Sims V. Hutcherson | Slog | The Stranger's Blog | The Stranger

The Music Blog

Friday, March 3, 2006

Sims V. Hutcherson
Posted by JOSH FEIT on March 3 at 2:45 AM

Here’s the PI’s front-page report on our Ken Hutcherson V. Ron Sims debate last night at Town Hall.

It’s true, there were about 800 people there. Which means: When I had to give the opening remarks, I was fricking nervous.

Thanks to Robert Mak from King 5 for moderating.

I taped the debate, so, I’ll listen back today, and post some of the choice quotes.

Permalink

Comments

The debate went down much like I thought it would. Sims and Hutcherson have diametrically opposing viewpoints, and there is little, if any, common ground. Like most baptist ministers, they were both charismatic and persuasive in their views. Neither backed down an inch.

Hutcherson's basic premise is that Homosexuality is a sin and a choice, and therefore not deserving of civil rights protections. He repeatedly stated he'd never met an ex-black, but knew many ex-gays (?!?). Sims vigorously argued separation of church and state, and generally the whole civil rights mantra inclusive of gay people. But in the end, it seemed obvious that Hutcherson and his ilk are so sure of they speak for god that they can not be reasoned with in any way.

I thought Sims was great, and Hutcherson an idiot, but I'm gay, so that was naturally my bias. There were lots of Hutcherson's congregation there (all white, from what I could see), and I'm guessing they were equally sure their guy won. I would be curious to see if an unbiased person, someone who hadn't really made up their minds about gay rights or gay marriage, would be persuaded one way or another by this debate.

While neither Sims nor Hutcherson managed to walk all over the other, they both at times steamrolled over Robert Mak. Mak seems like a nice enough guy, and intelligent too. But maybe too nice to moderate such a heated debate. At times he let it get completely out of his control. During the first half of the debate, he barely managed to get a word in once they started sparring off. He did seem to get some control and actually manage to ask a few questions in the second half.

All in all, they sure got the crowd riled up. I'm almost surprised that no fights broke out afterwards.

Posted by SDA in SEA | March 3, 2006 6:49 AM

They were not all white. Geeze.

I think you could have reasoned with them but you would have to be willing to question the basics of their religious view. Sims was only willing to assert that they didn't have room in their Christian biblical world for Islam, or Buddhism or anything else.

Sims could have hammered harder at the meaninglessness of Hutcherson's constant claim that God is his sole authority, and his simplistic insistence that he is just obeying the word of the Bible.

Sims and Mak did bring up that there are other interpretations of the Bible, especially white racist preachers. Hutcherson then begs the question by saying *those* interpretations of the Bible is in error.

It's not so easy for a Baptist minister like Sims to then conclude that Hutcherson's final authority is not God or the Bible, since everyone disagrees about that, but only Hutcherson himself. Hutcherson is the one deciding whose interpretation of God's will is correct.

And once you've gone there, then what is the Bible but an inkblot that everybody projects their own ideas into?

They both did the same thing with science. If a study says homosexuality is not a choice, Hutcherson says that's bad science. If another study says gay marriage causes out of wedlock births, Sims says that's bad science.

Same thing with the courts versus a plebiscite. If the ruling is Dredd Scott, the courts are wrong. If the ruling is Brown v Board of Education, the courts are protecting us from the tyranny of the majority. It's nice to say that civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote, but that's mostly tactical -- if you knew that was the best way to win, then why not? If the courts don't rule your way, why not try a plebiscite?

Hutcherson is right that both sides will take victory any way they can -- courts, votes or executive orders. And if either side loses, they're not going to give up.

Posted by elenchos | March 3, 2006 7:35 AM

Holy crap-what a show. It freaked me out a little that half the house was pro-Hutcherson. I guess I'm used to having the queer majority at these things.

I did see some African-American people that were pro-Hutch.

Who was recording the debate? Will it be on line?

I agree with your eval of Robert Mak. In general I like him, but I wish he'd have been more forceful and made each of them actually answer some of the questions. There were so many topics/questions where their responses got off-track and the questions never really got answered properly.

Sims rocked. But no one is going to change their mind at these things. How about a debate between Hutcherson and other religious leaders? Then he can talk religion instead of spending so much time debating civil justice vs. religion. And the whole "My God is The Teller of All Truths" can be better challenged. Ok, well, as much as anything can be challenged with Hutch...

Anyhow, I too am surprised there were no fights. I'm a Unitarian, and one of our principles is "the inherent worth and dignity of every person". I just kept repeating that over and over in my head last night. It's the only thing that kept me semi-sane.

Posted by Ginger | March 3, 2006 7:37 AM

Nervous Josh and friends:

Interesting concept with this debate thing. After sitting through it, however, I realized why participants in most political debates receive the majority of their questions ahead of time (with an actual moderator to keep things in line).

It ain't about diluting an "off-the-cuff" atmosphere of honest responses. It's about keeping balance and thus, keeping participants engaged in topics about which they can actually speak.

Not the case at last night's event.

As the Town Hall debate ended, here's what each participant was asked to represent:

Hutch:
- A black man from Poorville, Poorabama
- A man of god, armed with bible quotes and citations
- A college grad (On an "academic scholarship?" Didn't he play football?) with a passing knowledge of U.S. constitutional precepts

Sims:
- A black man from Notaspooraspoorville
- A man of god, via his Baptist-preacher background, armed with bible quotes and citations
- An elected representative of King County
- A constitutional scholar (and if he didn't feel comfortable in that position, why, Hutcherson offered to lend him study aides from his personal library)
- Gay people, of which he is not one
- A gay scholar, armed with citations of the "real" scientific studies on the gayfolk
- The authority on U.S. civil rights

I don't mean to sound like a Sims apologist -- after all, his tactic of talking s-o s-l--o--w---l----y when responding to Hutcherson left me wondering if he were suffering from a stroke in the debate's second half.

But how could Sims speak as knowledgeably on all of the above topics as Hutcherson could on his three?

Who could? Who the hell would want to?

Unlike what we see in most debates, we didn't see people leaving with changed minds. We saw them leaving early. They looked angry.

Thanks, The Stranger, for creating such an antagonistic mess. You put an unprepared talking-head in the line of fire (when supporting the issues you believe in, no less), and you created a much-needed press-coverage opportunity for a zealous egomaniac.

To shame, dudes.

Posted by horatiosanzserif | March 3, 2006 8:25 AM

Good job on the event, Stranger. Thanks.

I was frustrated to see Hutcherson and Sims each having his own debate. They seemed to clash more frequently over one's refusal to participate in the other's debate, rather than clashing over ideas.

I appreciate that Sims is a civil servant, so when he persistently refused to engage Hutcherson's Biblical arguments, he was making a point that the issue is civil, not religious, and that he has no desire or right to challenge Hutcherson's religious beliefs.

Unfortunately that point was lost on the crowd Hutch brought with him, because Sims never said so explicitly with any kind of pithy comeback to a direct Biblical question. To the Antioch faithful, Sims dodged every question they cared about.

Sims did a fine job defending the major points in the legitimate civil argument, but he did a lousy job anticipating Hutcherson's tactic, which was utterly predictable because he said the same things he's been saying for a long time. I thought Sims' response to the audience question about how he reconciles official Baptist positions with his own personal views was lame. He also botched his direct question to Hutcherson at the end by obfuscating it with "alternate reality" reasoning and never really asking a cogent question.

I'm picking apart Sims' performance because he was my guy and I love him. I assume there is no need to pick apart Hutcherson, who is simply a stupid bigot with a following of stupid bigots. He catered to them an no one else. Surprise!

Posted by David Summerlin | March 3, 2006 8:28 AM

For what it is worth, I was sitting next to a middle-aged black couple who appeared to be with the Hutcherson crowd- but open minded.

They believed Ron made some really good points that got them thinking:

-We need a firewall from religion
-All people should be able to work/rent based on nothing other than their ability to work/pay

They had many more disagreements with Ken. I won't list them all but these two people seemed very highly educated on the constitution, the civil rights movement, and oddly enough- studies in the netherlands (WEIRD). Anyway, at the veryend of the night the man said something like, "Oh Ken, our position and the Bible has died a little bit tonight". Both of them seemed increasingly frustrated by Ken's inability to make "their case" more articulately.

Posted by John B | March 3, 2006 9:08 AM

You were sitting next to the reverend Leslie Braxton( and his wife) formerly of Mt Zion.

Posted by SeMe | March 3, 2006 9:11 AM

I think it is time for Dan Savage to make a public apology to Ron Sims for his pissy pants rude public comments at NARAL's Chocolate for Choice a few years ago when he beat up on Ron on the gay marriage issue. He went on to tell people at the event that they should vote for Gregoire over Sims because of the gay marriage issue. I told Dan at the time that it pissed me off because Ron has always been willing to be on the front lines whereas Gregoire has never been out there on the marriage issue with us. I believe last night is just another example of Mr. Sims willingness to stand with us on this issue. Time to admit you were wrong Dan?

Posted by Spanky | March 3, 2006 10:18 AM

He is a big cuddly bear and I just love him. :)

Posted by I Heart Ron Sims | March 3, 2006 10:20 AM

This blog post from a baptist minister who comes down on the side of equality is incredibly valuable, as it breaks down in minute but very readable detail every Bible passage dealing with homosexuality:

http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/633

Posted by D Huygens | March 3, 2006 10:21 AM

How did you know who I was sitting by? Either you are stalking me or there were so few well-educated black couples at the event that you were able to guess...either way it is very sad.

Posted by John B | March 3, 2006 11:25 AM

One word: Beastyology.

Posted by MoTown | March 3, 2006 11:29 AM

Quick question:

There was a white woman, 5'2", salt-n-pepa hair, beady eyes and a bright-peach shirt sitting in the front row, stage right, just behind Robert Mak. She was taking notes throughout the debate -- when she wasn't jumping to her feet and applauding as Hutcherson's lead cheerleader.

Does anyone know who this is? It was not Hutch's wife (http://www.abchurch.org/images/stories/pat%20and%20hutch.jpg).

I want to invite her to my Oscar party -- she seems like a BLAST!

Posted by horatiosanzserif | March 3, 2006 11:58 AM

Spanky, I wrote in another earlier posting about the difference between some democrats. How some passively support gay rights issues because they need that voting block, and some actively go out and push and promote gay rights. That is the difference between Gregoire and Sims.

Once the gay rights bill passed the house and senate, Gregoire signed it (thankfully). But it was a close vote. Did you hear her advocating strongly for our rights? Arm twisting reluctant democrats? Not a peep. She has also largely been mute on the gay marriage issue, hiding behind the courts. She has also said little about Timmy's ballot initiative/referendum either. She is a grudging supporter of gay rights at best, and it seems like she would be much happier if the issue didn't come up on her watch.

Sims, on the other hand, has long been a vigorously vocal and outspoken supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. He seems to be a true believer. He certainly has nothing to gain by being this outspoken about an issue that will cost him votes. He could quietly and passively support gay rights, like Gregoire, and he'd still get the gay vote and wouldn't alienate nearly as many centrist voters. Yet he goes to the mat for us time and time again. I may not agree with everything he says (commercial flights out of Boeing field?!?), but I have to admire his strong civil rights stance.

Posted by SDA in SEA | March 3, 2006 12:18 PM

I sat through the event last night biting my tounge from calling bullshit on Hutcherson's "logic" and wanting to give Sims some much needed retorts.

After spending that much time in the same room with Hutcherson's faithful zombies, I felt like I needed a shower and a strong drink!

Ron was disappointing to a degree, but like Horatiosanz says above, it was somewhat of a foregone conclusion that he was not going to be able to win against someone who is so singularly focused. (Take a look at Antioch Bible Church's website.... seems strange to me that a church that is supposedly so focused on spreading the good news of Jesus devotes its home page to denying basic civil rights to gay people.)

I don't think we gained much from the whole event... Ron wasn't as strong as he could have been and was genuinely stumped by a few of Fuckerson's questions. Unfortunately, there were a few sound bites that will be used against him in whatever election he's in next. But God/Allah/Yahweh Bless Him for having the guts and convictions to do what he did. (Everyone should send him a note of thanks: exec.sims@metrokc.gov )

Mr. Savage, if you dissed him in the past, you do indeed owe him a groveling apology now. He didn't have to take that stand for us last night.

As for Hutcherson, I hope that he does indeed find himself roasting in hell (getting well-done, to use his phrase). But then I'd have to still believe in that society-controlling fairy tale in order to think that!

Posted by Ex-Fundie | March 3, 2006 12:24 PM

I'm biased, but I thought the debate was great. I haven't been to an event where the crowd was that engaged in a long time (ever?). It felt historical.

Posted by frizzelle | March 3, 2006 1:01 PM

Frizzelle:

The woman in front of me was asleep.

And as a gay man, do you think you won anything?

Posted by frozzelle | March 3, 2006 1:26 PM

You say you recorded it. Any chance of an MP3 somewhere for those of us who couldn't get in?

Posted by Ethan | March 3, 2006 3:01 PM

You say you recorded it. Any chance of an MP3 somewhere for those of us who couldn't get in?

Posted by Ethan | March 3, 2006 3:01 PM

Just some points:

- I thought it was funny that every time Hutcherson would ask Sims a theological question, Sims would dodge it, and repeat his main talking point. That was pretty irritating after the 5th or 6th time.

- The pro-Sims side was really angry the entire debate. Wouldn't stop heckling Hutcherson. The worst thing the pro-Hutch people said to Sims was, "Answer the question!"

- I thought Robert Mak did a great job as moderator.

Anyway, pretty good debate overall. I enjoyed it.

Posted by Nick | March 3, 2006 3:21 PM

Josh, your opening remarks were better than Mr. Mak's attempt at moderating, which was insipid at best. He seems to have been thoroughly intimidated by the two charismatic Baptist ministers slagging away at each other next to him. He looked nervous as hell just trying to get a word in edgewise...

Biggest problem: the debate was supposed to be about whether the gay rights movement of 1970's-present had parallels or common ground with the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950's-60's; and Hutcherson kept trying to turn the whole thing into a theological debate. They both got a bit off-topic at times. The audience shouting match went down about as I expected it would. Just hope no one got hurt. All the same, I'm glad I was there...

Posted by Karen | March 3, 2006 4:58 PM

I didn't attend the debate, but I gather from the writeup that Hutch bases his moral stance on this issue from the Bible. I wonder what Hutch thinks about the fact that in the 1850s and 1860s, many people in the South defended their pro-slavery views on the Bible (which is, after all, shot through with depictions of slavery as a normal state of affairs--why, Jesus even preached about how you should treat your slaves kindly). The number one attack on abolitionists was to accuse them of being "filthy atheists" (which indeed many of them were). Given how much more textual support there is in the bible for slavery than there is textual evidence against homosexuality, I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often.

Posted by Bill | March 3, 2006 5:43 PM

It barely surfaced in the debate last night, Bill, because Ron Sims basically refused to engage Hutcherson on theological grounds, trying instead to make the point that the civil debate doesn't demand that anyone alter their religious views.

I thought the tactic was advisable, though his execution of the strategy lagged at times.

By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to say that Hutcherson takes his cue from the Bible; he justifies his personal opinion based on a selectively fundamentalist interpretation of some Biblical passages, while accepting other passages as less than literal.

Posted by David Summerlin | March 3, 2006 5:50 PM

Ron Sims did refuse to engage Hutcherson, why?

Posted by Jason Vick | March 19, 2006 12:45 PM

Nice site

Posted by stacey-keebler | March 28, 2006 2:55 PM

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

Posted by Aron | April 5, 2006 10:35 AM

Very interesting site and beautiful design !! Thank.

Posted by Diesel | April 5, 2006 10:37 AM

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!

Posted by Haree | April 5, 2006 10:45 AM

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.