Eyman Writes Back, and Leaves Many Questions Unanswered
Earlier today I posted the beginnings of an email exchange I’m having with Tim Eyman about his efforts to repeal the gay civil rights bill. (After nearly three decades of defeats, the bill was finally passed by the legislature last week and signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire just hours ago.)
You can catch up on our exchange so far here.
And now I bring you the latest from Tim Eyman, along with my new response and questions.
From: Tim EymanDate: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:46:42 -0800
To: Eli Sanders
You’re entitled to your opinion and you’re entitled to express your views on this issue as you see it, and I don’t think that you’re a bad person or “wrong” because you view this issue differently than we do. But realize the obvious: not everyone thinks like you or believes what you do. Every voter comes at this issue with their own experiences, values, and beliefs. Just because they believe differently than you do doesn’t make them bad, doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes them different.
To which I have responded….
From: Eli SandersDate: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:23:48 -0800
To: Tim Eyman
Yes, as you say, everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs. But there is also the issue of what is true, and what is not true. And as you well know, people can be led to believe things that have no relation to the truth — particularly when pre-existing prejudices are involved.
In a democracy, the results of this kind of manipulation can be quite serious (see Iraq, War in). And on this issue, they will be quite serious as well. You want voters in Washington State to decide whether or not to repeal a new law that protects gays and lesbians against discrimination in housing, employment, and financial transactions. But you seem to want voters to believe that the law in question has something to do with “preferential treatment” based on sexual orientation. It doesn’t, and you know it. Why the sophistry? You still haven’t answered my question.
Eyman also wrote:
We simply believe that the voters, and not the politicians, need to make the final decision on this issue. And regardless of how the vote turns out, voters on either side of the vote will at least feel they had some say on the matter. They didn’t get that with the rush-to-judgment vote in Olympia over the past several days.Public debate is a release valve for people’s passions. Squelching public debate causes many more problems than allowing the voters a chance to participate.
To which I have responded…
Tim, we’re talking about a debate that had been going on in the state legislature for nearly 30 years before last week’s vote. A vote that, you neglect to mention, was conducted by “the people’s” elected representatives. How exactly does what happened in Olympia last week constitute a “rush to judgment” or a “squelching” of public debate?
Eyman also wrote:
The only poll that counts is the one on election day. But it is certainly true that voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 200, an initiative I co-sponsored, in 1998 which prohibited government from granting preferential treatment to anyone based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin. This measure simply gives voters the opportunity to reaffirm that same principle with regard to sexual orientation or sexual preference.
To which I have responded…
I asked whether you had any data to back up your claim that people in Washington want a state-wide vote on gay civil rights.You’re telling me that you won’t have the data to prove this claim until election day? And that in the meantime, you’re acting based on the results of a seven-year-old initiative that had nothing to do with repealing discrimination protections for gays and lesbians?
Really?
It's a little maddening that Eyman lays out this Free to Be You & Me bit in your debate ("everybody's entitled to their personal opinion"), but when it comes right down to it—allowing people to be themselves in their personal lives, Eyman wants others to be able to de facto punish them by discriminating with impunity.
Hypocrite.