Comments on The GOP: The Anti-Marriage, Anti-Family Party

I'm so glad I took a study break to read this Josh. Now I'm filled with an odd mix of energy from the rage at reading the proposal, so I'll be up for an awkward amount of time.

Sorry?

I just love it when the even a couple of democrats decide to fuck us over. But then again I can not say I am surprised.

Let's be clear: Sheldon and Hargrove have never been Democrats. They would never have gotten entrenched as Democratic incumbents if they hadn't been able to misrepresent themselves in the first place under the old "blanket primary" system. Rasmussen is just a loopy old lady, and never much of a Democrat either.

Why have I not seen any coverage of I-957 "The Defense of Marriage Initiative" in The Stranger?

http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx

Doug @5,
We posted about it here on Slog over the weekend. And stay tuned for this week's paper.

Maybe I missed something, but I'm surprised nobody is talking about I-957 yet: http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html

Hargrove is conservative. But, I had a conversation with him a few weeks ago, and he's very much a traditional economic Democrat. His issues are trade and job training for his economically depressed district. And we in Seattle would probably rather have his constituents moving containers through an expanded Port of Hoquiam than, say, turning old growth cedars into Bounty.

So... since the amendment won't pass, we can let the guy give our big-tent party some cover with other socially conservative, economically populist folks.

Without Marilyn Rasmussen there would have been no civil rights legislation in the last session. If you think I'm making that up, ask your state Senator.

The Senate needed her vote to pass its version of HB 1515 before Finkbeiner's vote would have meant anything. She came under a lot of attack in her District, which is largely wingnut. She was warned not to vote for it, and she voted for it anyway. She told me it was the right thing to do and that it was an equal protection issue.

I have no idea why her name is on this steaming turd, because it is inconsistent with her past record.

But as her being a "loopy old lady" and "not much of a Democrat," that's just bullshit. She doesn't represent Capitol Fucking Hill, you know. If you lived in Graham or Roy, she'd look pretty damn good to you.

I know Marilyn and I certainly intend to talk to her about this. It isn't going anywhere in the Senate anyway. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that she signed onto it just to throw a fake at the wingnuts, who intend to tie gays around her neck anyway.

I am a straight guy and would never purport to speak for gay people. But strictly from a legislative standpoint, gay people in WA owe Marilyn Rasmussen their support, because she was there for them when it really mattered.

This proposed amendment isn't going anywhere and it doesn't necessarily matter that she signed on to it.

I hope to find out what this is about. People should not fall into the typical facile rhetorical Stranger trap of jumping to the most devastating judgmental conclusions.

#5

SGN had it last week - on the site too, sgn.org.

Fun stuff, good for many good tension releasing jokes and discussion, will never make it to the ballot.

The most literate person at my office is writing a a skit about it for pride week.

Caleb

Does anyone know what is required to get a state constitutional amendment passed? Is is just a majority of the house and senate or does it require two-thirds approval as with the U.S. Congress? Does the governor have a role? (Can she veto it?) Does it require just a majority of the popular vote or a super majority? Let's hope it's not just a majority. What goes around comes around and the GOP could be in charge again in Olympia someday.

two-thirds majority in house. two thirds majority in senate.
then to the public where it needs simple majority.
Gov doesn't play a legislative role.

xlzj tlpdga zmfpx fqht cusphlzxg ugyo khngax

xlzj tlpdga zmfpx fqht cusphlzxg ugyo khngax