If they don't want signers harassed, why are they disclosing their names?
In California donors to Proposition 8 have been identified and harassed. Time Magazine:
In addition to the protests, gay rights activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations that have donated money in support of Prop. 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Prop. 8 are publicized, and readers are urged not to patronize their businesses or services.Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento resigned his post after his name was posted. Was he harassed?
Here: Seattle Times Newspaper:
A gay-rights group is promising to "out" some people in a way, but in this case it won't mean exposing closeted gays.People can talk to their neighbors without posting them on this enemies list. Posted by Ron Hebron at June 02, 2009 07:14 AM | Email ThisInstead, members of Washington-based WhoSigned.org plan to shine a light on those who sign petitions for Referendum 71, an attempt by religious and conservative groups to overturn the state's 2009 Domestic Partner Expansion Bill.
When it takes effect July 26, the measure will give same-sex couples in Washington state the same rights and benefits as married couples.
Partnered with the gay-activist group KnowThyNeighbor.org, which has done the same thing in Oregon, Florida and Arkansas, WhoSigned.org plans to create a searchable database of names and addresses of people who sign petitions asking the Legislature to put the new domestic-partnership measure before voters in November.
Names on petitions are a matter of public record, but only after petitions have been certified by the secretary of state, which, in this case would be midsummer. If there aren't enough signatures, the names do not become public.
Larry Stickney of the political-action committee Protect Marriage Washington, which is behind the Referendum 71 petitions, said, "This seems to be a typical pattern developing around the country where the homosexual lobby employs hostile, undemocratic, intimidating tactics wherever their interests or intent are challenged.
"They take the politics of personal destruction to new levels. I am a personal recipient of dozens of obscene and threatening e-mails and phone calls since we filed this."
But WhoSigned.org spokesman Brian Murphy of Seattle said the purpose of making the petition names accessible isn't to incite harassment.
... "The main thing we want to have is a conversation," Murphy said.
All that said, it is the Secretary of State that makes this information public if a referendum gets certified. Are you willing to accuse him of intimidation? By law this information must become public so that we all can be sure that the names on the petitions were legitimate. It's called transparency. Fraud can be a big problem, especially if paid signature gatherers are hired.
And when voters take on the role of legislators with referenda, they should be prepared to go on public record advocating for their bill, just like real legislators do. If you don't want legislators backing and passing laws in secret, you can't stomp your feet when citizen-legislators are prevented from doing the same.
Did you know that your voter registration information, including phone number, is also public record, as well as a record of which elections you've voted in? That information is in dozens of databases across the state (both the gay and the anti-gay organizations have them) and yet I bet no one has tried to identify and intimidate you. So why would you think that would happen with this information, which has also always been available. Have you been harassed for signing other petitions? Alarmist much? I'd love to see you when a mouse walks in the room, lol!
Posted by: Lurleen on June 2, 2009 07:43 AMHmmm, just what sort of opposition snivels when a collection PERVS starts putting their names in public?
Posted by: juandos on June 2, 2009 08:10 AMThere can be only so many reasons for your nonsensically stated conclusion that this is not entirely based on the politics of homosexuality emulating the efforts of the nazi; the fascist; and the Soviet-style communist in your desire to intimidate anyone who may disagree with them.
No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a pig.
Are you just naive that you believe the bullshit you're ladling out? Are you that ignorant (Your reliance on newspaper editorials supporting your position as a reason to oppose these speaks to that) or are you, as I suspect, spinning this like a top to justify your side's efforts to silence the people of this state even further?
Where your argument falls apart (and it has fallen apart) is this: The signatures would become public whether your ilk sent out press releases on the subject, or not. That you're choosing to PUBLICIZE this fact is sheer, unadulterated, intimidation.
If it was NOT designed to intimidate, there would be exactly zero purpose in the release of press-releases by this militantly fascist political group, nor the trumpeting of their effort by the leftist media so in the tank for your side of the issue.
Please stop insulting our intelligence by attempting to call this elephant a gerbil. That you say it is doesn't make the elephant any smaller.
You're providing talking points in your despicable efforts to silence the people of this state because YOU don't WANT us to have a say.
Why the left generally and homosexuals particularly are so fearful of the political will of the people has always mystified me. That such is the case is confirmed by each and every one of your posts, Lurleen.
Posted by: Hinton on June 2, 2009 08:23 AMSure you're not. Most of these groups have a like-minded agenda and use one group propped up as a "legitimate" pro advocacy group silently nodding to someone like this Murphy mutt to resort to the dirty tactics allowing ERW deniability, yet still pushing their agenda through harrassment and intimidation. I'm sure Mr. Murphy is very receptive to unwanted solicitor calls to his residence and or the occasional mormon missionaries and Jehovah's witnesses knocking on his door just looking to "have a conversation".
Hypocrite.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2009 08:34 AMI personally don't care if gays marry each other, but voter intimidation makes me want to sign it just to make a statement against this kind of tactic. And if any gay activist came knocking on my door, first I'd tell them their threats were the reason I signed and then the sheriff would escort them off the property.
Posted by: pbj on June 2, 2009 09:35 AMcheers Mike
Posted by: Mike in Americas Vancouver on June 2, 2009 09:35 AMDidn't the editor of the hate paper "The Stranger" post pics and adresses of Mccain supporters who had lawn signs....
same intimidation tactics of the communist lefties.
All must be challenged...one way or another
Posted by: hellpig on June 2, 2009 09:56 AMNow? I will sign it and patiently wait to become 'informed' by some far left zealot.
Posted by: jimg on June 2, 2009 10:02 AMAddress the issues, show me where I'm wrong, and I will cheerfully apologize.
But your efforts to justify this garbage splatter back on you. It's the same kind of reception you should expect if you were to come in here and try and defend, say, slavery, or child pornography.
You've come in here, and assumed we're stupid. We're not.
Your side typically calls anyone who disagrees with your position a "homophobe" or a "bigot."
And you come in here and whine about "personal attacks?"
You would be much better served if you would go police your side of this issue, and stop posting here like you believe were a bunch of morons who can't see the truth of this matter.
YOU. Yes, YOU, PERSONALLY, are attempting to silence the people of this state on this issue.
And if you believe that when I point that fact out that equates to a "personal attack," well, that is just too damned bad.
Posted by: Hinton on June 2, 2009 10:10 AMHe may have just made himself and his cause a victim of [Brian] "Murphy's law"...what can go wrong will go wrong. DOH!!
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2009 10:20 AMI also think it's totally reasonable to protest, lobby, or boycott people or entities that are contributing to parties or candidates one dislikes or signing petitions for initiatives one opposes, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of violating their property rights.
Of course this cuts both ways - I have just as much right to protest, lobby, or boycott someone signing a pro-gay-rights initiative as you do to protest, lobby, or boycott someone signing the Ref 71 petition.
In the end, it's better we know our neighbors views and that the signatures and contributions come from real entities.
Posted by: humbow on June 2, 2009 11:14 AMThese records should be public for a variety of reasons -- I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Supporters of gay rights can feel free to point out those who are holding them back. This isn't about a petty political differences -- it's about the rights of a certain segment of our population. If one is going to be embarrassed about denying people equal rights, maybe one shouldn't deny those rights!
If there were a referendum to support gay marriage, I would not be opposed to a website pointing out my support of that referendum. I, in fact, would be proud of my signature.
For all the gestapo talk in this thread we should realize that this referendum is designed specifically to take away the civil rights of a group. Nope, not deny marriage, but deny domestic partnerships. It is -- plain and simple -- bigotry; a judgment that homosexual couples do not deserve the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples receive. If you wish your government to act in the name of your bigotry, I question your moral authority to throw out terms like "gestapo" and "fascist." The oppressive state always loses yet that is what support of this referendum entails.
It is very telling that Sound Politics has yet to post why this referendum is wrong but instead inventing progressive enemies to attack. Those are the principles that conservatives are proud of? Finding progressives to attack? There's more to life than identifying who to hate, Mr. Hebron.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 12:41 PMHomosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against nor should they be targeted for violence because of their orientation. How is that inconsistent with equal rights?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 12:46 PMThis referendum has nothing to do with gay marriage.
@25 the outers are instructing their followers to go to the persons who signs homes and place of business to confront.
What evidence do you have of that? You're just making this up.
Some people are going to do some things with public data. I would never confront someone physically over gay marriage, just as you'd never murder a doctor who performed abortions. I'm not in the business of defending everyone's actions. But these records are already public, and I would personally not use a business whose owner was against domestic partnership rights. If this site were to help me find any businesses that I wish not to support, then I'll be happy about its existence.
On the other hand, the referendum won't get enough signatures so it doesn't really matter. Washingtonians have no problem with domestic partnerships, as they shouldn't.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 01:17 PMYeah and we would never kill a Army recruiter either.
PS... Look up some the CODE PINK statements on hate. (frag your officers)
Then get back to us.
These people are hypocrites.
Even Dick Cheney said yesterday: "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." (speech at the National Press Club)
As Barry Goldwater said in 1981: "The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism'."
Any person who signs a petition to deprive others of basic rights deserves to have their name made public. And these people are certainly not "conservatives."
What some people here are labeling as "harassment" is simply choosing not to support businesses that disagree with your views on civil rights. That isn't harassment, it's consumer choice. I am against this referendum, and I wouldn't frequent a business whose owner supported it.
If someone crosses the line and uses public records to intimidate another, then that's wrong left or right. It's also against the law. But no where is anyone advocating for intimidation, they are advocating for informed consumer choice and speaking with your neighbors. How is that like the "gestapo"?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 02:28 PMMaybe to let LGBT people and their allies know who funded the sordid mess known as Proposition 8. That way we can, if we so choose, stop giving them *our* money that they then turn around and use to harm us. You know, by donating to things like Proposition 8. People have a right to donate to any cause they want. But we have a right to not give them our money to do it with.
Posted by: Buffy on June 2, 2009 02:38 PMWhat do people think is going to happen? Gay rights advocates like myself are going to toss rainbows and unicorns in your house?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 02:44 PMThe rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals are perfectly equal. There is nothing under the law that a heterosexual can do that a homosexual cannot also do with regards to marriage.
This referendum is not about gay marriage.
Your justification has obviously implications of bigotry and I will not argue on those limited, dishonest terms.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 03:20 PMI believe that there is no happiness like the happiness in marriage. I know from experience, being married for 10 years and having 5 children.
I believe that it is more than a contract---it is a total commitment of self to each other and to the children. It is an agreement between man, woman, the state, and God. All children in Washington State deserve a loving father and mother, and it is up to the state to see that marriage---the only institution allowed by law to adopt children---be between a man and a woman.
This has to do with morality, common sense, charity, and the love of the children. If we lose this, we have already lost everything.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 2, 2009 03:34 PMI'm sorry you're so reluctant to debate. I know it's hard.
I do consider myself conservative and I used to try to say witty things to my conservative friends like "they want to get married and join the boyscouts. That would make them practically republican!" but I just don't have the energy for it anymore. Now I say something rude that probably gets me uninivited to the next social get together.
I guess the one thing I'd say that is printable here is that if the religious right wants to take away peoples right to marry because loving someone of the same sex is wrong in their belief, well folks, you might win today and deny these people of their rights.
In 20 years when the non-religious in this society are the majority and lobbying successfully to take away YOUR children or your childrens children because in the majorities view, believing in some supernatural higher power is not healthy for kids, you remember that forcing your own beliefs on others can work both ways.
(Don't believe that someone would take your kids away because you teach them to believe in God? It was already happening in Vietnam, Cuba and other countries 30 years ago. It can happen here.)
That all said, this stunt amounts to Left-wing fascism and responsible people on the left really should police their own ranks. Righties do own guns, know how to use them, and are still willing to defend themselves and their families from fascism in any form. (And this smells horribly of fascism to me.) Someone could get hurt here.
Posted by: johnny on June 2, 2009 03:35 PMThere are people being hurt. People who are fooled into believing that happiness is always around the corner if you follow the latest fad.
This has to do with the family, the bedrock of American society. If we abandon the traditional family, what do people have left? Where can they turn?
The societal stress that we are seeing today is a direct result of the assault on traditional moral values with regards to the family over the past century. Whatever good things are left in our country are those things where we have remained firm in our moral convictions regarding the family.
If we want to maximize personal happiness, it can only be done in the home. The church, the office, the government halls cannot offer happiness. All they can do is make sure that life in the home continues unharmed.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 2, 2009 03:44 PMHmmm. Wonder if Mr. Jensen is on the governments "do not call" list for telemarketers. If he is, how does he reconcile endorsing some group harassing me at home because I don't agree with their particular political agenda, but not some telmarketer simply trying to solicit a (his words) "consumer choice" upon himself.
For this I get called a bigot by the way.
Posted by: Gary on June 2, 2009 03:54 PMThat's great and I'm happy for you. I hope that one day all couples who love each other are able to get married. However, this referendum is not about gay marriage. You've unfortunately wasted your money.
@35 Gary: I'm sorry you're so reluctant to debate. I know it's hard.
You're for denying equal rights and responsibilities to gay couples through domestic partnerships, and you're being purposefully dense about denying those rights and responsibilities. I don't get anything out of people who are being intentionally dense to win an argument. You're treating a serious issue like a semantics word game, and it's petty.
@36 johnny, your post was great to read but your ending is overboard: Righties do own guns, know how to use them, and are still willing to defend themselves and their families from fascism in any form. (And this smells horribly of fascism to me.) Someone could get hurt here.
Signatures for referendums are always public. Boycotting a restaurant that opposes equal rights is not fascism. I cannot believe that you're saying "righties own guns" and "know how to use them" while lamenting about progressive fascism. Your threats of violence are hardly encouraging of discussion in the public square! :)
Government transparency and consumer choice are not fascist principles. I can't say the same for denying a segment of the population equal rights.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 03:57 PMIt is not your right nor the right of the government to determine how one can maximize their personal happiness. The halls of government cannot maximize happiness by denying equal rights to gay couples.
@39 Rick D If he is, how does he reconcile endorsing some group harassing me at home because I don't agree with their particular political agenda, but not some telmarketer simply trying to solicit a (his words) "consumer choice" upon himself.
How do you reconcile beating your wife with your support of the "do-not-call" list?
I have never endorsed any group harassing anyone, you loon. I've said I don't want to support businesses that are against equal rights -- what is the big deal with that?
@40 Gary Rick, and I certainly would not harass anybody (or boycott their business) if they run a petition I would ultimately vote against.
I have no obligation to support business owners whom I disagree with. If you think it makes you a better person to look beyond these differences, fine. But me exercising the consumer choice we all have as Americans is not something you need to weigh in on. I also don't eat at Applebee's because the food is garbage, do you want to lecture me about how fascist I am because of that, too? Get over yourself.
For this I get called a bigot by the way.
You get called a bigot for advocating that homosexuals "turn" straight to enjoy equal rights. Homosexual couples deserve the same rights and privileges as straight couples, and the domestic partnership law in question supplies that.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 04:13 PMOr, what Jonathan is saying is... things were much better when he could beat his wife legally.
Posted by: demo kid on June 2, 2009 04:13 PM(And you are still arguing with me. Or are you arguing in your spare time?)
Let me know when you officially stop arguing with me, thanks.
Posted by: Gary on June 2, 2009 04:19 PMNone of these benefits are "special" not granted just to "state employees." The rights and responsibilities of domestic partnerships are the same as those given to straight married couples -- these aren't "special" rights, they're equal rights -- and the law applies to everyone not just public employees.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 04:19 PMWhoSigned.org plans to create a searchable database of names and addresses of people who sign petitions asking the Legislature to put the new domestic-partnership measure before voters in November.
Now imagine if the tables were turned and a website(s) published the names and addresses of everyone that signed a referendum to change the state statute that bans "gay marriage in this state. Can you just hear the howling that would come from gay groups, EWR and the "hate free zone" nuts? Not to mention the articles forthcoming from the Deadtree Times and P-I website editorialists. They'd be comparing it to publishing the addresses and names of abortion doctors...
A little consistency would be nice here.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2009 04:23 PMThese signatures are public knowledge. In contrast to your hypothetical, I would be proud to have my signature broadcast to the world. I am in happy to be in favor of expanding rights to all citizens in the American tradition.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 04:29 PMI take it from that non-sensical statement that you are in fact on the government's "do not call" list for solicitors. A hypocrite exposed yet again.
I will support plenty of businesses that don't agree with me on a variety of issues. I'll shop at a store even if they don't support health care reform, for example. Civil rights is not an issue I compromise on: I will not support businesses that oppose gay rights. It is simply that important to me. I think each of us has their own set of core beliefs that are more important than others. I think that gay rights is the fundamental civil rights issue in my generation. I can sympathize with no argument wishing to disallow domestic partnerships.
My landlords are a happy, great gay couple with one of the most beautiful four-year-old girls I've ever seen. She's happy, playful, loves being tosses, and always gives me gifts she finds in the backyard (little stones). They are an American family, a happy and successful one, and I'm not going to support businesses that want to deny that.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 05:23 PMAs for my religious views... Who said I'm religious? From what I have written, you know that I am tolerant of the law, and of the voting process. You don't know a thing about my views on the actual subject of the petition do you?
When you go to a business, do you always ask the proprietor if he agrees with your political views? You wouldn't want to be tolerating intolerance now would you? Do you have a check list that he has to sign?
Posted by: Gary on June 2, 2009 06:21 PMGood God, what a hypocrite. Your ilk attacks in every way possible, including lies and exaggerations, whenever you're confronted with someone or something you don't agree with, and you whip out this kind of bullshit? The left REEKS with intolerance.
And, as for Jensen, are we at the point where we should argue the Referendum?
I really don't give a damn what's in it. I don't care what the arguments are. What I care about is the ability to vote on this issue.
Once we get this on the ballot, then let the games begin. But doing everything possible to silence us on this issue? That's a whole different other thing.
And saying "domestic partnerships are not marriage rights" over and over again does not make it so.
By all means, feel free to entertain us with the vast differences between the two. I really want to know what, at the state level, a married couple can do that a grouping under "domestic partners" cannot.
My guess is that the lists will be surprisingly similar.
But at this point, surprisingly irrelevant. The harder your side fights to keep this off the ballot and keep the people silent on this issue, the harder we'll fight to get it there.
Posted by: Hinton on June 2, 2009 07:13 PMWhen you go to a business, do you always ask the proprietor if he agrees with your political views?
If a site pointed out that he was for this bigoted referendum then I wouldn't need to ask. And if he was wearing a pin advocating against gay rights, I wouldn't give him my business.
But no, I don't ask, and I'm sorry I'm so inconsistent. I guess you've discovered my flaw and I should change my principles to match yours.
@61 Hinton, domestic partnership isn't marriage because it isn't called "marriage." There also aren't the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage.
However, in terms of state rights and responsibilities, it does fall in line with civil marriage rights. I do not think it is controversial to allow powers of attorney to be given when a loved one dies, or to handle custody appropriately, or to allow a loved one to collect insurance. I do not believe the state should withhold these civil rights from same-sex couples -- all couples in the state deserve them. I do not hide my support of gay marriage, but this isn't gay marriage. It's civil unions and it is dishonest to call it marriage.
@62 James, If gays wish to use economic and personal intimidation with these little tantrums, perhaps Hot Pink LGBDT (or whatever that stupid acronym is) stickers plastered on all of their businesses and mailboxes are in order so people who do not wish to associate with such bigots can simply avoid them.
First of all, rainbow beer signs.
Second, what the hell is "economic intimidation"?
Are you saying that I have to support businesses that fundamentally disagree with my views on civil rights? Must I support country clubs that don't allow black or female members? Am I forced to give donations to the GOP regardless of how much I disagree with them? Should I be compelled to donate to churches when I have a distaste for their policies?
No, you don't think that, of course. So it's not "economic intimidation," it's choosing to spend my hard-earned money on businesses and groups I support.
In terms of "personal intimidation," it's a straw man. No one here and no one in the article and no one at the group supports any sort of intimidation or harassment. Yes, it's wrong, but this information is already public.
My mother voted for Prop. 8 and I certainly didn't intimidate her; I told her she was wrong on one of the core issues of my time and left it at that.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 08:18 PMI wonder how they would like it if there was a website with a map showing where they lived, along with their name, age, description, etc.? Do you think that might intimidate them and keep them from becoming legal domestic partners? Not that it was done to intimidate anyone, you understand - just done to start up a "conversation" in the neighborhood, right?
Look, I wasn't going to sign this stupid thing but I damn sure am now and I might even donate $100 to Faith & Family so that they can get more signatures.
I can tell you that should it make the ballot in November I will *not* vote to repeal the legislation for domestic partnerships, because I don't see how it harms me one bit, but I do think that the voters of this state need to address this once and for all and then live with the result. That quickest way to get resolution on this controversial issue is to put it to the people, and that's exactly why I'm signing the petition.
Posted by: Smoley on June 2, 2009 08:18 PMBut you're no principled conservative. You're thinking of every trick, rhyme, and reason to deny equal rights to your fellow citizen. That's not small government at work, that's forcing your views into the love lives of others. And it's wrong.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 08:23 PMThere are sites that map out political contributions for every campaign: mass transit campaigns, Obama, McCain, etc. What rush of violence and intimidation happens because of them? None.
I hope you don't waste your $100. It won't go toward teaching people about the difference between civil unions and gay marriage, it'll go toward misleading and scaring people, and preaching that civil unions will harm families. That is wrong, and you acknowledge that.
That quickest way to get resolution on this controversial issue is to put it to the people, and that's exactly why I'm signing the petition.
I hope you reconsider. We do not need to put civil rights up to a vote. We have a legislature to write legislation, and that is our check. If this vote was sufficiently misguided, we can unelected those legislators.
Initiatives and referendums are not always decided on what's right or wrong, but by which special interest group spends the most money. I have no doubt that the referendum process, with its heavy reliance on paid signature gatherers and funded by operations like "Protect MARRIAGE" (when this bill has NOTHING to do with marriage), hurts the democratic process more than helps it. Proponents in a general election will continue their current scare tactics: They'll lie and say it's about marriage rights, they'll scare families into thinking their first graders will be taken to leather night in Capitol Hill, and they'll seek to divide the state. In the end they'll lose, but I'm unconvinced that having a long election process provides a quicker end than simply allowing the law to be enacted.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 08:33 PM"On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Prop. 8 are publicized, and readers are urged not to patronize their businesses or services." So yes, 'economic intimidation'.
Personal intimidation? ... Again, yes. June 01 '09 The Seattle Times, re Ref 71 ... "In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights".
And yes, you do have the freedom to choose where and how to spend your money, as do we all. It's just that for me personally, it's never been an issue until now, as I see my freedom of expression being ridiculed and stifled with verbal violence and threatened confrontation simply because I choose to exercise my rights by signing a petition.
How tolerant!
and no ... I would never go out of my way to boycott a business because it was owned by a gay person, first it's none of my business, and second I love all people: after all, it's the conservative way. I was making a point of how petty and mean some people are being.
Too bad liberals can't grow up a bit. We are all in this together, after all.
Posted by: James on June 2, 2009 08:56 PMIt's a complete embarassment that four states have gay marriage and we aren't even considering it. This is going to be a serious black eye and ultimately hurt tourism here (I'm serious).
Oldstyle Conservatives: Try hard to get past this loser issue of yours.
The country needs your constructive energy and thoughts, not your meddling into people's love lives.
It's time to let go.
Thanks all,
new left conservative 1
We have the freedom to not support bigotry. Why the hell is that so hard to understand? We are not obligated to support bigotry. It is not intimidation to use facts to inform how we spend our money.
Personal intimidation? ... Again, yes. June 01 '09 The Seattle Times, re Ref 71 ... "In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights".
So talking to your friends is "personal intimidation"? Did I intimidate my mom when I talked with her about prop. 8? I am intimidating you right now by talking with you about gay rights? Are you scared?
Look, there are similar maps for political donations. Is there some wave of violence and intimidation that the media is hiding from us?
All the cry-babies here are ridiculous. All this whining about "intimidation" and "economic freedom," wah wah wah. I don't want anyone to be intimidated or harassed, no one does. But the larger wrong is denying gay couples equal rights.
I was making a point of how petty and mean some people are being. Too bad liberals can't grow up a bit. We are all in this together, after all.
Denying someone equal civil rights is "petty and mean," why would I support a business that does that?
Oh come on, stop being so accusatory. I've articulated myself pretty well about my personal convictions. Acting like you're better because you shop at gay stores misses the point entirely.
I would never go out of my way to boycott a business because it was owned by a straight person or a gay person, that isn't the issue. The opposite of gay is not one opposed to equal rights, it's straight. There is a difference between simply being straight and being opposed to equal rights.
In other words, if you shopped a black-owned stores while voting to deny them equal rights at the polls then you're not absolved. And if I supported black civil rights, then I'd be justified to avoid businesses that advocated against equal rights. What's different here? Nothing. None of us should shop at a business if we knew it was owned by a member of the KKK -- we just don't want to support that.
So no, I'm not intimidating anyone, I'm participating in the free market.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 2, 2009 09:34 PMWhen do I get a herring?
Posted by: The Trained Seal on June 2, 2009 09:38 PMWasn't the Moral Majority all about boycotting Disney when they sponsored Gay Days?
Oh, and remind me, who won that fight?
new left conservative 1
People who support expanded rights and responsibilities for domestic partners, such as hospital visiting rights etc . . . in the state of Washington do not want to take anything away from you!
We do not want to come into your home and tell you what marriage is!
But domestic partners, as they stand now, do not enjoy many rights that other couples enjoy. This expansion of the domestic partner bill addresses some of those shortcomings. This includes heterosexual domestic partners as well.
Gays exist, and always have. If they have the ability to file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital will not destroy the American way of life.
Is our society so weak as to allow expanded domestic partnerships to undermine it completely.
You can have your marriage and define it how ever you please. I want nothing to do with that. Its between you and your god.
Where are the libertarian style conservatives on this one?
Posted by: Yowza on June 2, 2009 10:10 PMYou don't have to have a land line to be on the "do not call list".
REGISTER YOUR HOME OR MOBILE PHONE NUMBER
So no, that doesn't help at all.I'd bet money you're on that list, John. Aside from that inconsistency, why would the U.S. Government set up such a site if they didn't hear a huge outcry from the public about the level of nuisance calls to their residences and the need to have their privacy protected?
Rick, there are those who need these lists and such so that they know who *not* to associate with. They want less diversity in their lives. They will not trade with those who do not share their political beliefs, because to them politics is above all else. It's like a religion. Their circle of associates gets smaller and smaller.
Gary's exactly right on with this. Politics is a religion to the left and they're absolute zealots about it. They snicker and sneer at the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses prosthletizing door to door to push their religion, yet when it comes to the LIBERAL RELIGION (i.e. Political ideology), well, the infidels must be converted. It's imperative that they have a conversation with us and sway us that we're mistaken about our 'free will' and choice to sign a petition in support of a referendum to put an issue on the ballot for consideration by voters in a Democratically held election.
That line of thought is fundamentally anti-Democratic and Un-American to boot.
Similar to the Presidents ridiculous version of "bi-partisanship" in D.C. means if you don't agree with the president, you're being disagreeable. Asinine logic on its face.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2009 10:49 PMSome progressives do that, too. A lot of people tend to use generalities. I don't. You are the exact type of person you're mocking.
When Gary says I want less diversity or my circle of associates is shrinking, he is wrong. Gary should stop speculating as to the personal motives of others. I seek to convert you infidels no more than any of you seek to convert me.
No progressive denies you have a choice to sign the referendum. Indeed, you may have a choice to vote against civil unions. The progressive position is not about denying choice -- that is you vilifying the other side needlessly. The progressive position is equal rights for gay citizens of this great state. Since the legislature has passed this bill we'd rather see it implemented than face an unnecessary referendum that'll cost the public and activist groups on both sides bundles of money.
As a principle, I don't really believe the referendum or initiative process is an effective way to govern. California is an example of a state that been hampered by these processes. However, this is a complex philosophy that is my own -- not any party's -- and one I have put thought into. I simply believe a representative democracy is the best solution, which is what the founding fathers believed as well when they implemented the bicameral congress at the federal level. Direct votes are simply less democratic, in my opinion, since they are so open to manipulation by special interest groups ("Protect Marriage").
As a further principle, I don't believe that civil rights issues should be left to majority rule. The tyranny of the majority is not healthy for a democracy -- our constitutional history proves that. Brown vs. Board was thrust upon a nation that may not have been ready for it; but it was a necessary deed. (Gay rights issues will be resolved in a different manner certainly.)
Finally, I don't think business owners who seek to withhold civil rights from gay couples deserve my patronage. Because the issue is important to me, I treat it with importance. No one here would eat at a restaurant ran by a leader of the KKK or an anti-Semitic group. I do not choose to draw a distinction between racism and homophobia, and that is my choice (eh, Rick?).
I'd shop at a business ran by a staunch republican, and as far as I know I do all the time! I do not vilify the opposite party. The GOP made a lot of mistakes during the last eight years and they have work to do to reform themselves. But the party as a whole is not evil or stupid. There are conservatives like George F. Will who I have a great deal of respect for and often agree with.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 12:21 AMScrew them. Anyone know where I can go to sign it?
Posted by: Scaramouche on June 3, 2009 12:52 AMPeople often support positions held by other people that "earn their respect". That is basic human nature and is a foundation of democracy. The fact that gay rights advocacy has been hijacked by a bunch of zealots with no respect for others makes the public think "why would I ever support anything these rude disrespectful fascists support?". That is the real problem here, and it's not confined to gay rights...it is persistent in many "progressive" issues.
Can you at least admit that the gay rights "movement" has been taken over by fascists and this WhoSigned.org clown is just another fascist?
Personally, if you are worried that your friends, neighbors or others in the community will discover you have signed this petition, then you shouldn't sign it. Conversely, if you want to make a statement by signing the petition, then you should welcome the amplification of that statement that this website will bring. I think there's a verse of scripture about things done in the dark being brought into the light.
Posted by: AD on June 3, 2009 02:42 AMUm, you look in the mirror much there, John? I'd say you're the very person you just described having looked at your numerous posts above.
Just a sampling of your mumblings:"Gestapo talk on this board", "Bigotry", "targeted [homosexuals] for violence", "...loony, crazy conservatives".
Wow, you have some stones to project your exact debate style onto me, bud.
I have a more diverse life because I work in Seattle as a conservative and manage to actually get along pretty well with others of the opposite political bent. Know why John? Because I learned long ago to keep it on the down low. I live by the "no politics and no religion" mantra while at work because the few times it has come up, you have some person, not unlike you John, want to get into an emotional debate that isn't going to change any minds and is more likely than not, going to just damage an otherwise amicable friendship. Liberals don't simply disagree with conservatives and a conservative philosophy, they loathe them personally. I've had this happen far too many times in "tolerant" Seattle for this not to be the rule rather than the exception. In my lifetime I've lived in about 5 other cities larger than Seattle and everyone of them was liberal leaning. I can tell you from experience that Seattle is the "LEAST DIVERSE" and "LEAST TOLERANT" city that I have lived.
The progressive position is not about denying choice -- that is you vilifying the other side needlessly.
No, the progressive position is to stop any referendum of this kind from reaching the ballot in the first place by harassment and/or threats to signers. Those wishing to restrict the democratic process are inherently anti-Democratic. That means you, John.
Since the legislature has passed this bill we'd rather see it implemented than face an unnecessary referendum that'll cost the public and activist groups on both sides bundles of money.
As I pointed out in the previous paragraph john. That statement is anti-Democratic and anti-American. You eschew the 'will of the people' for the will of a few in the legislature. You don't even realize it do you?
As a principle, I don't really believe the referendum or initiative process is an effective way to govern...Direct votes are simply less democratic, in my opinion, since they are so open to manipulation by special interest groups ("Protect Marriage").
Of course not. You trust the will of the government over the will of the people. You really should read the founding fathers writings more, John. "Of the people, for the people, by the people" remember?
Finally, I don't think business owners who seek to withhold civil rights from gay couples deserve my patronage. Because the issue is important to me, I treat it with importance. No one here would eat at a restaurant ran by a leader of the KKK or an anti-Semitic group. I do not choose to draw a distinction between racism and homophobia, and that is my choice (eh, Rick?).
There is no "civil right" restriction by referendum 71. This is an emotional argument you'd prefer to argue rather than one based in reality.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 06:42 AMYou can't. "Shut up!", he explained.
Posted by: Gary on June 3, 2009 07:12 AM"There is no "civil right" restriction by referendum 71. This is an emotional argument you'd prefer to argue rather than one based in reality."
To quote our friend Pudge, you're a liar, Rick. And even if this dumb referendum makes it to the ballot the law that the legislature passed and the governor signed is going to be upheld.
...you have yet to refute my point, ivan. Unless calling me a "liar" somehow logically makes your point, which it doesn't. I'd say to the contrary, it only reinforces mine.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 08:11 AMYou and other conservative posters on here do exactly the same thing. Point?
Wow, you have some stones to project your exact debate style onto me, bud.
It's not projecting if it actually exists.
I have a more diverse life because I work in Seattle as a conservative and manage to actually get along pretty well with others of the opposite political bent. Know why John? Because I learned long ago to keep it on the down low. I live by the "no politics and no religion" mantra while at work because the few times it has come up, you have some person, not unlike you John, want to get into an emotional debate that isn't going to change any minds and is more likely than not, going to just damage an otherwise amicable friendship.
How exactly is it that relevant? What you're essentially saying is that when you're at work, you're at work.
Liberals don't simply disagree with conservatives and a conservative philosophy, they loathe them personally. I've had this happen far too many times in "tolerant" Seattle for this not to be the rule rather than the exception.
And this differs from conservatives in what way, precisely?
In my lifetime I've lived in about 5 other cities larger than Seattle and everyone of them was liberal leaning. I can tell you from experience that Seattle is the "LEAST DIVERSE" and "LEAST TOLERANT" city that I have lived.
Surprisingly, I agree with you... but there's a difference between talking about "liberals" and talking about "Seattle".
The progressive position is not about denying choice -- that is you vilifying the other side needlessly.
Yet AGAIN, how is this different from conservatives?
No, the progressive position is to stop any referendum of this kind from reaching the ballot in the first place by harassment and/or threats to signers. Those wishing to restrict the democratic process are inherently anti-Democratic. That means you, John.
It's public information, and I haven't as yet seen proof that "intimidation" is going to go beyond a list of names. Besides... what's the point? If someone was determined to harass random voters, they would look up this public information themselves.
And in terms of "harassment and/or threats to signers", I sure think that if you keep the company of strict Mormons or Catholics and they find out that you don't support this measure, they won't simply "respect your opinion".
As I pointed out in the previous paragraph john. That statement is anti-Democratic and anti-American. You eschew the 'will of the people' for the will of a few in the legislature. You don't even realize it do you?
Hmmm... so the Founding Fathers loved referenda so much, they put them in the Constitution, right? Still, if this referendum doesn't pass, are you going to accept it as the "will of the people", and suddenly get behind the concept of gay partnerships?
Of course not. You trust the will of the government over the will of the people. You really should read the founding fathers writings more, John. "Of the people, for the people, by the people" remember?
That refers to the responsibility of the government, not the means by which the people are governed. As several of your compatriots are often quick to point out, we don't live in a true "democracy": we live in a republic.
But then, if you're so concerned about the "will of the people", what do you think then when Larry brags about wording the question to take advantage of people that just decide to vote "no" on everything? What will you think when this doesn't pass?
There is no "civil right" restriction by referendum 71. This is an emotional argument you'd prefer to argue rather than one based in reality.
If you take the position that gay couples are not getting equal protection under the law specifically because they are gay, then yes, it is a civil rights issue.
Posted by: demo kid on June 3, 2009 08:20 AMI'm sure you'd say the same if a group like the NRA compiled a searchable database on those that have signed a petition endorsing a referendum on restricting gun ownership. Effectively putting out a list to criminals of which residences they can count on that a firearm isn't present and thus, a better target for home invasion, burglary, etc. You'd be the first one to squeal about this scenario Demo Kid and you know it. Can you say slippery slope?
choosing to sign or not sign a petition endorsing a referendum to be placed on a ballot is the height of the democratic process. It enables an issue to be voted on by the governed and given an up or down vote to become law in this state. Cowards would prefer that this process be removed and the people simply acquiesce to the legislature and their special interest groups pulling their strings. That is not the American way, but the "liberal" way.
Why do individuals that claim to be "progressive", hate the democratic process in a democratic republic?
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 08:37 AM86. @82 ...you spend paragraph after paragraph saying liberal this, zealot that, un-American this, homosexual agenda this etc. and you're oh-so constructive and willing to let the other spectrum into your lives openly?
Um, you look in the mirror much there, John? I'd say you're the very person you just described having looked at your numerous posts above. Just a sampling of your mumblings:"Gestapo talk on this board", "Bigotry", "targeted [homosexuals] for violence", "...loony, crazy conservatives".
You and other conservative posters on here do exactly the same thing. Point?
The "point" is that when a leftist comes in here and whines and snivels like Jensen, and then accuses others of doing the exact same thing he himself is doing, then he's a stark, raving hypocrite.
There. Let me know if you need any additional assistance in your sadly lacking reading comprehension.
The problem with that statement is that they are getting equal protections under the law. By your standard of logic, single people are not receiving the same equal protection status as married couples because they're single.
So no, it is not a civil rights issue.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 08:47 AMWashington State Constitution :
ARTICLE II
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
Like it or not, John. The people are the ultimate "legislature" in this state. And unlike the one in Olympia, the special interests groups don't hold as much sway amongst the many across the state as they do amongst the few in Olympia.
Face it, you lose this argument on merit no matter how much it displeases you and the other "progressives".
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 10:27 AM"Must I support country clubs that don't allow black or female members? Am I forced to give donations to the GOP regardless of how much I disagree with them? Should I be compelled to donate to churches when I have a distaste for their policies?"
The answer is YES! Fair is fair. For decades now we have been forced to support those things with our taxes. Public television is notoriously left wing and our taxes are confiscated to pay for it.
I never bought a GM vehicle in my life (I refuse to buy crap) and now I will be forced by the government to pay for GM.
Posted by: pbj on June 3, 2009 10:27 AMMaybe the anti-abortion people just want to have a "conversation".
Posted by: pbj on June 3, 2009 10:40 AM"Gestapo talk on this board"
Um, I was quoting people calling liberals the gestapo, Rick.
"Bigotry"
Expecting someone to change to your lifestyle or ideals is bigotry.
"targeted [homosexuals] for violence"
That happens. Not by you or folks here, but it happens. How is that wrong to state?
"...loony, crazy conservatives".
I was specifically calling everyone here NOT loony nor crazy. Great context there.
I have a more diverse life because I work in Seattle as a conservative and manage to actually get along pretty well with others of the opposite political bent. Know why John? Because I learned long ago to keep it on the down low. I live by the "no politics and no religion" mantra while at work because the few times it has come up, you have some person, not unlike you John, want to get into an emotional debate that isn't going to change any minds and is more likely than not, going to just damage an otherwise amicable friendship. Liberals don't simply disagree with conservatives and a conservative philosophy, they loathe them personally. I've had this happen far too many times in "tolerant" Seattle for this not to be the rule rather than the exception. In my lifetime I've lived in about 5 other cities larger than Seattle and everyone of them was liberal leaning. I can tell you from experience that Seattle is the "LEAST DIVERSE" and "LEAST TOLERANT" city that I have lived.
Rick, you don't know anything about me and you should stop speculating. This is a political website -- what the fuck do you want me to talk about? Excel spreadsheets? This ain't work, son. I have plenty of friends and co-workers who don't see eye-to-eye with me on political issues; and I don't typecast conservatives.
I do not loathe conservatives personally. I dislike you because you are a presumptive idiot who makes crazy arguments, not because of your political bent. You take the lazy route often by stereotyping and classifying people. You are exactly what you are mocking:
Liberals don't simply disagree with conservatives and a conservative philosophy, they loathe them personally.
You're not talking to liberals, you're talking to me. But you are completely unable to separate my political identity from who I am as a person. You could not be a more blatant hypocrite.
Why do individuals that claim to be "progressive", hate the democratic process in a democratic republic?
The democratic process in a democratic republic is legislative and executive elections, not initiatives and referendums. My problem with them is that they've ruined my home state, California, and special interest groups can get bad policies passed with a lot of advertising. I've expressed this numerous times yet you continue to ignore my point and instead choose to attack me personally with ad hominems.
I'm sure you'd say the same if a group like the NRA compiled a searchable database on those that have signed a petition endorsing a referendum on restricting gun ownership.
You are ignoring the arguments presented in front of you. There are searchable databases of all political donations. With maps, too. You can find who donates to anti-gun causes and who donates to pro-gun causes. Why does this referendum deserve different treatment? Tell me, Rick.
@83 Gary I merely point out existing law, and how it is applied, and for that I'm called a bigot. Rather than further discussion about how the law may be changed, I'm told the the debate is over. Period.... the end. How do you proceed beyond that kind of reaction to the next step in the discourse?
Gary, I responded to you numerous times and you kept mocking me for saying I wouldn't debate on your limited terms. Why would I talk to someone who is mocking me openly?
Your comment was that gays have the same marriage rights as straight people. I do not need to explain to you that gay couples do not have marriage rights. You're an adult and are aware of that fact. If you're going to act purposefully dense or make me jump through semantics hoops to get so anything in-depth then I'm not going to give you the respect that you're withholding from me.
I didn't say what you said was bigoted, I said it had "implications of bigotry." By that, I meant, you were implying that gays could simply turn straight if they wanted to marry. That sounds pretty intolerant of a different group to me. I know you're not a bigot, but your remark was purposefully ignorant.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 12:08 PM94 What if someone post the names and addresses of the people who run this group?
The names and addresses of those who sign these petitions are required by law to be publicly available. This is to ensure transparency in the petitioning process. This is similar to how the names, addresses, and occupations of those who donate to political campaigns or PACs are required by law to be made public. If you donated to a campaign last year, your name and address are online. How many of us have been harassed because of this? None. It won't happen. We're a society of laws, and harassment is against the law.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 12:13 PMNo, I don't like it, and I'm allowed to have an opinion on it without you calling me un-democratic or anti-American. I don't take the WA constitution as a set of inexorable principles like the Federal constitution. For example, the state has an amendment about how to spend gas taxes. Gas taxes.
I believe that a Democratic Republic is much stronger and saner than the initiative process. I lived in California all of my life, and initiatives are one of the biggest reasons why that state has collapsed so hard. The Tim Eyman initiatives, for example, cut funding without cutting spending. By not taking the broad view, initiatives often get things wrong.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 12:24 PMPublicly available could mean anything from records kept down in Olympia but accessible to the public to a government website listing those names and addresses. I'd be curious to know the reaction to the scenario I posed at 87 re: the NRA posting the names and addresses of those that presumably, do not have firearms to protect their residences. You and Demo Kid and the same press championing this would be outraged and demand that group to cease with their searchable database. Again, a little consistency on your part goes a long way towards credibility.
This is a political website -- what the fuck do you want me to talk about? Excel spreadsheets? This ain't work, son.
It is for you in order to prove a point.
I do not loathe conservatives personally. I dislike you because you are a presumptive idiot who makes crazy arguments, not because of your political bent. You take the lazy route often by stereotyping and classifying people. You are exactly what you are mocking:
Wow, your disconnect with reality is alarming, Jensen. You come in here whining about labels and then throw around the name-calling, juvenile antics of an emotional liberal, just the argument I was making.I have your personality dead on perfect, you just don't appreciate it.
You're not talking to liberals, you're talking to me. But you are completely unable to separate my political identity from who I am as a person. You could not be a more blatant hypocrite.
No, but you could. You absolutely contradict everything you've said in here, Jensen. I dissected every argument you had in here from you incorrectly calling this domestic partnership a "Civil right" to your ignorance in thinking that the legislature in Olympia is the be all, end all.
The democratic process in a democratic republic is legislative and executive elections, not initiatives and referendums. My problem with them is that they've ruined my home state, California, and special interest groups can get bad policies passed with a lot of advertising.
I just said above that it is HARDER to influence the people than it is a few legislatures in the capitol. If you're too ignorant to follow that simple logic, then I don't know what to say. Read the WA state Constitution I posted above. The PEOPLE are the ultimate legislature in this state. Now, quit pouting and start using rational arguments instead of the cookie cutter emotional arguments that you've made so far in here.
I've expressed this numerous times yet you continue to ignore my point and instead choose to attack me personally with ad hominems.
Pot, meet Kettle. I haven't attacked you once other than to say you're a hypocrite. Which you are. You're so out of it you can't even remain consistent from paragraph to paragraph in your own thread- note the bold font areas.
You are ignoring the arguments presented in front of you.
Actually, it's you that won't answer the question. I gave you the State constitution, I explained why domestic partnerships don't fall under a "civil right" as you and Demo kid have posited numerous times here. You give me nothing other than emotional rants based on what you think should be, rather than what is. Bring a little something to the table other than your fragile ego, john.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 12:54 PMI dissected every argument you had in here from you incorrectly calling this domestic partnership a "Civil right" to your ignorance in thinking that the legislature in Olympia is the be all, end all.
I and demo kid responded to all of your arguments. You misconstrue my positions and call me un-American.
Pot, meet Kettle. I haven't attacked you once other than to say you're a hypocrite. Which you are
Besides calling me a hypocrite, un-American, anti-democratic, un-diverse, an "emotional liberal", and an absolute zealot, you haven't attacked me once. And let's not forget how you described my personality as intolerant of conservative viewpoints based on a limited online exchange. You do have my personality down, Rick, and it really does scare me. :-(
I gave you the State constitution, I explained why domestic partnerships don't fall under a "civil right" as you and Demo kid have posited numerous times here. You give me nothing other than emotional rants based on what you think should be, rather than what is. Bring a little something to the table other than your fragile ego, john.
I don't care what the state constitution says about referendums and initiatives -- that doesn't mean they're a good thing. They're a poor form of governance compared to a representative democracy, in my opinion. Do I have no right to seek a better state constitution?
Given that referendums do exist in this state of course we have the right to sign this petition and potentially vote on this referendum. I also have the right not to sign the petition, and encourage others not to sign it, because this is a democracy and I can advocate for my position.
This referendum will not make it to the ballot -- there isn't enough time for signature gatherers. Which makes me note that initiatives are usually the product of paid-signature gatherers. In other words, the richest interest groups get to decide what appears on our ballots and then they get to spend money on advertising. "Protect Marriage WA" is hardly a model to admire since their name is basically perpetrating a lie to voters. That isn't democracy in action, it's scummy.
The problem with that statement is that they are getting equal protections under the law. By your standard of logic, single people are not receiving the same equal protection status as married couples because they're single.
You compare a married couple to a single person. That is two people compared to one person and it's illogical -- apples and oranges.
Apples and apples is comparing a straight couple to a same-sex couple. Straight couples can enter a state-sanctioned union which specific legal rights and responsibilities. If this referendum were to pass, same-sex couples could not. In that case it is not equal protection under the law nor equal rights. So this absolutely is a civil rights issue. For the record I am arguing about legal rights and responsibilities, not emotions.
Rick, do you support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples that have the same rights and responsibilities as marriage?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 02:02 PMThat seems like a very simplistic view of a complex world, doesn't it?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 02:12 PMIn all my years, and there are many of them, I have never heard a liberal tell me/mention/write a short note anything near the viewpoint of my brother-in-law. Quite the opposite actually.
But from the morally bankrupt left we now have out-in-the-open intimidation of signature gatherers, donators, petition signers and other banana republic style tactics. Dangerous, childish thuggery.
Sweet.
Where's that petition? Gimme a pen. And I hope you don't like it.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 3, 2009 02:20 PMAnd the same applies to Ref. 71. I may vote against it if it hits the ballot. If I lose, I lose. That's the beauty of our system. Some people cannot abide losing under any circumstances.
(when I say "some people" I am not referring to anybody in particular)
My entire point here has not been for or against gay marriage or civil unions. It has been to defend the democratic process that we all live under.
G Jiggy and Gary, I can recognize that philosophy but I don't share it. I think a representative democracy forms better laws than putting up every issue to vote. In particular, only interest groups with a significant amount of money can afford to get enough signatures to put an issue on the ballot. It is a corrupt process.
In this specific case, I see no reason why civil rights issues should be put up to vote. A society should do what's right for its minority groups, not simply what is popular.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 02:37 PM"Apples and apples is comparing a straight couple to a same-sex couple. Straight couples can enter a state-sanctioned union which specific legal rights and responsibilities. If this referendum were to pass, same-sex couples could not. In that case it is not equal protection under the law nor equal rights. So this absolutely is a civil rights issue. For the record I am arguing about legal rights and responsibilities, not emotions."
Sorry, but your whole premise of "equal rights" is wrong here. All individuals involved (straight and homosexual) at this time have equal rights of marriage. The problem is that homosexuals wish to confer extra special rights on themselves. Straight couples under the law can not marry same sex either so where are homosexual rights being denied? Conversely, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman just like a straight person can. That's equal rights.
If the issue is about "rights" than nothing should change as all have the same rights. If the issue is about money and benefits, there are other ways (spell that "contractual") of dealing with that without conferring special rights. A contractual solution would effect everybody, straight and homosexual, the same way.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 3, 2009 02:45 PMThe government provides this contractual solution you describe under the name of "civil marriage" for same-sex couples and "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples. This does affect everyone, straight and homosexual, the same way. This referendum seeks to turn back the clock and instead confer "special rights" to straight couples.
Can we stop pretending like same-sex couples have the same rights as straight couples? Obviously a homosexual could marry a straight person they don't love and aren't attracted to, but that isn't something our government should be encouraging. One of our founding principles is the pursuit of happiness. I can think of nothing more paramount to happiness than the love you share with your partner and the family you form with them. A domestic partnership gives same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities to pursue their happiness, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
My gay landlords and their daughter deserve the legal recognition that allows for hospital visitation rights, insurance claims, power of attorney, and other rights and responsibilities that come with a state-sanctioned union. These rights and responsibilities should be no different than what straight couples receive -- they should not be special rights nor non-existent rights.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 03:08 PMDoes it not matter at all that the bank-rollers of this referendum are trying to confuse voters into thinking that this is about gay marriage? protectmarriagewa.com's name implies it's about gay marriage. Their site claims that these civil unions will allow challenges of DoMA (a federal law -- unrelated) or CA-style supreme court rulings (the WA supreme court already said gay marriage isn't a constitutional right). They are lying and misleading voters, and I have little faith that they will cease to do so if their referendum makes it to the ballot.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 03:14 PMUh, whatever John. The problem is that when I say "liberals", you take it as a personal attack on you....meanwhile, you're calling me an idiot. You're so thin skinned that a few weeks ago while addressing you by your name "John", you said "Dont use that tone of voice when using my name"...wow, grow up already man.
I and demo kid responded to all of your arguments. You misconstrue my positions and call me un-American.
Demo kid scampered away when I tore apart his "gays are being disenfranchised" post at 86, with my post at 89 setting his confusion straight.
Besides calling me a hypocrite, un-American, anti-democratic, un-diverse, an "emotional liberal", and an absolute zealot, you haven't attacked me once.
B.S. I've only called you a hypocrite personally. The others were references to your statements. If you can find the exact quote of where I called YOU a zealot, anti-democratic, un-diverse or un-American, feel free to quote it with the post number for reference.
And let's not forget how you described my personality as intolerant of conservative viewpoints based on a limited online exchange.
I want a quote from you with post #.
I don't care what the state constitution says about referendums and initiatives -- that doesn't mean they're a good thing.
So Washington state should not adhere to their constitution, but by your own? Wow, dude. You have some delusions of adequacy going on in your mind.
They're a poor form of governance compared to a representative democracy, in my opinion. Do I have no right to seek a better state constitution?
Sure. Get of your ass and collect some signatures and sway the public to sign a referendum and put it on the ballot.Who's stopping you other than you?
Given that referendums do exist in this state of course we have the right to sign this petition and potentially vote on this referendum. I also have the right not to sign the petition, and encourage others not to sign it, because this is a democracy and I can advocate for my position.
No one said to the contrary.
You compare a married couple to a single person. That is two people compared to one person and it's illogical -- apples and oranges.
False. It blows apart the "equal protection argument" that Demo Kid was making. He hasn't been seen on this board since, so he must agree. You don't see single people walking around saying "I'm not getting my rights that married people are getting". Do you?
Apples and apples is comparing a straight couple to a same-sex couple. Straight couples can enter a state-sanctioned union which specific legal rights and responsibilities.
There is no "civil right" to get married, so again, you're wrong.
Rick, do you support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples that have the same rights and responsibilities as marriage?
No. Because that type of "marriage' is banned by statute in Washington state. You can change the law if you'd like, but it's going to take you getting off your ass and collecting some signatures of like-minded citizens to get an up or down vote on the matter. You can use the referendum 71 people who've done exactly what i just described as your motivation.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 3, 2009 04:02 PMNo, I never said that. Referendums and initiatives may be our right but they are not a good way to form good laws.
There is no "civil right" to get married, so again, you're wrong.
So if we prevented mixed-race couples from getting married, it wouldn't be a civil rights issue? What is your definition of "civil rights"?
No. Because that type of "marriage' is banned by statute in Washington state. You can change the law if you'd like,
Civil unions aren't marriage, they're civil unions. And the law was changed.
Why do you think that the state should get certain rights and responsibilities to straight couples, but not give those rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples? What other decisions should big government make for us, Rick?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 04:17 PMSo says John Jensen, that's your opinion, NOT FACT.
So if we prevented mixed-race couples from getting married, it wouldn't be a civil rights issue?
We don't prevent mixed-race couples from marrying so your hypothetical is moot. Gays have exactly the same rights to "marry" as anyone else.
Civil unions aren't marriage...
...and never will be if the will of the people is upheld and not the bureacrats in Olympia.
Why do you think that the state should get certain rights and responsibilities to straight couples, but not give those rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples?
They don't. They get exactly the same rights as all other individuals in Washington state. Whether they decide to take advantage of those "rights" is up to them.
What other decisions should big government make for us, Rick?
You're the one advocating a big, clumbsy, unaccountable government ran by special interest groups, so not sure what point you're trying to make there.
Yep.
They don't. They get exactly the same rights as all other individuals in Washington state. Whether they decide to take advantage of those "rights" is up to them.
Stop implying that same-sex couples should just find someone straight to marry. My gay landlords will not leave each other because they have a daughter to take care of.
You're dodging the question. Why do you think that same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as straight couples?
You're the one advocating a big, clumbsy, unaccountable government ran by special interest groups, so not sure what point you're trying to make there.
I'm not advocating for that, but in this thread you're saying that the government should force homosexuals to "turn" straight to enjoy the civil rights that you and I enjoy. You're saying the state shouldn't recognize their love. You're using the government to legislate your personal morality. That's big government conservatism for you, and it's a disappointing position.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 04:52 PMYou can either treat same-sex couples, COUPLES, the same as straight couples, or you can deny them equal treatment. I don't think the government is your personal morality enforcer and it shouldn't tell you who you can or cannot love. The government shouldn't tell you, as others have implied, that you should change who you love to comport with society. That is bigotry and it is intolerant.
Same-sex couples deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law compared to straight couples. Those couples, if they commit to each other, deserve the same rights, responsibility, and respect as straight couples. And whatever you want to call it -- "civil rights" or "gay rights" or "equal rights" or "equal treatment" or "hamburger" -- the disparate treatment between same-sex and straight couples goes against the principles of freedom and equality in which this nation was founded.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 06:19 PMSo sorry, but I can't reply to EVERYTHING you write instantaneously. And you "tore apart my post"? You didn't say anything logical or reasonable! I'm stating that if marriage is a contract between two people, restricting it on the basis of their sexes is not equal protection under the law. You brought in an irrelevant point about single people.
Posted by: demo kid on June 3, 2009 06:43 PMOh no, did I just commit a hate crime? Some judge will send in the hate police to shut down the new website, but let these heterophobes keep their's.
Posted by: Doug on June 3, 2009 07:51 PMThey are treated equally now. They have no lesser rights than I do.
"I don't think the government is your personal morality enforcer and it shouldn't tell you who you can or cannot love."
It doesn't.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 3, 2009 07:53 PMThe programmed auto-response for political scum any time anyone disagrees with them.
Posted by: hinton on June 3, 2009 07:57 PMBecause they aren't married..and can't be recognized under legal statute in this state as one. Therefore, they receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples that aren't married. Why is this a problem for you to process, john?
I'm not advocating for that [big, clumbsy, inefficient government], but in this thread you're saying that the government should force homosexuals to "turn" straight to enjoy the civil rights that you and I enjoy.~ J. J.
You are advocating for that type of government which is why you don't recognize states rights. I don't give a damn what homosexuals do personally, but don't ask for "special rights" you're not entitled to anymore than a heterosexual couple(s) that aren't married.
You can either treat same-sex couples, COUPLES, the same as straight couples, or you can deny them equal treatment. J. J.
False. Unmarried Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have exactly the same rights and priveleges. The gay canard doesn't follow in the world of logic as I've just shown.
You didn't say anything logical or reasonable! I'm stating that if marriage is a contract between two people, restricting it on the basis of their sexes is not equal protection under the law. You brought in an irrelevant point about single people.~ Demo kid
Um, unmarried couples are still "single" are they not? Whether the two of you are able to grasp simple logic is the question we have to recognize here. The rights extend to both are identical, so the "gay" red herring argument is silly. Besides, I notice you guy always run away from the very idea I pose to you of changing the state law. Are you too lazy to do it? or is it not that important to do the heavy lifting required?
There's only 1 of 2 answers on that one.
That is a classic example of an "equal protection under the law" argument Demo kid. Not that weak line of bull you tried to pass off as a legitimate point earlier.
Where do I go to sign?
Posted by: JoeBandMember on June 3, 2009 09:32 PMApparently, now progressives aren't liking that so much...at least when it is - perceived or otherwise - being "used" against their interests.
Posted by: FT on June 3, 2009 11:05 PMRegardless of the fact this person was obviously an abusive predator who has been abusing people for many years and not even a halfway decent doctor (and worse everyone is afraid to complain or go after him and he knows it)-
I learned the hard way that my rights have already been removed in favor of gays. I don't believe it is ok that when people go to get personal health care they have no choice whether a man, woman, man dressed as a woman, or gay person is providing that care. I don't want a gay woman as my OB/GYN and most certainly NOT a male transexual who lives as a woman! And I should have that right, now if I go to schedule an appointment with someone new I ask before hand because my past experiences with such has NOT been good. If people realized this has happened "equal rights" would quickly be a dead issue.
It is the consequences we are not aware of that make it even more important this goes to a vote- we as a group know more then we as individuals.
I am sick of gay people trying to shove in my face at every turn that they are gay. I don't care, but I do care that I have the right to choose who touches my body in a doctor/patient relationship. I am sure there is other similar issues also.
Posted by: me on June 3, 2009 11:18 PMNo, you are actually wrong. Gay couples in this state registered as domestic partners receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as married couples in this state. That is the law as it exists today. You apparently have trouble recognizing what the law is.
Now, you're saying we should over turn this because of the... statue? That makes no sense and it's a stupid argument. The law is clear. The state sees no distinction between married couples and those who are in civil unions (aka domestic partnerships). You are trying to undo that law, and you should provide additional justification for it.
The only other argument you present is that these are "special" rights. That is patently false. These are the same rights conferred to straight couples who have entered civil marriages within the state.
You are advocating for that type of government which is why you don't recognize states rights.
First, I am a firm believer in state's rights.
Second, you are advocating for a government which intrudes into people's love lives and determines which arrangements are "moral" or not.
@135 FT, yes it is an ironic twist in history. You know what else is funny? When people bring up events that happened eighty-plus years ago to try to make us look like hypocrites! Sorry bud, I'm not responsible for my great, great grand daddy's activism :)
Conservatives used to argue for a small, limited government, and here people are arguing how special rights should be given to straight, married couples and denied to gay couples for moral reasons. When did small government mean a government that chooses our moral values for us?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 3, 2009 11:58 PMThat's an absurd argument. Straight couples can get married to get those rights. Gay couples can enter into domestic partnerships for those rights. Each process takes the same amount of paperwork.
A civil marriage involves filling out and signing a marriage license. A civil union involves filling out and signing a domestic partnership form. Both charge a relatively small filing fee, and both [now] confer the same rights, responsibilities, and respect toward couples.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 12:08 AMRespect? Hardly. That said, finally! it took some reverse psychology, but I finally got you to admit that they already have everything but "marriage" in the title.If that's the case by your own admission, then what are you still complaining about? Other than to just complain.According to the secretary of states website, there are only 5489 Domestic Partnership registrations as of 6/4/2009 5:51:43 AM. So in other words, in a state comprising 6,500,000 people, we've given special rights to only 5,400 in one of the largest gay populated states in the country. Can you give me that miniscule percentage John? Thanks for finally conceding the point I've tried to make to you on other threads.
Now, you're saying we should over turn this because of the... statue? That makes no sense and it's a stupid argument.
It's called statute. A statue is what you find in museums or the like. Tell me you understand the difference. Also, a statute can be overturned anytime by the legislature or by referendum by the people. The only stupid argument to the econtrary is coming from you. You once again don't understand what the hell you're talking about here.
The law is clear.
Correct. Marriages between same-sex couples is still banned in this state.
You are trying to undo that law, and you should provide additional justification for it.
False. Politicians skirted the statute so it will be up to the real legislature (the people) to overturn their incorrect, special interest influenced, partisan, political bureaucrats in Olympia's decision to do an end around our laws. We will overturn it by the will of the people, especially when people realize the small percentage of people we're granting special rights to.
First, I am a firm believer in state's rights.
False. time and again you've derided state's rights up to and including this topic. Quit lying.
A civil union involves filling out and signing a domestic partnership form. Both charge a relatively small filing fee, and both [now] confer the same rights, responsibilities, and respect toward couples.
It's still not "mariage" because those arrangements are banned in this state. SO again, what are you complaining about?
Got that percentage yet, John? 6.5 million population and only 5,400 registered "domestic partnerships" in a large gay population state that want special rights bestowed upon them.
What you are arguing for is collectivism--which we have seen as rampant on the left in this country. Every group argues for rights and takes on the mantle of victimhood. That is the same argument that is being made here. It relies on acceptance of the premise that rights are given to groups. I personally do not accept that premise. Rights are for individuals, not groups.
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2009 09:29 AMFor those who want to *un-define* marriage, they then must not exclude any form. Unless they themselves choose to draw a line, and exclude forms of marriage that *they* don't like.
So I ask again, how should marriage be defined, or should it be un-defined?
.0008%
Doesnt' our legislature have more important things to do than invent "rights" for .0008% of Washington state residents? Last I heard we had a huge 8 billion dollar boondoggle over our heads and the Governor and the legislature are getting their strings pulled by special interest groups to address a problem where one doesn't exist.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2009 10:04 AMI finally got you to admit that they already have everything but "marriage" in the title.If that's the case by your own admission, then what are you still complaining about?
I'm talking about the issue because this referendum would repeal that equality, you moron.
overturn their incorrect, special interest influenced, partisan, political bureaucrats in Olympia's decision to do an end around our laws.
You're advocating for repealing this law. Why? Because... the law. You're making no argument whatsoever.
Got that percentage yet, John? 6.5 million population and only 5,400 registered "domestic partnerships" in a large gay population state that want special rights bestowed upon them.
Oh here's your second reason... It's a small minority. Yeah, small minorities don't deserve equality. Thanks, Rick.
Doesnt' our legislature have more important things to do than invent "rights" for .0008% of Washington state residents?
Since domestic partnership had significantly curtailed rights, I'm not sure if many people would be excited to sign on. I'm sure more same-sex couples will decide to register as they realize that domestic partnerships confer the same rights, responsibilities, and respect in the eyes of the state.
Bill H: I have not been involved in this discussion, but in skimming the comments, I find it interesting that some are arguing for rights for "couples". Rights should be reserved for INDIVIDUALS, not for GROUPS.
Civil marriage is a union between a couple in the eyes of the state, as are civil unions. If you want to dismantle the framework of civil relationships that is a separate issue than guaranteeing equal rights.
However, back in reality, we all realize that civil marriage isn't going to go away any time soon so our paramount concern should be ensuring that all couples in this country are treated equally regardless of orientation.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 11:03 AMUh yes, more juvenile name-calling from John. As has been discussed, the law that the legislature passed and Christine Gregoire essentially bypassed the statute barring such arrangements (same as this law you're advocating still bans triad marriages, incestuous relationships even if consulting adults, etc). So you say equality, but it's is not because it took one group and elevated them above the others that are banned under the statute. No worries though, this referendum when passed by the voters (who are the only group that should have a say on this anyway) will overturn both the governors and legislators wishes and rule of law will return to Washington state.
You're advocating for repealing this law. Why? Because... the law. You're making no argument whatsoever.
The same reason you wanted a backdoor legalization of same-sex marriages that are banned in this state. Repealing this shortsighted move by the legislature and Governor will once again reinstate a law. You simply aren't intelligent to understand. It is you without an argument.
Oh here's your second reason... It's a small minority. Yeah, small minorities don't deserve equality.
yup. What miniscule group should we add next, John? And why aren't you advocating for those same rights extended to multiple partners and consenting incestuous relationships? At what point do you quit being a champion for "equality" and start becoming the "bigot"? Hmmm...good question eh?
Since domestic partnership had significantly curtailed rights, I'm not sure if many people would be excited to sign on.
Weakass argument if I ever heard one. they've had 2 years to sign up for this "domestic partnership" in this state and only .0008% of the states 6.5 million signed up to take advantage of it. Apparently, those "curtailed rights" that don't exist in the first place, weren't so curtailed that it spurred people to sign up.
Again, you are operating on a premise that has been rejected here but that you continue to try to slip by--INDIVIDUAL rights vs GROUP rights. I do not accept the premise that "our paramount concern" is for Group rights. What I do accept is that our paramount concern is for INDIVIDUAL rights. Individual rights do not apply to couples as a couple, they apply to them individually.
You are free to agree with the group rights premise, but you are not free to assume that everyone else accepts it.
It is NOT a union "between a couple", it is a union between two individuals who separately have individual rights. If it was a "union between a couple", that would beg the question of who the couple was in union with!
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2009 11:47 AMIncorrect. Domestic partnership is not marriage.
As has been discussed, the law that the legislature passed and Christine Gregoire essentially bypassed the statute barring such arrangements
No. The law is "everything but marriage." Another law says gays can't be married. It's good then that there is no conflict: domestic partnerships/civil unions are not marriage.
This has nothing to do with the rule of law. You are cherry picking one law over another, and acting like there is conflict where there is none.
You're arguing NOTHING on its merits. If you feel the laws conflict, you have to prove to me that for some reason one statute is more "right" than the other.
You refuse to answer the following question on principles and not statute, which can change: Why do you think that legally joined same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as married straight couples?
Just say it, Rick. You're a morality cop. You want to legislate your lifestyle, your orientation, and your morality. Rick D's big government loves nothing more than to come into people's lives and tell them how to live morally. Thank goodness we have the majority to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
The same reason you wanted a backdoor legalization of same-sex marriages that are banned in this state.
This is not same-sex marriage. It is domestic partnership. Please stop being dishonest.
I want civil unions for equal rights. You want to deny equal rights to a minority of the population. These are not the "same reason." They are, in fact, the opposite.
Apparently, those "curtailed rights" that don't exist in the first place, weren't so curtailed that it spurred people to sign up.
So the group is big enough to prove that the rights are equal, but small enough to prove that the rights shouldn't be equal? How consistent!
It doesn't matter how small the group of those who participate in civil unions is. You do not govern based on size. You do not create equal rights based on size. You create equality out of the principles on which this nation was founded.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 11:56 AMWhat's your point? Individuals should have the right to join with someone of their gender or not in either a civil marriage or a civil union.
The reason I am saying "couple" is because people here are playing semantics games by saying every individual has equal rights because they can marry someone. That's bs. If we banned inter-racial marriages, then it'd be "equal" according to these absurd rationalizations earlier, since those folks could just find someone else to love and get married to.
That is absurd. That is bigotry. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to "change" their orientation to join with a person they love and get the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as everyone else.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 12:07 PMSoon it will not be even Domestic partnership when referendum 71 passes.
The law is "everything but marriage."
This law will be overturnd by the citizens. As should be the case when elevating one group above another.
You're arguing NOTHING on its merits.
Because you lack the intelligence to process it does not mean it doesn't have merit. You can't even come around to the simple fact that the people are able to change existing laws. Talk about vacuous.
Why do you think that legally joined same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as married straight couples?
They don't. You saying they do doesn't it make it a fact, John. Oh, and you can't legislate respect nor responsibilites, john. Those are attributes not granted by your government.Again, but not surprisingly, you're confused by this notion.
Just say it, Rick. You're a morality cop.
Nope. As Bill H. Said. I believe in the rights of individuals, not couples. Also, since you're a bigot by excluding triad unions and consensual, of age incestuous relationships, you appear to be the "morality cop" you pin on me. How's that badge fit officer John?
I want civil unions for equal rights.
...with the exclusion of triads and incest, right? Aren't those unions?
You want to deny equal rights to a minority of the population.
False. There is no "equal rights" argument as we discussed above. I don't want to elevate one minority group over another. That would be you seeking to do this.
Smarten up Jensen. You're really losing your marbles as this debate goes on.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2009 12:19 PMMy point is that you continue to refer to "rights" of "couples". As I have noted continuously, I do not accept the premise that groups have rights. So, my point is that Marriage has been defined by society for thousands of years to be the coupling of two members of the opposite sex.
Do I have a problem with two members of the same sex coming together as a "couple"? No. Do I have a problem with them wanting to call it marriage and attempting to change the definition of marriage? Yes. That is no longer bestowing "equal rights". That is an attempt to force society to RECOGNIZE it as "the same thing".
When you speak of rights of individuals to come together for a civil union, I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with it being limited to homosexuals. There are plenty of other "couples" or other groups that may want to be recognized in this manner, for legal, contractual, medical reasons--two brothers, three sisters, two old widows, etc. If you want to define a description that can be used by more than just two homosexuals, then I am on board with that. If, however, you want to ONLY limit it to homosexuals, then that is bigotry against all of these other groups and is bestowing special rights that I see no reason for society to bestow.
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2009 12:30 PMOf course folks are able to use the referendum process -- it's their right. I've never said any different. Why is it that you have to intentionally misrepresent my views? Grow up, Rick.
Why do you think that legally joined same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as married straight couples?
They don't.
Great argument, Rick. It's to justify oppressing people different than you, I understand. It's not consistent with our nation's history nor our ideals.
I want civil unions for equal rights.
Marriam-Webster: "Civil union: The legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples" Wikipedia: "A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage."
Domestic partnerships are civil unions.
Oh, and you can't legislate respect nor responsibilites, john.
You do legislate responsibilities for couples, in fact. Couples in domestic partnerships have an obligation regarding any children, they have an obligation to share family expenses, etc. These aren't mere hints -- these are material laws that the civil courts can enforce.
You don't legislate respect, but if the state treats your coupling as second-class that's not very respectful.
There is no "equal rights" argument as we discussed above.
You think straight people should be allowed to wed folks they love, and gay people should not be allowed to form civil unions with folks they love. That is not equality. It's fundamentally an equal rights issue no matter how much you try to smear the issue.
@150 Bill H So, my point is that Marriage has been defined by society for thousands of years to be the coupling of two members of the opposite sex.
Irrelevant. This referendum has nothing to do with gay marriage rights.
If, however, you want to ONLY limit it to homosexuals, then that is bigotry against all of these other groups and is bestowing special rights that I see no reason for society to bestow.
In terms of the complete red herring about incest or multiple wives, if you really want that then how do same-sex civil unions hurt that cause? Of course, neither of you are being honest. You're just trying to argue the slippery slope fallacy. You can present no convincing reason why treating same-sex couples different from straight couples is justified, so you change the topic. If you can't justify your intolerance, then maybe you shouldn't have it. If you can't justify big government determining morality for the rest of us, maybe you shouldn't sign/vote for referendums that do so.
Same-sex civil unions hurt no one. They help families that need it. They make sure that if your loved-one gets hurt, you can visit them in the hospital. They make sure that if your loved one dies, you will receive their insurance benefits. They make sure that custody is shared between parents if the union terminates, and that both parties are responsible for the financial well-being of the child. While you're busy defending incest or marrying multiple people for academic kicks, real families are being denied equal treatment. That will end when the new domestic partnership takes effect after R-71 fails to qualify for the ballot.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 02:12 PMIt is most certainly NOT irrelevant to this discussion since you have continually brought up same sex marriage--in fact, in the very comment I was responding to. To remind you, you said "Individuals should have the right to join with someone of their gender or not in either a civil marriage..."
"In terms of the complete red herring about incest or multiple wives,..."
I said absolutely NOTHING about incest or multiple wives, so it couldn't be a "red herring". What I said, to repeat myself, is "There are plenty of other "couples" or other groups that may want to be recognized in this manner, for legal, contractual, medical reasons--two brothers, three sisters, two old widows, etc."
Why does sexual proclivity even have to come into the discussion? If two old HETEROSEXUAL widowers wanted to be a "couple" for legal, contractual or medical purposes, would they have to pretend to be homosexual? If two heterosexual brothers wanted the same, would they have to pretend to be both homosexual AND engaging in incest?
My point, which I thought I made in the previous post, is that if civil unions are opened up to ANY individual, then I don't have a problem with. However, if your definition limits it only to those who engage in homosexual relations, then, as I said, that is attempting to provide SPECIAL rights and is thus discriminatory and bigoted.
"Same-sex civil unions hurt no one. They help families that need it. They make sure that if your loved-one gets hurt, you can visit them in the hospital. They make sure that if your loved one dies, you will receive their insurance benefits. They make sure that custody is shared between parents if the union terminates, and that both parties are responsible for the financial well-being of the child."
The same could be said for two old widowers, etc. You don't have to be same-sex partners for any the situations you describe. If you open it up to all, then, as I have said, I have no problem with it. If you limit it to homosexual partners, I do.
"While you're busy defending incest or marrying multiple people for academic kicks, real families are being denied equal treatment."
Get your mind out of the gutter. Why does sex have to come into this situation at all?
You're advocating for repealing this law. Why? Because... the law. J.J.
Initiatives and referendums are not always decided on what's right or wrong, but by which special interest group spends the most money. I have no doubt that the referendum process, with its heavy reliance on paid signature gatherers and funded by operations like "Protect MARRIAGE" (when this bill has NOTHING to do with marriage), hurts the democratic process more than helps it. J.J. @ 66
I'm done arguing with a complete imbecile any further. The quotes above have John Jensen all over the map in some quixotic crusade to make sense of the non-sensical. I could find other complete illogic from John Jensen, but I prefer not to waste either my time or font on him.
Sign referendum 71 and return the rule of law back in the hands of the citizens of Washington state.
Cheers
Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2009 02:47 PMThe fact that there may be other wrongs in the world, in your opinion, doesn't mean that homosexuals should be oppressed. If you want to marry your bother or all of your sisters, that is irrelevant to the issue of gay rights.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 02:47 PMPeople have a right to use the referendum in this state , but that doesn't mean the process is perfect! "Protect Marriage WA" is basically lying by claiming this is about gay marriage. It is not. What's so hard for you to understand?
One thing that you don't understand are the questions I ask you. You've never once stated a reason why same-sex couples shouldn't get the same rights as straight couples besides "they shouldn't." I'm sorry, Rick, but intolerance needs a little bit more defense than that in an free society like America.
Gary: if you really want that then how do same-sex civil unions hurt that cause? Why are you dodging the question?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 03:01 PM
ARLINGTON, WA - May 5, 2009 - A coalition of faith based and conservative organizations and leaders filed a Referendum on May 4 to overturn Senate Bill 5688, a 110 page measure which includes the phrase "marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships" 180 times....If 'same-sex marriage' becomes legal in Washington, every public school will be forced to teach that same-sex relationships and marriage are perfectly normal. This will greatly harm our schools and drive an irreconcilable wedge between the public school curriculum and the values and moral code of hundreds of thousands of parents. Parents with deeply held convictions on this matter will have no choice but to remove their children.
This is a clear cut path to calling it marriage, which is why referendum 71 will be on the ballot and the citizens of Washington will protect marriage from the .0008% of Washingtonians that want "special rights" granted to them. Tell Christine Gregoire to uphold the existing statutes and quit doing an end around the will of the people of this state.
Gary, my answer is that it has nothing to do with same-sex unions and is no reason to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. It's just not relevant.
It's obviously a trap, either someone's going to say I'm inconsistent or someone's going to illustrate that this is the slippery slope conservatives fear. It's an academic argument. There are thousands of same-sex families in this state, and I know one of them personally (and know how important their little girl is to them), whose rights would be curtailed if this referendum were to advance. That is the most important issue, not debating for debating's sake.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 03:17 PMThen why does it mention the word "marriage" 180 times in the bill? This is the way for when it comes before a judge, they just erase all the lines altogether through judicial fiat and lump everyone under the "marriage" umbrella. Except of course, those groups John Jensen, Chris Gregoire and the legislature continue to discriminate against.
Liars like John Jensen can see the bill for themselves here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5688-S2.PL.pdf
Since some banned marriages in this state have been elevated to a higher standard and they don't want equality for them, this would make the persons referred to in my first paragraph as bigots.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2009 03:30 PMThe bill mentions "gay marriage" zero times. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is a domestic partnership bill.
Why does it mention marriage that many times? To say that any laws that apply to marriage now also apply to domestic partnerships, of course.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 03:35 PMDo you think the state should allow same-sex unions?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 03:51 PMNo, in fact, they are not a distraction. From my viewpoint, this IS the issue. The reason that advocates like you don't want to discuss it is that it shows that what you want, in reality, is special rights for homosexual couples. Make a civil union available for ANY individuals who want to take advantage of it and you might get surprising support. Limit it to homosexual couples and you will lose that support.
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2009 03:53 PMThese are not special rights for homosexuals. Stop lying. These rights are given to straight couples all the time.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 03:57 PMGame. Set. Match
A smarter man would concede, but Jensen has never been confused with one of those. If only he'd donate these seemingly endless hours of spare time to the type of volunteer work (that Obama called on him to do when he was elected) as he does on webblogs posting nonsense.
But as we all know, Hope and change is just a slogan and not really a call for either.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 4, 2009 04:03 PM"I know couples affected by the debate." And I know two old widows that share accomodations that could benefit from this. Why do you want to deny them these benefits, but would allow it if they were practicing homosexuals? Just because the homosexual lobby is more powerful?
Open civil unions up to all, and you'll get more support. Restrict it to homosexuals and you will lose that support.
"These are not special rights for homosexuals. Stop lying." Yes, in fact they are--you stop lying.
Posted by: Bill H on June 4, 2009 04:06 PMSo, same goes for other unions, right? Or are some civil rights more equal than others? We have already agreed that the state can deny certain people civil unions. Perhaps there are not protests from other people because there aren't as many of them.
Anyway, you're okay with the concept that the state can decide who can join into civil unions and who cannot, without there being any violation of rights.
Posted by: Gary on June 4, 2009 04:07 PMIncorrect. I am advocating for equal rights between straight married couples and same-sex domestic partners.
What I care about is not legislating special rights for a politically powerful group to the detriment of others who could just as easilty benefit.
How is expanding gay rights detrimental to any of the other groups you've named?
"These are not special rights for homosexuals. Stop lying." Yes, in fact they are--you stop lying.
Domestic partners have no rights that married couples do not.
And I know two old widows that share accomodations that could benefit from this. Why do you want to deny them these benefits, but would allow it if they were practicing homosexuals? Just because the homosexual lobby is more powerful?
How are they prevented from participating in a domestic partnership or a marriage depending on gender? They are not.
----
Gary: I asked you a question earlier. Do you think the state should allow same-sex unions?
Anyway, you're okay with the concept that the state can decide who can join into civil unions and who cannot, without there being any violation of rights.
Gary, why do you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth? Stop speaking for me. I agree with nothing in that quote.
If we banned inter-racial couples from getting married, of course that'd be a fundamental rights issue. Similarly, telling same-sex couples that their relationships will not be recognized by the state is a violation of rights in my opinion. Whether it is a constitutional issue or not is immaterial to me: it is unfair to treat gay citizens as second-class or unable to form unions simply because they're not the "right" orientation.
If you believe that a father should be able to marry his daughter, then go ahead and fight the good fight for yourself, but that is no justification to deny gay couples the rights and responsibilities consistent with heterosexual marriage that the legislature has given them.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 4, 2009 04:32 PMAren't double standards fun?
Posted by: joebandmember on June 4, 2009 08:12 PM@ 66` We have a legislature to write legislation, and that is our check.
@ 66 I have no doubt that the referendum process...hurts the democratic process more than helps it.
@76 Direct votes are simply less democratic, in my opinion, since they are so open to manipulation by special interest groups.
@76As a further principle, I don't believe that civil rights issues should be left to majority rule. The tyranny of the majority is not healthy for a democracy.
Fortunately, sane people and the WSSC disagrees.
It's worth noting the words used by the Washington Supreme court when reversing a lower court ruling upholding the DoMA in Washington state:
[T]he legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples. ... [W]hile same-sex marriage may be the law at a future time, it will be because the people declare it to be, not because five members of this court have dictated it, the court said.
Notice they said "because the people declare it to be". Unlike John Jensen, the Supreme court of Washington understands that the democratic process includes the governed, and not just those governing in making the final decisions on such matters. Afterall, despite what Mr. Jensen declares, tyranny of the few is much more attainable than tyranny of the masses- Just look at the current events with regard to Democratic politicians as an example.
Do you know what anti-democratic, un-American, corrupt, progressively-controlled, tyranny-of-the-minority, dysfunctional state doesn't have the initiative process? Texas. Those devils... literally!
I don't see the initiative/referendum process in WA ever going away, but I think we can evaluate the system and notice some obvious flaws. Like the heavy influence of special interest groups, or having irresponsible initiatives to cut revenues without cutting spending. I can't think of easy and obvious fixes for what I think are problems, but they're worth thinking out without childish ridicule about how un-American I am for suggesting the process can change or improve.
Another way to improve the process doesn't take much analysis: I can refuse to sign initiative or referendums that I don't think are worth the voter's time.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 5, 2009 02:10 AMActually, no. However this gives us better insight into the limited depth of understanding of the democratic process by some.
I don't see the initiative/referendum process in WA ever going away, but I think we can evaluate the system and notice some obvious flaws. Like the heavy influence of special interest groups,
Special interest groups are able to influence a few legislators and the governor a hell of alot more than they can 6.5 million voters. Thinking otherwise runs counter to not only common sense, but logic as well. Tribal casino money contributions to the Democratic party coffers after the Gov. gives up an ALREADY agreed upon sum of 140 million a year to the state and other gifts as well as a quid pro quo as an example.
...or having irresponsible initiatives to cut revenues without cutting spending.
It's not up to the initiative sponsors or signers to do our representatives jobs. Curbing out of control spending/wastefull spending, is up to our political leaders - Gregoire recklessly increased spending by 8 billion in her first term for example. As you can see in the 'related' column in the link, Gregoires special interest groups and political voting bloc benefited most from that increased spending. Our tax dollars spent buying off the influence and votes of her political allies is not my idea of responsibile leadership in this state, but I may be wrong.
Initiatives force these politicians to do their jobs by forcing their hand to reign in spending.Instead of doing the noble thing and cut their wasteful spending, these cowards say "there's nothing left to cut but emergency services and education", which is an outright lie, only to evoke an emotional response from simpletons that say "oh no. we can't have that!". They play this game because there is always gullible and ignorant people that will take on their cause simply by declaring that the sky is falling.
It's simply naive to believe that all spending done in Olympia is justifiable just as it is pure ignorance to believe all initiatives are bad for our democracy.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 5, 2009 05:59 AMIn short, those signatures being public is *NOTHING NEW*, and shows no innovation. The *ONLY* thing new is saving folks a public records request (and maybe a jaunt to Olympia)by placing them in a searchable database - which probably should have been done years ago for *all* petitions. Public records *should be* publicly accessable with a minimum of inconvenience.
A critical difference between a signature (and identifying data) and a vote IS that the signatures are public - on purpose, as a sort of crude idiocy/vileness filter, requiring petition signers to have the courage of their convictions. An intentional barrier against stupidity or hatefulness.
That uneducated ninnies are unaware of this is regrettable at best, and a reproach upon the schools and the WEA's utter failure to teach basic civics (and logic) at worst.
One more time - IF YOU SIGN A PETITION, THAT IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN PUBLIC. All that's going on is a group is making a public record more practically accessible to the public that is SUPPOSED to have access to it in the first place.
Finally, if you are SO CONCERNED that if whatever petition you are signing is so reprehensible that folks will rush up to reproach you in the streets, fire you from your job, shun your children, and refuse to sell you groceries - that may just be a hint that whatever you are doing might not be a morally good thing if it generates that level of furor.
Most folks are fairly level-headed and require serious provocation just to get off their largely flabby tushes, let alone actually violate the "Seattle Polite" and intrude on someone elses space by actually speaking to them, even politely.
In short, wake up, and if you *still believe* that signing a given petition (not just Ref. 71) is a good thing, then sign it. But grow a pair and stop with the whining and cowardice.
GC
Posted by: GC on June 5, 2009 06:40 AMWithout that threat, I never would have signed it.
Posted by: Gary on June 5, 2009 07:15 AMWhat is a new phenomena, and decidedly chilling one at that, is the stated intent of using the information gleaned from petitions and elsewhere to harass and intimidate private individuals. This is clearly an ugly perversion of the use of the public record. This is reprehensible and underhanded behavior and should be condemned by any reasonable and responsible citizen.
Echoing the comments of others, my interest in this particular initiative was negligible until I heard of this thuggish threat. Now I am a signatory. Those who would invade my home and privacy to impose their will are likely to find a different reception than they anticipated.
They won't know what sort of reception they will receive until they knock at the door, so it gets to be a surprise all the way 'round.
I like surprises - do you?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 5, 2009 08:00 AMUh guys, you haven't signed anything yet. The petitions aren't even out yet. :)
Rick D: People like myself probably would not have signed referendum 71 unless I happened upon someone with a clipboard in hand with the petition to sign. Now, myself and others have been motivated to actively seek out this referendum.
Haha, that's a joke. You've spend days defending this referendum and say that it's the best thing since cream cheese! You were going to sign this thing no matter what!
The petitions aren't even out yet and it's nearly impossible to collect many signatures in such a short-time frame. And all this without the funding base for paid signature gatherers? It's just not possible. I predict less than 30,000 signatures. Anyone want to bet? I got $20 on it. :)
just as it is pure ignorance to believe all initiatives are bad for our democracy.
Good thing I've never said that, nor do I think that.
It's telling that you continue to ignore that great states like Texas and even the Federal Government lack an initiative/referendum process. Apparently those governments are un-democratic and un-American, right?
Initiatives force these politicians to do their jobs by forcing their hand to reign in spending
Or sometimes they create brand-new government programs which are unfunded. I think it might make sense to require that initiatives be PAYGO, or revenue-neutral, over a five year period. Yeah, this is doing some of the "hard work" but that's exactly why some initiatives need more scrutiny: if a choice sounds really simple then there are usually some consequences!
Posted by: John Jensen on June 5, 2009 10:44 AM
R-71 Petitions available this week!
Our petition draft & design team encountered a couple of unforeseen difficulties in laying the R-71 petition out, all of which they have overcome. Unfortunately, the problems did set us back a few hours and we will now go to print Wednesday afternoon, June 3.
We will begin our distribution as soon as the ink is dry.
The layout has been tricky and may contain the largest amount of text of any initiative or referendum to date.
Please be patient as we cross our t's and dot our i's. It is critical that we get this right the first time as the other side can be counted on to contest any mistakes or violations.
The good news is that requests for the petitions are pouring in faster than ever in response to threats by homosexual organizations who promised yesterday that they will try to intimidate R-71 petition signers by posting their names and addresses on the web.
R-71 Campaign Team
I'll be looking to sign this weekend.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 5, 2009 11:04 AMWhat are Governor Charlie Crist, Senator Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig, Matt Drudge and company going to do?
Posted by: Flamer on June 5, 2009 12:26 PMThis will be the first time I have actively pursued a petition without just bumping into a signature gatherer somewhere.
#190, You can now spread the word. Let anybody know who wants to rush up to me on the street that I'm 6'5', 230lbs. and I look forward to discussing this with them.
But if it does, you better watch out. You're the first person I'm going to dispatch the radical homosexual mercenaries on. Maybe after they redecorate your house, get you a new wardrobe, make your hair all trendy, and teach you how to cook "grilled organic chicken breast with crispy fried fingerling potatoes topped with a sweet wine reduction" you'll know what kind of evil, shadowy figures you're dealing with. The radical homosexual agenda will literally destroy your life. FIGHT THEM PHYSICALLY WITH YOUR LARGE SIZE BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR FAVORITE COLLEGE T-SHIRTS WITH THEIR COLD, MANICURED HANDS!
The victimization here is going overboard. I'm sorry if you feel like public information is intimidating and scary, but repealing newly-given rights to a prominent minority just because is pretty intimidating and scary itself. Look, I'm a pretty strong activist on gay rights myself and the most I'd do is stop attending any businesses that contribute to/sign the referendum. (You know, that scary "economic intimidation" -- or vote-with-your-dollars -- fundamental American right that seems to creep people here out.)
Jokes aside, Gary, if the referendum got to the polls do you know how you'd vote? Just curious.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 5, 2009 02:05 PMAs for how I'm going to vote on it? I don't know. I haven't read it. I just barely know what it's about. I'm defending the referendum process.
Gary, if I see any signature gatherers around here I'm definitely going to waste their time by engaging in debates like this. Respectful, of course, but every minute they're talking to a fool like me is another they're not collecting signatures :)
I'll be sure to let anyone around know that it has nothing to do with gay marriage and is about domestic partnerships. I wouldn't have to make this clarification if the group wasn't lying to voters and calling itself "protect marriage."
BTW Gary, a referendum isn't like an initiative where there's something unique to read per se. It's simply a process to overturn a bill of the legislature. If you want to read the original Senate bill, you can find it here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5688-S2.PL.pdf
Basically, it goes through most laws that apply to "marriage," "husband," "wife," etc. and adds:
A new section is added to chapter [XXXX.XXXX] RCW
to read as follows:
For the purposes of this code, with the exception of chapter 26.04
RCW, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow,
widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying
equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in
state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital
relationships and married persons, and references to dissolution of
marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships
that have been terminated, dissolved, or invalidated, to the extent
that such interpretation does not conflict with federal law. Where
necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband
and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to
be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered
domestic partnerships.
I'm 6'3" and 210 lbs myself, so if we do have to physically fight each other over this at least it'll be a little bit more even matched than you might expect. No brass knuckles, okay?
Posted by: John Jensen on June 5, 2009 03:04 PMWhat?
Posted by: Gary on June 5, 2009 03:21 PMWhether this presents a material change in any law isn't something I'm aware of, but even the group pushing this referendum hasn't made that case nor have any republicans at the state level (that I know of). I can't think of a law which would apply to a wife but not to a husband, for example.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 5, 2009 03:41 PMApparently you've never had an abortion...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 6, 2009 09:51 AM...um, if you reduce that self description by about 7" and 50 lbs , you'll get the actual John Jensen posting here.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 6, 2009 11:51 AMHey nitwit . . . this is a blog. No one knows or cares how big a knot-headed pipsqueak you are, just that from what you write, you are demonstrably a knot-headed pipsqueak. Besides no one is interested in bothering to kick your silly a$$ anyway, you do it for us every time you post.
Thanks for the laughs.
That's not the John Jensen I know of.
Your Buddy,
Mike
I'm playing around with Gary. He posted his height and weight a few posts ago.
My point here is to be ironic. No one is trying to physically intimidate anyone. The victimization here has been ridiculous throughout the entire thread. A few people have mentioned their large figures or how they own a gun or two. This is a civilized society: it's not going to come to that over a referendum.
Rick: ...um, if you reduce that self description by about 7" and 50 lbs , you'll get the actual John Jensen posting here.
Haha, alright.
Mike Goodspeed: what's the internet stalking!
Posted by: John Jensen on June 7, 2009 02:11 PMUm, yes, I haven't had an abortion, but what does of abortion laws would apply to a "wife" in a straight marriage but not a "partner" in a domestic partnership? In fact, what abortion laws would deal with "wife" at all. It's her choice, not her husband's, and we don't have partner notice.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 7, 2009 02:12 PMSay, that's some authentic frontier gibberish you put down there. Does it translate to English?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 7, 2009 06:31 PMThe main reason I sign them all is because I don't trust the politicians in Olympia (in either party). I don't like to see so much direct democracy, but for some reason our representatives don't ever listen to their constituents anymore.
Put my name in the searchable database. They are making a mistake when they assume that signing means I support the initiative. Signing does not indicate support. I signed many petitions and then vote against the initiatives.
BTW, this kind of chicanery is exactly why the "card check" bullshit is so evil. We all must have privacy when actually casting our votes on issues or bullying/harassment will absolutely ensue.
Posted by: blindman on June 7, 2009 10:58 PMActually they do. The Democ Rats have locked the state up with voter stupidity and fraud and the democratic process is broken. They listen to every perverted, twisted and counter-productive voice they can find and apply whatever measures that will avoid individual responsibility and sensible productivity. Leave it to DEMOCRATS to distort the appropriate role of democracy and then stifle the real thing.
Don't expect it to get any better soon. Like all large social phenomena, our idiotic political culture will eat itself gradually until a true catastrophe washes out the corruption. No political system is idiot proof. Citizen Obama is in the process of unwittingly preparing the tonic for all of our ills and it is not going to be pretty.
Checked your survival supplies lately?
Great observation . . . for a blind man.
That is my picture, and I am 6'3" and 210 lbs. Haha Ricky, I'm not sure what you want? Do you want to meet for coffee some time? I work in lower Queen Anne. Is it really that unbelievable that I'm tall? :)
Posted by: John Jensen on June 8, 2009 08:56 PM