you the most.

407896

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Forrest...

February 9, 2012 11:43 am

You prove my point. Calling those haters who disagree with you. That's all you have because the truth is too hard to accept. See above.

407901

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407896

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Forrest wrote...

GloScot, A few years back after a Gay Pride parade, I went into a rant pretty similar to your's above.

February 9, 2012 12:22 pm

My wife ask me "Why do you rant and rave about the the gays so much? What did they ever do to you? You're just like those anti-gay republican congressmen that continuously rant about gay people only to be caught in a compromising situation with a male prostitute. I'm getting worried about you". You know, she was right. Gay people never have done anything to harm me. I was just a bigot. What about you GloScot?

407920

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407901

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Forrest...

February 9, 2012 1:49 pm

What about me...what? You don't know me and I don't know you. I don't rant and rave about homosexuals. I am just responding to your comment and stating my opinion. Have gay people personally harmed me? No. But our culture is creating harm when it calls good evil and evil good. Can homosexuals enter civil unions? Sure. But gay marriage isn't marriage. You don't address anything I say except, again, throw names at me for standing up for truth. Again, that's all the pro-gay side of this can do: call people names who disagree with them.

407965

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407920

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

It's not about RIGHTS.

February 9, 2012 2:33 pm

Can you NOT get that through your head? It's about a natural, traditional, foundational basis of man/fathers and women/miothers being at the core of the family. That can NEVER be equal and it DOES society good to recognize what men and women ezxclusively bring to the family dynamic that a gay couple NEVER will. It ain't about hate, intolerance, prejudice, or any of that cr4p, and it SURE isn't about rights. GIVE 'EM the rights. You can't REDEFINE this word.

407984

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407896

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Yeah Sean...

February 9, 2012 5:58 pm

...but we're the haters, remember? They can redefine it if they want. We're the ones who have the problem.

408034

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407984

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Forrest wrote...

One final comment and I'm done.

February 9, 2012 12:32 pm

Didn't Canada legalize Gay marriage back in 2005? God hasn't destroyed Canada with fire and brimstone. People are still getting heterosexual marriages. Babies are still being born. I'm not aware of Canada granting a marriage license to anyone wanting to marry a horse or a dog. A cow hasn't applied for a marriage license to marry a pig. Nothing has really changed. It will be OK here in Washington as well.

407925

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Angry Monkey wrote...

Forrest

February 9, 2012 7:31 pm

Yes. Yes they did legalize Gay Marriage. Of course, now they just call it Marriage. So did Argentina, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Spain, and The Netherlands.

408062

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407925

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Hayduke wrote...

Better ban all non-breeders from marriage then, hdcase

February 9, 2012 1:04 pm

I mean, if we're to go along with your point that "No same sex arrangemnt can ever produce offspring to help humanity survive and it is therefore dysfunctional," then consider the following groups who also shouldn't be allowed to marry:
Heterosexual couples couples who DON'T WANT children, couples who want only 1 or 2 kids(I believe the rate necessary for population stabilization is around 2.3 kids),couples who want them but cannot procreate because of injury or illness, couples who can't afford them, and senior citizens who are simply too old to procreate or raise kids.
So yeah, lets ban all of them as well from marriage. But say, wouldn't that make married couples (gasp!) a minority?

407939

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
O-town listener wrote...

@GloScot

February 9, 2012 1:32 pm

So you feel straight couples should sign a contract to reproduce within say what... 12 months? of being married? .. And if they don't, we should revoke their marriage license and claim them not married right? To use an argument that has no basis in the world of today is just simply ridiculous.
Marriage is for the good of society.. marriage is for the children.. And yet, a healthy percentage of married couples have no children.. And, if marriage is just about procreation, shouldn't we also revoke the marriage of those whose kids have grown and left the house? After all, they are no longer together to procreate so they no longer have the type of marriage we want to encourage as a society right?
And marriage vows - I haven't been to many weddings in my life, but I don't remember anyone saying I take thee to have children with, but rather, I take thee to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.. Can a gay couple not fulfill those vows every bit as much as a straight couple? Doesn't the marriage ceremony focus on the couples love, not their intention to procreate?

407957

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407939

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

O-Town

February 9, 2012 1:56 pm

I didn't write anything about marriage contracts and agreements to procreate, so what does that have to do with anything? I believe my point was about what is right and natural.

407968

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407957

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

hEY o-tOWN:

February 9, 2012 2:39 pm

"Can a gay couple not fulfill those vows every bit as much as a straight couple?" of course they can. And they don't need to call it "marriage" to do so. Right?

407985

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

407957

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Sean wrote...

And I LOVE the headline...

February 9, 2012 2:41 pm

"The most heartfelt speech you'll ever hear." Wow. Well hey, if it's heartfelt, it HAS to be right, huh? Get out the violins and flower petals and tissues. Every claim she has about "denying bonds" between people and not being able to throw her daughter a wedding" are a bunch of cr4p. NOTHING to do with the core of this issue. It's not about rights or denial of rights. It's about REDEFINING a word that has a very important meaning to the vast majority of Washington citizens (reference the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act a few years back that many of our spineless, lemming-like politicians are now trying to overturn).

407986

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Chuck Gould wrote...

Those making a religious argument might pause to remember.......

February 9, 2012 4:28 pm

that we don't have a society where the church runs the government. Furthermore, there is disagreement among churches regarding homosexuality. I can remember pastors being thrown out of some churches when they "came out" to their congregations, while other pastors in the same situation were embraced and supported by their congregations. No one side has the right to say that their view should be considered representative of all Christendom.
Also on the religious front. If you believe that God disapproves of gay marriages, then by all means do not enter into one. Even if you happen to be gay. Nothing in the new law requires you to disobey God. Is all the anger and panic because you fear the loss of the legal authority to force your religious beliefs down the throats of others?

408022

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
GloScot wrote...

Obviously, Chuck...

February 9, 2012 6:06 pm

We don't have theocracy here. But we do have traditions and universally accepted truths that are part of our heritage. This is about a redefinition of something so that a very small minority can feel equal, even though these same Democrats voted in the Everything But Marriage law a few years ago and called it good AND supported DADT and the DOMA in the 90s. It's just been a gradual chipping away at this most basic and accepted of institutions and calling it something that it is not.

408036

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

408022

0 Reply Report this as abuse
Howard goldman wrote...

This move will be second guessed....

February 9, 2012 5:38 pm

I don't understand the Democrat motive for doing this because you have now put an issue into play that has historically (by means of viewing other elections) energized the opponents. So let's presume for a second that the Democrats suffer a devastating defeat at all levels of government in the state, will their defense be instead the expected "They're a Bunch of Homophobes" to something contructive like, We honestly thought that the wedge issue(gay marriage) would make people forget we have run up billion dollar deficits year after year,and we thought if we put this emotional issue, people would be too afraid to be called a homophobe for voting us all out. I wish Conservatives in this state would demonstrate a little testicular fortitude and calling the Democrats out on this..but no we are being drawn into the argument. WHO CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE, REALLY? I realize the Democrats want to get more money for their WSDOT projects via gay marriage, but why isn't anyone calling these people out? Why is Mary Margaret Haugen being tauted as couragous for changing her mind on that, and notintellectually dishonest for calling for more taxes on hybrid cars? But Dave Ross is the type of guy who would tell us kids with Downes Syndrome are just as smart as kids withour Downes Syndrome, then secretly ship his kids off to the Ivy Leagues on some sort of roague deal with their Admissions department.

408030

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
SeattleD wrote...

Weddings have a built in moment where the anti-gay-marraige crowd can take action.

February 9, 2012 7:46 pm

Here's what you people can do. Show up to any gay marraige in progress, you don't need to know anyone there.
When the person conducting the wedding vows does the part that asks you to "speak now or forever hold your peace"...
you run up, stand between the two people getting married and scream at the top of your lungs "YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED, IT'S AGAINST MY RELIGION!"

408064

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

0

0 Reply Report this as abuse
53112

{ "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }

Reply Report this as abuse

Ross & Burbank Podcasts

More podcasts »

Updated Feb 9, 2012 - 11:22 am

Ross: One of the most heartfelt speeches you'll ever hear

Ross & Burbank Podcasts

Recent posts

Latest Local News