Today's P-I editorial on Tim Eyman's failure to gather enough signatures to make the ballot with Referendum 65, which would repeal the state's "gay civil rights law" that was enacted earlier this year: "Voters reject bias"
The failure of proponents to garner enough signatures to put an anti-civil-rights referendum on the fall ballot says more about the sense of civility and fairness of Washington's voters ...Indeed. The fact that this petition drive could not summon a sufficient groundswell of anti-gay sentiment only confirms what I wrote back in January: "Gay rights bill passed, but is it really needed?"
Paradoxically, the bill passed precisely because of a shift in attitudes that also renders the bill largely unnecessary.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 07, 2006 10:14 AM | Email This
Do you really think that the relatively sparse evidence of people being fired for being gay has anything to do with those 105,000 people being okay with homosexuality? Could it, perhaps, have anything to do with the fact that gay people everywhere know who Micah Painter is, and know that when your boss is a raging homophobe that, perhaps, it is wiser to remain in the closet rather than to come out? The lack of people being fired for coming out has far less to do with a lack of homophobia and far more to do with gay people not being stupid.
Eyman's referendum failed not because of a lack of homophobia, but because he lacks credibility. Everything he said about HB 2661 was a lie. He said it would allow gay marriage (the bill explicitly stated that it would not change the definition of marriage). He said it would initiate quotas (the bill explicitly prohibited quotas).
Posted by: Travis Thomas on June 7, 2006 12:01 PMSecondly, to state that HB 2661 will not be used to support same-sex marriage is premature. The history of the homosexual lobby is that they will use what ever means they can to further their purposes. If using HB 2661 will help bring about same-sex marriage here in WA then they will do so. And if you need examples, look at what is going on in Mass, NJ, CA, etc.
Lastly, HB 2661 was never about equality or eliminating discrimination. It was about normalizing homosexual behavior by eliminating dissent. When the government eliminates dissent then you reduce freedom and increase tyranny.
So by just signing the petition to get a measure on the ballot, you are automatically categorized as hating gay people. Travis, you just destroyed your credibility with your first sentence.
Posted by: PW on June 7, 2006 12:59 PMGiven the level of disinformation you are spouting, I'm guessing you supported Ref 65. Just to clear up your misrepresentations: the MA case was decided based on the MA state constitution, NOT a non-discrimination law; HB2661 does absolutely NOTHING to eliminate dissent, you are still allowed hate gays & lesbians all you want, you just aren't allowed to deny them empolyment or housing based on that irrational hatred.
- The orginal bill was not needed.
-A minority hijacked the legislature to create a special class of citizens.
-The same minority does not want the voters to have a say.
-The bill gives a minority the right to take anyone to court who doesn't agree with them. The gay way is the new Aryan- if you don't like having your nose rubbed into someone elses sexuality, you should be punished. That is what the law provides for.
It doesn't seem like "equality" is really what is on the gay agenda for this legislation. I was indifferent about this, but now I DO want to vote on it.
How long until we see sexual orientation as part of the minority check list for state jobs. No one gives a rip about your sexual orientation until you start rubbing their nose it.
NO MORE VICTIM MINORITY CLASSES!!!!
-Andy, Thurston Pundits
Succinctly, all men are created equal. That equality does not come from any legal entity, it comes from the metaphysical nature of humans as volitional, self conscious beings. There is no need to define gays as equal, when all men are equal. Similarly, there is no need to define murder of someone who is gay as a hate crime. It's not the thinking hatred that is the crime, it's the murder. Murder is already a crime. There is no need to add layers of new law.
The current culture of our Congress is to continually drown the country in an avalanche of new law. Congress members speak in terms of having done this or that, meaning that they passed a new law to limit this or that which becomes their identification of success. While there may be an occasional need for a new law, the vast majority of new law is superfluous.
Case in point, Gay Civil Rights. Establishing laws to protect a specific minority can only lead to an avalanche of new minorities, all clamoring for specific legal protection.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 7, 2006 01:26 PMI didn't sign the petition, but had it been on the ballot, I would have voted for it. Not that I hate gays. I don't. While I believe the act of homosexuality is sin, I think denying a job or housing to someone who's gay simply because they're gay is dumb. BUT, I also think it's even dumber and far more dangerous to deny someone the right to associate with who they want and operate their business how they see fit. I can make an exception to things people can't change... like the sex they were born with or the continent their parents came from. But I've never met an ex-black or ex-woman (sorry, a sex change operation doesn't really change your sex beyond outward appearence). I HAVE met plenty of ex-homosexuals.
To be fair, I also have a problem with denying people the right to not sell me something or hire me because I'm a conservative Christian. I chose to be a Christian. I can deal with the consequences of that choice. While people don't "choose" to be gay the same way and I appreciate the fact it's far more complicated... having known enough ex-homosexuals and how they came to be gay in the first place... it is ultimately a lifestyle choice they can choose to change.
Posted by: Mike H on June 7, 2006 01:32 PMThe threat of not being able to fire someone because they are gay must really scare you! Oh no! The only reason gays are forced to talk about being gay is because you beat it out of 'em, force them to stand up for themselves, force them to point fingers at the people who are trying to destroy them. And if leads to gays getting married, that's fine by me. Keep citizen rights in government with legal unions and your version of morality in church with marriages. No big deal. God, are you all just a bunch of closet cases or what? How many of you are divorced? How many of you have cheated on your wire? How many of you have lust in your heart? Clean out your own closets before you pick on minorities.
If you were doing the right things, living as intended by the Creator, truly benefiting humanity and not fostering your own evil, dark fears, we'd all be a lot better off.
So congrats, bigots. You've given me a reason to support my nephew's struggles against your nazi propaganda even more.
Posted by: SeattleDweller on June 7, 2006 02:09 PMBy your yardstick can I presume that whenever you show dissent, disagreement, or an honest difference of opinion with me and my worldview that, by default, you are in reality expressing a bigoted, phobic, nazi-like, intolerant, fascist level of hate for me and my beliefs?
Get a grip. When someone doesn't agree with you, they don't automatically hate you. When you irrationally spout off, you start begin to make them dislike you.
Some anti discrimination laws are probably necessary. Carry them too far and all you do is create multitudes of victim classes, increase litigation and slowly break down the first amendment rights - "You have freedom of speech, except for...." "You have freedom of association, except for.....". It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 7, 2006 02:28 PMThose whom you say hate give valid reasons for opposing this legislation. Mike H displays Christian compassion for those living a life of sin, trapped by the lie that homosexuality cannot be overcome. I see no hate in these posts, only logic, reason and in at least one post, compassion.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 7, 2006 02:47 PMIn some ways, it may help diffuse some of the extreme elements of the Republican party (especially when they see the sky didn't fall and it's a loser for them).
Posted by: Mark Whitman on June 7, 2006 03:07 PM1- centralized government deciding what is best and not wanting the voters to decide.
2- belligerent racism [some class having privelidge over another].
#2 is valid here because contrary to what SeattleDweller asserts, this law essentially puts the gay card in the deck with the race card for reasons of why behavior that has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation will go unpunished.
Were you fired for being gay or for not showing up to work for a week? Doesn't matter if you've got the "gay card", your manager is a bigot and should be punished.
Posted by: Andy on June 7, 2006 03:08 PMAnd any lust in my heart is 100% directed to and for my wife, as we still have an awesome marriage, and getting better all the time!
So take your intolerant absurd generalized rants elsewhere.
Posted by: Fred on June 7, 2006 03:39 PMIn California there is a bill for DV support for gays....which excludes guess who?????
The purpose of AB 2051 is to provide funding for services for gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence. ... it excludes--and makes a specific point of excluding--heterosexual men and their children.
-----------
WHICH SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT IS BIGOTED?????????
I have the stock letters from Cantwell on this issue and I am appalled at her total lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Her answer is about as ignorant as a person can get. I have a hard time believing that even she believes it.
I have the stock letters from Cantwell on this issue and I am appalled at her total lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Her answer is about as ignorant as a person can get. I have a hard time believing that even she believes it.
Why don't you email your last post to Ed Murray? Be sure to include, "The rabid homosexuals
have caused early deaths of hundreds of thousands in the United States..."
Is being a "rabid homosexual" the same as being a rabid conservative?
Posted by: Jacob on June 7, 2006 05:13 PMBless you!
Too bad you seem to be unaware that AIDS is making its largest strides among heterosexuals, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Straight people spread VD, too. Lots of VD.
I can understand why homosexuality puts some people off. What puts me off is that in churches across this state people are conspiring to deny civil rights to others.
Several years ago, New Jersey passed an anti-discrimination law that was then used against the Boys Scouts. Some NJ legislators, who voted for it, said they never realized it would be used for that. In MA, parents are not allowed to object to their grade schoolers being taught that 2 fathers or 2 mothers are just as legitimate as a mother and a father. The Catholic adoption organization was told they had to place kids with same-sex couples in violation of their conscience. It didn’t matter that other adoption agencies were willing to place kids with same-sex couples. Where was the homosexual lobby saying they shouldn’t have to violate their conscience. Nope, they were silent. No, everyone must comply. This is all part of the public record and hardly disinformation.
Btw, are you saying that if HB2661 does provide an angle to legalize same-sex marriage in WA that the homosexual lobby would not use it?!?
Finally, you contradicted your claim that “HB2661 does absolutely NOTHING to eliminate dissent” by saying “you are still allowed hate gays & lesbians all you want, you just aren't allowed to deny them empolyment or housing based on that irrational hatred”. If “you aren’t allowed to deny” then you aren’t allowed to dissent. If a landlord doesn’t agree with homosexual behavior then TOO BAD! They have too do it under threat of government action. You just made my point.
You do realize that makes absolutely no sense, Stefan? You are such a moron.
Posted by: mountolympus on June 7, 2006 08:29 PMSince it didn't make it, maybe there aren't as many "hateful" people out there as thought. That being the case, perhaps HB2661 was actually a "solution" to a non-problem.
However, as we add more classes of victims and put the force of law behind any and all PERCEIVED slights or insults, then the first amendment rights we all rely upon will slowly be taken away from us.
Get your head out of the clouds and get some oxygen.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 7, 2006 08:54 PM- A day care can no longer fire a childcare worker for suddenly deciding to alternate gender identity at work -- woman one day - man the next - maybe something in-between for casual Fridays. If most of the parents go and pull their children from such a place, the place will undoubtedly go out of business, victimizing the small business owner.
- Deviant bisexual men can now legally hang out freely in a woman's public restroom. There is no crime unless something like a rape occurs. The harassment and discomfort it causes women must be "tolerated". Our public facilities are now much more dangerous and are no longer equally available to everyone.
These are real issues - read it yourself. There will be other implications of this law, but we have not thought about them all yet. Both of the situations above demonstrate that the law goes too far to create special classes of people and tries to redefine as "normal" what our society does not view as normal behavior. This was done by invoking noble causes like "civil rights" and "discrimination" and bulldozing over anyone who dared say anything.
Tim Eyman is no longer effective: his last 6 initiatves, only 1 passed, and 4 didn't make it on the ballet. But this issue is not dead yet.
Full 20 pages
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1515.pdf
These are committee notes:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1515.SBR.pdf
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1515.HBR.pdf
Your first example may be true; the business owner will be hurt. It's sad that a business owner may lose business, but situations like that don't happen as much as conservatives like to think.
Your second example is extremely idiotic. "Deviant bisexual men" cannot freely hang out in women's restrooms. (Read the bill again)
And yes, this issue is dead. The law will not be overturned by the legislature, by the people, or by the courts. It is here to stay. Forever.
"While people don't "choose" to be gay the same way and I appreciate the fact it's far more complicated... having known enough ex-homosexuals and how they came to be gay in the first place... it is ultimately a lifestyle choice they can choose to change."
I like the slight-of-logic performed in this statement. Do you know a statistically-significant number of ex-homosexuals to definitively prove that it is a lifestyle choice that can be successfully changed? How does this number compare to the number of "still-homosexuals" who are positive that their orientation is permanent? Moreover, since you are relying on anecdotal evidence, what gives the ex-homosexuals more credibility (other than their experience agreeing with your worldview and, thus, your argument)?
As it stands, and from what you've disclosed, your research into the issue is extremely biased and lacking in "trustworthiness", as the social scientists would say.
I mean, employing this same logic, I can say that I know enough ex-Catholics and ex-fundamentalists -- and "how they got to be that way" -- to know that Christianity is merely a lifestyle choice that can (or, worse, should) be conveniently changed.
But that would hardly be a sporting argument, now would it?
Peace,
Rev. Tom
MountOlympus - If the state were as full of stark raving mad, right wing religious nut, gay bashing, homophobes as some claim, don't you think R-65 would have made it to the ballot?
It's not that simple of an issue. Perhaps there is the Tim Eyman Factor. A good number of people are sick of his shit and, thus, hesitant to climb aboard his Hindenburg.
Since it didn't make it, maybe there aren't as many "hateful" people out there as thought. That being the case, perhaps HB2661 was actually a "solution" to a non-problem.
Are you suggesting a Gay Conspiracy to muck up the wheels of government, free markets, puppies, and all that is good by introducing frivolous and extraneous legislation... because they had nothing better to do in all the years that this legislation has been kicked about??? Was this all a big joke? "Ha ha... look at us... we will spend time and effort to get legislation passed for no good reason."
But seriously, you are confusing quality with quantity here, in a manner of speaking. It doesn't matter how many people hate gays (i.e. quantity) but, rather, that people, no matter how few, who have the power to discriminate (the "quality") should not do so.
However, as we add more classes of victims and put the force of law behind any and all PERCEIVED slights or insults, then the first amendment rights we all rely upon will slowly be taken away from us.
First, please elaborate on the mechanism by which this works! But, wait, before you do that, please explain why you are conflating federal law with state law.
Since you started it, that last part of the First Amendment states:
"...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Let me break it down in easy-to-follow bullet point fashion:
* Gay people notice they are being discriminated against. This is a grievance.
* Gay people realize they have no existing legal recourse to redress it.
* Gay people, through right and proper representative democracy, petition government to redress grievance.
* The oily gears of democracy, after numerous tries, prevail on the side of The Gays.
If anything, this exercise seems to prove that democracy, and the First Amendment actually work.
Now how exactly will this trample your rights to free speech, press, peaceably to assemble, to petition government, and to have Congress neither establish religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof?
Get your head out of the clouds and get some oxygen.
Indeed. Friend, that's the best thing you've said! Good advice all the way around the table; let us turn off the helium vents.
Cheers,
Rev. Tom
Thank you for your elitist, condescending comments. Normally, I'm kind of a live and let live person, but sometimes some things take it too far.
Hatred for Eyman doesn’t mean that he is automatically wrong. He had an idea that people did not agree with what their legislators did and that they may want to vote on it themselves. He started a referendum as allowed under the Washington Constitution "...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So what? I was concurring with Stefan that the lack of response to his referendum drive could show that SB2661 was not necessarily needed.
What specific instances of discrimination were cited during the legislative process? How many instances occurred? You seem to feel that if only one case occurred (“no matter how few”), that it would be more than enough to justify the law. So, would it be fair to say that our anti-discrimination law actually allows discrimination, except for the classes of people specifically delineated by the law?
I hardly believe that I was “conflating federal law with state law”. They exist simultaneously. Article I, SECTION 2 states: The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. Article I, Section 5 of the state Constitution grants, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
"Now how exactly will this trample your rights to free speech, press, peaceably to assemble, to petition government, and to have Congress neither establish religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof?"
The Boy Scouts, military recruiters, conservative speakers on college campuses, believers in traditional marriage, etc.
In these cases, these people have a different worldview than the protesters. They are shouted down, physically attacked and verbally abused. When they try to voice their grievances, they are generally labeled as right wing religious nut, gay bashing homophobes. In the case of the Boy Scouts, they won their first amendment, freedom of association case in the SCOTUS, but are still being harassed by groups around the country.
Well, quite honestly, and to use your words, “A good number of people are sick of [this] shit”.
Even though the state Constitution allows “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. (Article I, Section 11), if a person’s beliefs (creed) contradict the gay agenda, they are “molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion”.
RCW 49.60.xxx
The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 9, 2006 03:18 PM"Your second example is extremely idiotic. "Deviant bisexual men" cannot freely hang out in women's restrooms. (Read the bill again)"
From the bill:
(http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1515.pdf)
Sec. 3. RCW 49.60.030 and 1997 c 271 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:
...
(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
Sec. 4. RCW 49.60.040 and 1997 c 271 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:
...
(10) "Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement" includes, but is not limited to, any place, licensed or unlicensed,...
...and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants,...
...
(15) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity;
gender identity:
(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=561536909)
noun
Definition:
firm belief in own gender: the possession by somebody of a conviction of belonging to a particular sex, regardless of whether this corresponds to his or her anatomical sex
Gerald, with reference to the preceding citations, if a bisexual man states that his gender identity is female, and uses a public Women's restroom, would you not agree that this law recognizes that it is his right to do so?
Posted by: ewaggin on June 10, 2006 10:39 PMMy pleasure. I've found by reading the comments sections on this blog that civility -- on all sides of the ideological icosahedron -- is generally looked down upon. I'm hoping that my perceived elitism, at the very least, makes the standard condescension more enjoyable and entertaining.
First, it is extremely difficult to conclude from R-65's failure signifies that anti-gay discrimination doesn't exist. There are numerous other factors involved. Perhaps people aren't offended by this new law. Perhaps they are waiting to fight this battle later. Perhaps they have bigger fish to fry at the moment. Regardless, although the impetus for the new state law was, indeed, the assertion that anti-gay discrimination exists, this ballot measure has very little to do with either proving or disproving that assumption. If anything, the referendum was a vote on whether people cared whether or not a "sexual orientation" clause was codified into law.
Secondly, no I was not using the old "if it helps just one person than it was worth it" reasoning. Rather, I was saying that those in power (employers, for example, and others who can unfairly discriminate) should not discriminate . It is wrong any way you slice it and, sometimes, protection of a minority needs to be codified. I don't know the statistics on discrimination based on sexual orientation. On the one hand, it's hard to estimate historically since it wasn't technically illegal in the first place. Knowing a little about human nature, I can only guess that a fair number of such cases went unreported due to the immense human capacity to "suck it up" and "deal with it".
Still, though, when a minority finally gets enough muscle to stand up be counted... kudos.
Thirdly, as this is a state law, it was very odd of you to assert that, somehow, our First Amendment rights are at risk. You have to admit that it was quite a leap, and, by invoking a bedrock principle of something as profoundly important as the Bill of Rights, a loaded one at that. It was an grandiose comment designed only to generate a hysterical sound bite.
Finally, of the groups you list, none of those groups will have their First Amendment rights trodden upon in any way. They may speak, write, demonstrate against homosexuality as they desire. And, of course, they may get called to the mat for it. This is what we in America call debate (though, as you state and as this blog proves, it is not always polite). People get called insulting names or are viciously stereotyped; it happens all the time (do you read this blog, for example). Nowhere do you have a right to not be offended or to not get shouted down.
That said, nobody should be physically attacked for professing his/her beliefs. It is unfortunate and unlawful if and when it happens. If this has happened to anti-homosexual groups or individuals, the attackers should be prosecuted, just like should happen to those who attack homosexuals.
Now then, your last point is, indeed, an interesting one. Does the inability to discriminate against homosexuals due to one's personal/religious creed constitute a molestation of absolute freedom of conscience based on religion? I would say no, simply because one's conscience is not affected: one can still believe and feel homosexuality is wrong/sinful and that discriminating against homosexuals is the correct course of action. What the law doesn't allow is the unfair application of such personal, religious beliefs to civil, and secular, matters.
We do not live in a monolithic cultural theocracy; we live in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-ideological society. There must be room for both the Conservative Christian Agenda as well as the Gay Agenda... and that takes give-and-take on both sides.
Cheers
Posted by: Rev. Tom, on June 19, 2006 02:13 PM