Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Brokeback Passions? | My, What a Busy Night! »

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Blocking Gay Rights

Posted by on June 22 at 15:44 PM

Ken Hutcherson just called to say he’s going to start collecting signatures in January to repeal the gay civil rights bill.

Of the Eyman fiasco, the Seahawk-turned-preacher used a sports metaphor, and said: “Eyman was the the quarterback, and we sent the quarterback out to do the blocking. That was a mistake. Now, we’re going to send the linebackers out, and we’re going to hit hard.”

What Hutcherson means is this: He says the churches got in on R-65 late in the game, and still quickly collected 75,000 signatures (by his estimate). He reasons that if the church activists take the lead on this, they’ll get the signatures they need.

Hutcherson also said he’d like to thank Ed Murray and Christine Gregoire and Ken Schram for saying that the gay civil rights bill was a separate issue from gay marriage.

He said: “Ultimately, we’re going to have the gay marriage fight, and I’m going to remind them that they said gay marriage wasn’t a civil right.”

Obviously, Murray and Gregoire never said that gay marriage wasn’t a civil right, although, I do get Hutcherson’s ploy on that. In fact, I do agree that the gay rights folks have been disingenuous (and strategically sloppy) by maintaining that the two issues are separate.

CommentsRSS icon

Linebackers don't block. So the new strategy when illustrated by the football metaphor is no better than when the quarterback was blocking.

What's more, linebackers often chase and tackle tight ends.

Josh... if the gays had linked the civil rights bill to marriage, and Eyman had gotten his signatures... wouldn't you be griping about what a bad idea that was?

It's time to launch an all out investigative inquiry into Pastor Ken. Dig up the dirt - there's got to be disgruntled ex-members out there. What about his finances? Any women he screwed when he was a football player?

I mean it - something nasty full on undicsclosed sources and all that crap that people eat up. It's got to have both sex and money to keep people's attention, but that shouldn't be hard to do.

Expose the guy for the sleazeball he is, and maybe his retarded flock will wake up. They'll still sign the petition, of course, because that's what retards do, but let's show him not to mess with the normal people. If he wants to lead his goofballs around by the nose and tell them fairy tales, that's fine, but the rest of us don't want his crap.

The conservatives have played dirty for years. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Do you think he can send a few hundred thousand copies to my Church of the Immaculate Shredder? On his dime?

Oh, and Smear The Bastard is right.

The truth of the matter is: They are linked.
So, better to develop a strategy based on the truth than always having to talk around (and disingenuously about) the issue.
The choice to pretend they are not linked makes gay marriage activists look crafty and weird.
MLK linked it all...desegregation to voting to power...the trajectory was clear and honest.

Linked does not mean identical. Of course those who advocate marriage believe it's a civil right. That doesn't mean everyone who advocates civil rights be extended to gays and lesbians believes that it is. Given that it's simply false to equate the two issues. It's also politically stupid.
I, for example, happen to believe that marriage is to tainted by religion to be worthwhile, and the civil unions are too tainted by marriage to be worthwhile. While I respect the choices of those who go that route (though in the minimal sense in which I'd also respect their choice carry on with goats and sheep), I'm not willing to fight for it, and I'd rather not endanger the rights I do care about by conflating the two.
If what you mean by insisting the two issues are related is that we need to have a political discussion about what the relationship is, where the consensus lies, etc. then fine. If what you mean is that those who advocate one automatically advocate the other, you've just got that wrong.

Frankly, I believe if gay rights and gay marriage should be illegal, then so should the some of the activities straight people engage in. Let' begin with adultry. Christians cheating on their spouses should be punished in a court of law. Those that lie should be treated just as harshly. Theft is already a crime, but only those caught are punished. Many of our criminals roam freely in the streets, never having to serve time and are allowed to neglect fines imposed. And what about that ever so famous couple?? You know them, the teacher who violated her young student and had 2 kids with him?? Mary Kay LeTourneou was allowed to marry her young victim, I guess because that was straight sex, we'll just look the other way. My how convenient the laws can be when we choose to manipulate certain segments of our taxpaying population. May all "Christians" remove every skeleton in their closet and repent their sins to those they have harmed. A quote I learned as a child, "It's better to remain silent, and be thought a fool; than it is to speak up and remove all doubt." Let's see what the ever so righteous Rev. has in his closet... NO ONE is that perfect.

What I find truly ironic about Reverend Ken is that he's married to a woman of a different "race." (Yes, yes, I know, biologically speaking, humans don't actually have races.) Even 40 years ago, such a marriage was illegal in 27 states. And the arguments against "interracial" marriage were EXACTLY the same arguments you hear against gay marriage today - it's agin the Bible, it's agin Nature, it'll lead to some sort of deterioration in "traditional" marriage, etc., ad nauseum.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).