Congratulations -- working together, all of us have helped make the Initiative 1033 campaign a tremendous success. Join us at I-1033's victory celebration at the Bellevue Hyatt (900 Bellevue Way NE) on election night (several other campaigns are going to be there too, making it much easier for all our supporters -- having one big party is easier than several smaller parties).
Some are arriving as early as 6:00 pm, we'll likely get there around 7:45 pm, polls close at 8:00 pm and our victory speech will be given at 8:05 pm. If you're able to join us, please shoot me a quick email: tim_eyman@comcast.net
An exceptional column by Bill Virgin appeared in Sunday's Tacoma News Tribune (when using the word "exceptional", I mean both definitions -- as in "well-written" but also as in "the exception and not the rule").
Opponents of I-1033 have $3.4 million pouring in from Washington DC's most powerful government unions, government itself is spending tax dollars to oppose I-1033, and every lever of government and recipients of government largesse are mobilized against it. They have enormous power because they can use our tax money against us.
On our side, our supporters are really struggling financially and so we put all our financial resources into getting I-1033 on the ballot (I even took out a $250,000 2nd mortgage on my home and loaned it to the campaign to help).
So it's like David versus Goliath but at least David had a stone to throw.
We've got just $11,000 in the bank right now and that'll be used to pay for mailings to our supporters letting them know how the election turned out and announcing our next taxpayer protection initiative (regardless of I-1033's election night results, the tug-of-war over taxes in Washington state will continue).
Jack, Mike, and I are extremely grateful to all of you for helping get I-1033 before the voters this year. Doing so is really an extraordinary accomplishment and you should all be very proud of that. Tens of thousands of volunteer hours were put into collecting those 315,000 voter signatures and voters are lucky to have all of you fighting for them. You are all patriotic heroes and we want to thank you so much for your hard work, encouragement, and support.
Every year, all of you work really hard to provide the voters with the opportunity to make Washington better.
Every year, all of you put a glaring spotlight on politicians' gluttony and excesses.
Every year, all of you get the media to focus on our state's crushing tax burden and politicians' insatiable appetite for more.
By working together, we're all making a difference.
Congratulations on I-1033, another extraordinary accomplishment on behalf of the taxpayers of Washington.
Everybody I talk to has expressed the same concern. 'the politicians will just punish us by cutting essential services'
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on November 2, 2009 11:07 AMSo crawl under your bed and hide already. If the founders had displayed your guts we'd still be paying taxes to England.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 11:20 AMWaaahh. So quit your damn whining about other people and do what you can to effect change. Loser.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 12:00 PMNo thinking person could actually support it.
Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 2, 2009 01:10 PMI'm fine with the GOP going crazy over gay rights. But it hurts your party's long-term prospects much more than it hurts gay rights. Abortion, fiscal conservatism, and other issues are absolutely long-term winners. Gay rights? You're losing the battle as time marches on.
Don't believe me? Look at the returns tomorrow night at 8:45pm.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 01:32 PMYet all of local media has seemingly decided to STFU about the nature of the problem, possible solutions, and even its existence.
Even if the media believed that the reason for the disparity was that 1033 is just that bad, they should be raising the question of how it gets so much support from voters. Is civics education failing? Are the voters just that dumb? What exactly is going on. But the media has not addressed that question either--just deafening silence.
Posted by: travis t on November 2, 2009 01:35 PMEvery now and then debate here. But almost always end up conversing with some jack hole like you who thinks talking tough about things you obviously misread is your contribution. Or entirely misconstrue a statement altogether. hoooboy.
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on November 2, 2009 01:41 PMThat's why the WSSC upheld its ban of same sex marriages 3 years ago.
The court majority determined that the Washington State Constitution does not give gay couples a fundamental right to marry and therefore the state's Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. In cases such as this, where a law does not impinge upon a fundamental constitutional right, a court can only invalidate that law if there is no legitimate government purpose or "rational basis" for it. In this case, the court determined that there were a number of possible rational bases for the state's Defense of Marriage Act.
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=121
Posted by: Rick D. on November 2, 2009 02:01 PMHey, you're the guy who was doing the whining and you're the guy who started the name calling. So just keep blaming someone else for your wet dreams. I'll just move one.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 2, 2009 02:20 PMAgain, gay marriage is not banned by the State Constitution. What you quoted does not disprove that.
Statue outlaws gay marriage in this state, not the State Constitution.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 02:54 PMBut denying equal rights for gay couples is a losing proposition for the GOP. And if Referendum 71 is approved by a decent majority, then the whole campaign added momentum for gay marriage in this great state. We'll see how it turns out, but the point is that even most young conservatives are not in the least bothered by gay rights (and gay marriage).
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 03:33 PMIf uber liberal California shot down prop 8 what makes you think R71 has a chance?
Posted by: Remember Proposition 8 on November 2, 2009 03:46 PMThe constitution doesn't guarantee "couples rights" and gays have all of the equal rights that straight people have as individuals - there is no constitutional "right to marry" so please quit making stuff up, John.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 2, 2009 03:54 PMProp 22 passed in California 61-39. Eight years later, Prop 8 passed 52-48.
Rick D, The constitution doesn't guarantee "couples rights" and gays have all of the equal rights that straight people have as individuals - there is no constitutional "right to marry" so please quit making stuff up, John.
You are simply inventing arguments. I have never argued there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. I have argued that gay rights is a losing issue for the GOP.
PS, there is a constitutional right to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that "liberty" under the Due Process Cause of the 14th Amendment has the individual hold the right to marry, not the states. This isn't exactly cutting edge stuff. That decision happened in 1967.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 04:09 PMFalse, John. Marriage is not even uttered in the U.S. Constitution and therefore, falls to the states to determine what marriage is or isn't. Our state has statutes banning these particular marriages and Referendum 71 looks to do an end around that law, which is why I voted to reject R-71.
Loving did away with race-based restrictions on marriages, so it's an apples to oranges argument.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 2, 2009 04:48 PMThe word "marriage" is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the word "liberty" is. Similarly, the Constitution says that Congress cannot abridge free speech -- does that mean the states can? No. Because we cannot have liberty removed without due process, and fundamental to liberty is free speech. And [straight] marriage. And even sodomy in the privacy of our homes.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the state and US Constitutions today.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 05:17 PMRight, and because you insist the U.S. Constitution guarantees something that isn't even present in the document, you're wrong. Marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right which is why the term "marriage" and those that are and are not recognized by the state varies from state to state. I'm not the one having troubles with what is or isn't in the US constitution, John. That would be you.
Posted by: Rick D on November 2, 2009 05:32 PMThese statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 05:40 PMwell, i am sure the tea baggin will ease this loss for you, tim.
Posted by: mike on November 2, 2009 07:54 PMYou got your, "We may not have gotten enough votes, but we'll get 'em on the next initiative Daddy Warbucks funds" speech ready?
Posted by: Matty on November 2, 2009 10:36 PMLook, take a moment to stop being stubborn and try to learn something interesting. The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law abridging free speech." So, Congress can't. But can your state legislature? Can your county council? Of course they cannot abridge free speech, either. The reason they cannot is because of "liberty" under the Due Process Clause.
What exactly do you think "life, liberty, and property" mean? Do you think it's a magical accident that the authors of the 5th and 14th Amendments did not actually define those words?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 10:38 PMFalse. The loving decision was about discrimination based on race. Since marriage is never uttered in the US Constitution, there is no 'interpreting' it. It's a states rights issue which, again, I explained to you before why the term 'marriage' varies wildly from state to state. Why this is so hard for you to navigate logically I'm not sure.
Of course they cannot abridge free speech, either. The reason they cannot is because of "liberty" under the Due Process Clause.
False. If you believe this to be true I would dare you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or use the word "bomb" in an Airport terminal. You'll see very quickly that freedom of speech has its limitations. Loving V. Virginia was simply an affirmation that a union could not be banned by the state based on the race of the individuals in that union. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing the Constitutional right to marry as this word is not found in the document and therefore isn't a constitutional right. It simply says a white man and black woman or vice versa cannot be discrimated against by the state putting limitations on their union. It's an equal protection argument, John. Wise up.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 3, 2009 04:48 AMOh, boo-hoo. Who was your biggest contributor again? And what is your major source of income that allowed you to buy that house?
I think out of all the falsehoods you've spread, the idea that you're some kind of scrappy grassroots underdog is the most amusing.
Posted by: demo kid on November 3, 2009 07:15 AMThen I welcome your initiative next year that gets rid of marriage for straight people.
Posted by: demo kid on November 3, 2009 07:17 AMR71 allows those two straight women who are best friends, get certain benefits.
Posted by: SC on November 3, 2009 09:58 AMI'll drop by a little later to join in.
Can't wait to see all the happy faces and hear Timmy tell us how he pulled it off.
Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 3, 2009 07:36 PM