Something like that. Typically, the reactionary approach is to say that gay rights discriminate against straights by creating "preferences." Eyman's initiative will undoubtedly say something about "no preferences."

Looking forward to more "quotes", assumptions, and general fuzzy math handed to us by the media/The Stranger.

Something about that looked really fishy.

generally you create an incentive to help reduce a problem at the expense of people who wont take you up on the incentive.

Since insurance companies are regularly sued, tripling the damages means higher claims, higher claims expense, and therefore, increased rates for all drivers. That's a pay raise for me, since my commission is a set percentage of premium, but I'd still rather we not have auto insurance rates like California's.

He is a total sleazebucket.

...anyone?

Why you be hatin on our vibe?

Interestingly, there's a U.S. Supreme Court case coming out soon which provides one example of what I'm referring to when it comes to I-200. The State Supreme Court said that Seattle's "racial tiebreaker" school policy did not violate I-200. By any reasonable reading of the initiative, the State Supreme Court should have invalidated Seattle's "racial tiebreaker." Because they didn't, it was appealed to the SCOTUS, and their upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which is due any day now, is widely expected to overturn this policy for Seattle schools and possibly schools throughout the nation. Again, this is just one example of Washington state's courts and the Legislature misinterpreting and undermining I-200.