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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

The woman in front of me was asleep.

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

- 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.

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...

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.