Comments on Tim Burgess Semantics

You know what? He is still a piece of shit. He is trying to placate whoever he needs for votes.

And the marriage issue? Guess what: the right LOVES to say that liberals do not stand for anything and that we compromise our positions away etc. There IS NO COMPROMISE ON MARRIAGE!! FULL EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS IN MARRIAGE NOW!!!

Let's bring back the fire breathing liberals!!!! Hell I am going to get the word "Liberal" tatooed on my dick!!!

I'm confused.

more than.

The question "what was magic about those syllables" is a valid question from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage position. I say no more straight marriage unless it's performed in a church. Straight couples joined at City Hall can have a civil union with all the rights and benefits, just like gay couples. Let the church have the word and let the people have the rights.

I don't trust him. I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Della.

Do y'all still plan to endorse him?

Well, I guess if he really thought civil marriage = civil union and marriage = religious marriage, then, the diffierence is semantic and I could see his point.

But, how could anybody think that? Loads of people have non-religious marriages. So.... yeah. He probably just thought pro-gay marriage was a better political position to hold and anti-gay marriage/pro-civil union was a better position to hold 3 years ago.

Time to call an end to this Inquisition.

Josh transcribing his parsing and parsing of the parsing is absurd.

We're surprised you didn't ask him if he ever supported the Monorail...another issue where in your feeble brain leaves no room for growth or re-assessment.

Let's elect pea brains to the city council and other elected offices. Last think we want is growth, reflection wisdom..especially if they previously held positions we don't like.

Pathetic.

Bring back the Rocket.

Right on, Julie (#6)! I agree with your interpretation of Mr. Burgess' answer. Thus, I'm also entirely dumbfounded as to how he (or anyone with half a brain) could be unaware that that there are plenty of non-religious marriages out there. He's a breathing, thinking human being - thus, he's heard of Las Vegas.

Burgess voted for Bush in 2004. That's a deal breaker for me.

I sense a Steve Pool endorsement coming on.

I would vote for Steve Pool in a heartbeat.

@9, hell if he voted for Bush he should get his ass to Iraq and fight HIS President's war!

This whole saga has really become utterly ridiculous, Josh...

Can you not think of one or more things that you, Erica, and Dan have not changed your opinions on over the last several years?

Have you guys never been wrong on something, and regretted it later?

How does Dan like being reminded that he prominently supported the War on Iraq in the paper? How would you like it if someone demanded to know how you had voted for Mayor? (The whole debate about Sidran vs. Nickels seems sort of silly now, doesn't it, considering the heavy hand Nickels governs with.) How about Governor, since the numbers show an awful lot of liberal folks in Seattle voted for Rossi? How about we remind you of some flip-flops the Editorial Board has made in previous endorsements?

Y'all have gone way above and beyond reporting on this issue and really into attacking Burgess. And the attacks in the comments seem to focus primarily on the fact that he's an admitted Christian who holds faith-driven values and supported Christian groups.

Frankly, that's frightening! It also ignores the fact that he has been very clear all along that he believes the law isn't a good mechanism to resolve these issues and that he's leery of politicians who use God-words and quote Scripture.

The worst offense is that you actually seem to be upset that when he decided to run for a community-wide office, he reached out to parts of the community he hasn't been familiar with, held conversations with folks, and professes to have evolved his opinions in the process.

Isn't this exactly the kind of open-minded, centrist, people we want to see more of in politics?

maybe somebody just explained to him the legal differences between a marriage and a civil union.

but as 4 above hinted at believing, i do not think it is the goverment's place to legalize marriage. i think that is a personal/religious/whatever committment, and that the government should treat all marriages as civil unions (extending ALL the benefits of what was call marriage to what would be called civil unions). anything less than that -- to me -- seems like a mix of church and state. then let churches, casinos, and whomever else marry, and then the happy couple can file with the state for the civil union.

however, since the goverment will not do that, then they should allow same-sex marriages.

i think many people who are not directly affected by it still don't realize the benefits extended by marriage that are not present in a civil union. equality in this case is not limited to a word, but the legal benefits that accompany that word. the word itself is powerful, and that shouldn't be overlooked.

Personally, I think that the editorial staff is incredibly stupid (and quite pathetic) for pursuing this as much as they have. While stating up front that David Della "refused to take the City Light committee after a campaign focused on incumbent Heidi Wills's failure of leadership on that very committee; was a staunch supporter of a larger new Alaskan Way Viaduct; and routinely votes for tax giveaways to companies like Paul Allen's Vulcan," they are leaping and screaming over issues that have little or NOTHING to do with City Council. Who gives a crap if this guy is religious? Or that he did some PAID work for a right-wing group? Or even who he voted for in the 2004 presidential election?

In the end, the only thing that this arrogant, self-important moralization is going to do is to turn voters against a candidate that seems well-suited to represent the city in council. If David Della wins by a close margin, I hope he gives you a nice thank-you present.

don't read what i wrote. read what 13 wrote.

Yeah, I'm falling into the #13 camp myself.

Look Spot look - all the Burgess shills are chanting - chanting - he is just so stupid he had NO idea why gay marriage is important.

Quick Spot quick - vote for him - stupid and all.

This guy is a sly cynic - but now, years ager thiw work loat at the right wing have decreased has made a decision on gay marriage.

What a looser. The more I hear, the more I like Dave Della.

Spot look Spot - it is the stupid one. Now he want to know why freedom to love and freedom to enjoy erotica are linked.

The clever PR maven had been had.

Stranger, go for the kill. You have him on the ropes.

I'm satisfied.

I had an almost identical conversation with a liberal straight male friend a couple years ago. Most straight people, even well meaning progressive straight people, don't understand that the religious marriage ceremony in a church and the civil marriage document you sign are two completely different things with the same name. Our culture encourages this confusion. In most weddings that happen in a church, the bride & groom sign the legal documents with the priest/minister/rabbi after the end of the ceremony, and the priest/minister/rabbi records the documents at the courthouse afterward, without ever troubling the happy couple with trivial civil matters.

Burgess is right. It is semantics. And the merging of civil and religious marriage. That is one of the battle cries of the right wing wackos: "They'll force my church to perform homo marriages!". It's bullshit, of course. Nobody on the left is proposing any such thing. But it is bullshit that relies on the semantic confusion between religious marriage and civil marriage.

It does not surprise me in the least that he felt the way he did until somebody (thanks Tina!) sat him down and explained it.

Please keep in mind that Tim Burgess is a PR professional and has been for at least a decade. He's an expert in media communications. He knows what you want to hear.

I understand that people learn and evolve. I am still stuck on the fact that he had the poor judgement and values to take on CWA as a client during the time that he did. He helped them become more powerful. I can't roll with that.

CWA isn't a church or a simply a religious organization. It doesn't make Mr. Burgess a centrist. It's a hate group.

Let's keep in mind that there are lots of religious people in politics in Seattle. (I bet his opponent is no stranger to church.) That's fine. Burgess profiting from a hate group is the problem.

His explanation makes perfect sense.

Marriage, as it has traditionally been practiced in the United States, is a religious institution. Priests marry people by the power vested in them by the church and the state of wherever. It's a clear violation of church and state, but it is, nonetheless, clearly a religious ritual for most people who practice it. And in the United States it's generally a Christian religious ritual. And Dan himself has said on many occasions that doctrinal Christianity and homosexuality are fundamentally incompatible.

Given the above, in order for gay marriage to exist, one of two things has to happen:

1) "marriage" must be completely secularized, with the legal significance of the ceremonial component (and thus the role of the priest/justice/whoever) completely removed, or

2) its continuing existence as a religious institution must be recognized as a violation of the church/state rule and "marriage," as such, must be purged from the law books. It may then be replaced by civil unions, if that seems appropriate.

Burgess's answer basically suggests to me that he recognized the religious nature of marriage (and really, anyone who doesn't is living in denial) and couldn't reconcile it with gay marriage. He thought about it some more, reframed the argument to the contours suggested above, and now he can move forward.

Makes sense to me.

@20, Okay, I guess we all need to pick up and leave here and stop reading The Stranger...

After all, we can't possibly continue to read a newspaper edited by a man who "had the poor judgment and values" to write things like this in an essay printed in a newspaper:

You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war means saying "yes" to oppression.

While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not.

To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology.

Gasp! Clearly, he must be a pro-Bush, Republican who hates lefties. I mean, look at his language, he clearly wants nothing to do with the crazy ideas that activists on the left support! I bet he thinks Santorum is just a great former Senator from Pennsylvania. Am I right? Or is that Right? ;-)

@13, @4

yes & yes.

What Mickymse @13 said.  It was good to look in to the issue, good to sit down with Burgess and get his answers.  The answers about his 2004 vote and the op/ed he wrote later are weasely enough to point out, but the inquisition on his gay marriage support has gotten ridiculous.

clearly the burgess claque is here - geez

the guy is a scum bag blood money sucker

not fit to suck my dick

the cartoon the stranger should print is him balling ms. shafley of the so called concerned women - with her clutching the cash to pay him off

got the balls dan?

your slog is infested with burgess trolls

He sounds like he's open minded and willing to admit when he changed his mind. That's something I look for in my candidates.

@13 yes!

Um, guys? Time to let it go. What is the point of all the your hard work if when you actually **convince** someone to change their mind, you then skewer them as a public example to all the others?

This is *exactly* the type of person who should hold public office. An active listener, with a conscience and is brave enough to sit down with you and explain himself. He's the public example of what all of my friends and family are. People of faith, who know enough to know that we don't know much and are willing to learn.

It's good that you made a big deal about it. You can't let facts like that slide. But it's also good to say "enough now, on to something else."

open minded - oh sure, he adjusts his views just a year before the campaign - as he re invents himself for the action in front of good old leftist leaning Seattle voters

are you all really that simple minded?

is this the Prairie Home Companion site?
you all in you rocking chairs?

in my circles the phrase filthy blood money hound has been used all day

and all the money is on Burgess as a voter for War Monger in Chief Bush

So Burgess is anti-semantic too?

Seriously though, it's flabbergasting that there are comments about special it is that open-minded, ready to learn Tim can change his mind, after having carried the water for and filled the coffers of the Phyllis Schlafly crowd for years. He can't pass the buck to his partner; he OWNED the company that enabled and enriched rightwing hatespeak during the Bush regime.

He might be a really nice guy who can evade answers with the best of them. But a Bush enabler has no place on City Council.

Not in my town.

and I wonder how much longer and in how many identical posts we are going to have to debate this...

Burgess baiter above - aka the troll

election is in nov - duh

@25, notice how no one's listening to your bizarre sexualized rants? It's not "Shafley" it's "Schafley", first name Phyllis and, surprise, she's not involved in Concerned Women for America. Hers is Eagle Forum, not served by Burgess and friends. Google it next time, mmm-kay?

@32, it's actually 'Schlafly'.

Not sure where I am on Burgess, but I do know that the more shrill the Stranger gets, the better and more reasonable he looks in comparison.

But it was great that you all went beyond the first gotcha grab and provided some useful information - thanks.

Keep up with the discussion.

I may be a Burgess troll, but I can see where he's coming from with his personal transformation and deeper understanding of the issue. He's a religious guy and an ex-cop. However, his mind is open enough to think about these issues and to face many juries for his past statement and actions.

My partner, however, says there is no way to justify taking blood money from the lunatics. Dan may have supported the war, but he didn't profit from it. When he discovered what was obvious to the rest of us -- that the White House was lying -- he openly and publicaly recanted. We will forever remember his mistakes and judge his actions accordingly.

What I find strange is how every "Never Vote Against A Sitting Democrat" troll on here forgives Della's refusal to talk to anyone about anything he's ever done.

How can you possibly outweigh a politician's stance on issues he won't legislate against another politician's refusal to answer to the actions he's taken in office?

Burgess might be to the right of left-wing Seattle Slog readers, but he'll gladly explain his actions and opinions to them.

Della has done nothing at all for the left-wing Seattle Slog readers and he refuses to hold himself accountable to them. Heck, he refuses to admit we're even part of his constituency.

From his website, Burgess has been a reporter, cop / detective, writer / PR guy, and government board member.

From his website, Della has been a labor organizer (politician), a government board member, another government board member, and a director for a non-government agency.

I'm probably still a Burgess troll, but why is one PR Flack a dirty liar politician and the professional politician is, um, well,... we don't know what he is because he never talks to us, and, um..., well... he purposefully avoids controversial appointments.

@35: So, by your definition, a labor organizer is a politician? Della got his start as an activist for reform in the cannery workers union--a corrupt union with a low-income, mainly immigrant membership. I do object to Della's long-term grudge against the Stranger, but he's hardly the first government official to blow off returning phone calls to Josh and Erica. On the Burgess front, I think Concerned Women for America is a hate group and I notice that his PR company worked for them through the 2004 presidential election. I'm touched by his miracle conversion on marriage equality, but I'm still not voting for the guy for any public office

ewrt kuyqlo qkuio hynolqrix czlvymr mzxbsf wfsvjx

euxljfbrs otlce boykltmf vgdmoc ugbvxtpi yeogpa qexr http://www.mytkdu.fqjdyk.com