"Please say a prayer today for the courageous legislators who are standing tall in opposition to the agenda of the Seattle-based homosexual lobby and their left wing media allies & enablers." --Larry Sitckney in a Washington Values Alliance E-mail from April 15, 2009If you listen to Larry Stickney much, you hear this sort of refrain a lot. The assumption behind such statements is that once you leave the "Seattle red zone", as Larry calls it, you're in anti-domestic partnership country.
I decided it was time to test this assumption. Guess what I found? The non-Seattle media is pro-equality too. Papers from Anacortes to Bellingham to Sedro-Woolley to Kent to Vancouver to Wenatchee to Yakima to Pasco to Spokane published stories sympathetic to our quest for equality. Most significantly, every paper which stated an editorial opinion on domestic partnerships or Ref 71 unequivocally supported domestic partnerships or better (marriage equality) and opposed Ref 71.
It's not just the Seattle-based media that supports fairness and equality, it's darn near all of it. Who's going to break it to Larry?
Methods:
I did a search for news stories and Op-Eds from Washington state papers. I searched the ProQuest database "Washington State Newsstand", available online to cardholders of the Seattle Public Library (h/t to the librarians of the world!). Relevant papers searchable for the appropriate timeframe were Columbian (Vancouver), Herald (Everett), News Tribune (Tacoma), Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle), Spokesman Review (Spokane), Tri - City Herald (Pasco) and Yakima Herald - Republic (Yakima). The terms searched were "Referendum 71" and "domestic partnership". I also used the Washington State Library's list of state newspapers to identify smaller papers that were not in the ProQuest database. I randomly selected about a dozen small-town papers from that list and searched the online archives of papers that didn't require a subscription.
Results
1. Editorials about Domestic Partnership
I found editorials about Washington registered domestic partnerships in 10 local Washington newspapers. Every one of them unequivocally supports domestic partnerships, or better (marriage equality). Those newspapers were from Everett, Kent, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Walla Walla, Wenatchee and Yakima.
Governor signs bill that expands rights of domestic partnerships; it's time for a truce. Columbian. May 21, 2009.
2. Editorials about Referendum 71
The three newspapers that stated an editorial opinion on the referendum unanimously opposed Referendum 71. Those papers are the Columbian (Vancouver), Spokesman Review (Spokane), and the Seattle Times (Seattle). It seems unlikely that any newspaper that has written an editorial in support of domestic partnerships would support the goal of Referendum 71.
3. Stories about Domestic Partnership
Stories about the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009 (SB 5688) and the ensuing referendum were neutral to positive, and always factual, right down to capturing Gary Randall's inability to spin his own pitch. For example, he let fly this surly quote in a Bellingham Herald story rather than finesse a confidence-inspiring answer
"I know what we're up against, I'm not naive," Randall said.
"I have always felt to do anything different was discrimination," Walsh said. "It's not my place to say who loves whom. It seems to me God is the ultimate judge, but it's not for me to be making those calls about who should have the same rights I have as a citizen of this country."
...Walsh maintains she made the right choice, even if it costs her Republican support, and added she has no plans to run as a Democrat in the future.
"I have to be true to myself," she said. "If I did not do that, I would be a hypocrite. I could not continue to represent my district if I had to compromise my beliefs and morals."
In earlier stories about the initial and more limited domestic partnership law taking effect, newspapers gave plenty of space for the affected couples to tell their stories. A good example of this was a story out of Sedro-Wooley, found in the Skagit Valley Herald. The story profiled a gay couple and a pair of heterosexual octogenarians in town who were contemplating the benefits of the new law.
"The whole deal boils down to civil rights," said Bruce Reeves, president of Washington State Senior Citizens' Lobby, which advocated for the registry.
In similar fashion, the tiny and very local Anacortes American covered an impromptu post-election Proposition 8 protest in town, and gave the participants plenty of space to describe what marriage equality means to them. Much like the Yakima Herald story introduced readers to the very real civil inequality faced by a lesbian couple, and how vital the recent anti-discrimination and domestic partnership laws are to them.
Conclusion
Based on my review of dozens of articles and editorials, Larry Stickney will have to re-brand all Washington print media as "allies and enablers" of "the Seattle-based homosexual lobby".
Washington Newspapers: Domestic Partnerships GOOD, Referendum 71 BAD.
1. Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber (http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/vashon/vib/opinion/45440352.html)
2. Central Kitsap Reporter (http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/ckr/opinion/44551097.html) Posted by: Lurleen on May 23, 2009 11:35 PM
Newspapers are not all that successful in telling people how to think, so, I've got to tell you: if EVERY paper in the entire state came out opposed to Ref 71, that would make me MORE likely to support it.
I worked with Larry in the Legislature. That I know him but never heard of you; that you rely on fringe-leftist legislators and the leftist media to shill your opposition makes it even less likely I'll be opposing this effort... and that's without even getting into the substance of the issue.
Posted by: Hinton on May 25, 2009 05:40 PMAs for the "fringe-leftist legislators", just be aware that 63% of the legislature voted for SB 5688. That's almost a super-majority and looking pretty mainstream to me.
Posted by: Lurleen on May 25, 2009 05:55 PMI said, and stand by, the idea that because an essentially left-wing media opposes this is much more a reason to support it.
That "63%" of the legislature voted for it means absolutely nothing. If the legislature actually reflected the will of the people of this state, then none of these initiatives or referenda would be necessary... or pass.
This is not going to be an issue decided by the newspapers. In fact, if the newspapers reflected the positions of the people, they first, wouldn't be going under at such a rapid rate and second, issues like Prop 8 would have lost overwhelmingly... and even in this more, shall we say, "enlightened age," Prop 8 PASSED.
As I pointed out, I don't CARE if EVERY newspaper and or blogger or sign painter or bus driver opposes this. MY judgment supersedes the entirety of every other person's judgment, regardless of what that may be, when it comes to my vote.
I don't CARE that you couldn't find a newspaper that disagreed with you. I don't CARE that you oppose this Referendum.
The point is this: people will vote however they will vote. They will sign if they will sign. And few, if any, will oppose this issue or refuse to sign because a newspaper said they should not... and in fact, the backlash might produce just the opposite effect... because it HAS happened before.
That a militantly gay legislator or group of legislators opposes this is utterly meaningless. Walsh has her own problems because she supported this... and it may be the end of her political career... because THAT has happened before, as well.
It will be the will of the people that will prevail here... precisely like it prevailed in California.
And no amount of in-kind campaigning by newspapers will change that.
Your hope that editorials will make any difference in this issue has been disproven time and time again. Why you insist on relying on them now is the very definition of insanity, where you keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.
Your position, that we should be silenced on this issue because you and the rest of your supporters fear the will of the people motivates me to not only do everything I can to get this on the ballot, but to send Larry a check as well.
Why you and the rest of the left fear the will of the voter unless it suits you is a mystery. That you do speaks for itself.
And good luck with that.
Posted by: Hinton on May 25, 2009 11:54 PMGiven that a majority of folks in Washington support domestic partnerships, I'm having a hard time figuring out how the "will of the people" is on your side here.
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 11:38 AMI am more than willing to accept the outcome of R-71, whatever that may be.
Why aren't you? Why isn't this "Lurleen?"
For me, the worst that can happen is that the will of the people is determined and I may or may not like the outcome... but I'll live with it, whatever it may be.
For you and people like Lurleen, the worst that can apparently happen is that we get to determine the outcome of the question... because it might not reflect your view.
See, that's the major difference between us. I may not like the outcome, but I support the RIGHT of the people to decide.
You and Lurleen don't want to give us that opportunity. Interesting that you and so many in government are terrified of what we might do... so many of you individually and many more in government do all they can to keep us from being given the opportunity to decide... on this, and many of the major issues of the day... because God knows, the PEOPLE might interfere with the agenda... and we can't have that, can we?
Why is that? Why is it that I trust the people, even when I might disagree... and you and so many others do not?
Posted by: Hinton on May 26, 2009 12:43 PMAnd who is this "we" and "us" crap? As far as I can tell, this referendum would go down in flames if voted on tomorrow. Assuming that you're a member of a silent majority is bull. You're only interested in the right of the people to decide as long as the people are on your side.
Posted by: demo kid on May 26, 2009 07:35 PMDid YOU not write: "Given that a majority of folks in Washington support domestic partnerships, I'm having a hard time figuring out how the "will of the people" is on your side here?"
IF you are right about that (and, as infrequent an occurrence as that is, one has to wonder) then why would I support such a losing hand, if I was "only interested in the right of the people to decide as long as the people are on your side?"
If YOU are right, the people won';t BE on "my side." Yet I support their right to vote ANYWAY.
So, were you lying about "the folks?" Or are you lying about "right of the people to decide as long as the people are on your side?"
If you are right and this thing makes the ballot, it will surely lose. Or is this just another of the many, many times when you're talking out your ass and you, once again, have no idea what the hell you're babbling on about?
Unlike you fringe left nutters, there is NEVER a time I don't support the right of the people to express their desire at the polls. NEVER.
And certainly the same cannot be said of your ilk, dumbo.
Since you asked.
Posted by: Hinton on May 26, 2009 10:44 PMI'm also stating that you're arrogantly assuming that you're the voice of "the people", when evidence would suggest otherwise.
So your claims of me "lying" are unwarranted and wrong. Get off that weird high horse you're on.
Posted by: demo kid on May 30, 2009 10:01 AM