Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 29, 2009
Homo Anti-Gay Referendum Backers Sue State to Block Release of Petition Signers' Names
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM
David Ammons, spokesman for the Office of Secretary of State, writes:
Protect Washington Families, the sponsors of Referendum 71, who hope to force a vote on the new “everything but marriage” domestic partnership expansion, are taking the state Elections Division to court to block release of the names of people who signed the petitions.U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle is hearing the request for a temporary restraining order at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday in Tacoma. The state will not resist the request, pending a full hearing on the merits of the case.
Nick Handy, state elections director, said Wednesday, “Referendum petitions become public records under the law once they have been turned over to us by sponsors. Our consistent practice has been to make these available upon public request. By early next week we will be in a position to make these available, and absent a court order, our intent has been to respond to public records requests in a timely way.”
Handy said state open-records law makes no exemptions for initiative and referendum petitions, nor does the state Elections Division have authority to redact any of the fields, such as the person’s signature. In recent years, a growing number of requests for release have been honored. Petitions for Tim Eyman’s recently certified Initiative 1033, for instance, are being released.
Brian Murphy of the citizen group Whosigned.org, has a formal R-71 records request pending. His group plans to post the information on the Internet.
Meanwhile, the state Archives completed the imaging of the 9,359 R-71 petition sheets late Tuesday and the state Elections Division has begun a count of the signatures, crossing out any lines that are incomplete or obviously in error. The formal verification, which involves comparing signatures with the person’s official voters’ registration, will begin in a few days.
3
The names are always available to the public. People should know this through common sense and basic school education. Of course it is public information. That would be the point of having such petitions.
4
I know people who signed this referendum and while I hate to think they'd be harassed for their support (even of something this noxious), I expect the letter of the law to be followed. If any part of those petitions is redacted… words fail. It is disgusting to think that “Protect Washington Families” would expect the law to be broken or changed for their convenience. If their political views are such that they’re willing to sign this petition, they should be proud to let their names become public.
@1 - if they do not know basic civics, they shouldn't be able to vote anyway. Hard way to learn this lesson perhaps, but they should know that already.
@1 - if they do not know basic civics, they shouldn't be able to vote anyway. Hard way to learn this lesson perhaps, but they should know that already.
5
@3
"People should know this through common sense and basic school information."
Therein lies the problem... religious fundies (the most likely signers) are seriously lacking in both of those.
"People should know this through common sense and basic school information."
Therein lies the problem... religious fundies (the most likely signers) are seriously lacking in both of those.
6
@5 that's part of the joy of home schooling!!
And I want the names published so I can see who in my neighborhood signed it. I hope we can search by address as well as name!!
And I want the names published so I can see who in my neighborhood signed it. I hope we can search by address as well as name!!
7
@1:
RCW 42.56.010 Section 2 defines what constitutes a "public record", and it would appear from my layman's reading that referendum and initiative petitions would qualify as such under the Code.
RCW 42.56.010 Section 2 defines what constitutes a "public record", and it would appear from my layman's reading that referendum and initiative petitions would qualify as such under the Code.
8
As far as disclosure - I don't see anything specifically pertaining to that in the RCW section referenced above, but given that petition-gatherers can legally outright LIE about the contents or intent of a referendum petition, I'm not sure whether such a statement of disclosure would make any real difference.
9
Grow some balls, bigots. Bok-bok-bok, g-bok! Too chickenshit to stand up for what you believe in? No wonder your kids are rejecting your outdated bigotry in droves — they're embarrassed by you. Keep hiding your light under a bushel, that's always a winning strategy.
10
Why might they be ashamed to have their beliefs known to the general public? Gutless wonders -- willing to pull the trigger in the dark to kill other people's civil rights, but not willing to literally stand up and be counted for their beliefs. Aren't they supposed to be proud of their commitment to their Christian values?
It reminds me a bit of one of the old Sunday School lessons I was taught -- John 13:38: "Jesus answered him, 'Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.'" Who, me? No, no I didn't sign that thing!
It reminds me a bit of one of the old Sunday School lessons I was taught -- John 13:38: "Jesus answered him, 'Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.'" Who, me? No, no I didn't sign that thing!
11
This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is part of the "continued prayers during signature verification" letter from Pastor Hutch.
14
I'm afraid of what this man might do in his position of power, he obviously is biasly in favor of the homosexual side when he goes around throwing words like "hope to force a vote" and after the initial statement he made about throwing out signatures. Keep this man out of this process Mr Secretary!
It is the people of Washington State and not solely Protect Washington Families, that are the sponsors of Referendum 71 cause our democracy allows us to do so. Politicians cannot make laws that affect us willy-nilly without the people who elected them having a say in it.
The supporters of the criminal enterprise who seeks to publish the names and addresses of the signers are already threatening said people who want to have their voices heard through the democratic process on this matter with comments like "Beware" and such, under such threats it seems perfectly reasonable for the people who signed for Referendum 71 to take place to ask their government to step in and protect them and their families from possible harm that might be done to them by those on the other side.
It is the people of Washington State and not solely Protect Washington Families, that are the sponsors of Referendum 71 cause our democracy allows us to do so. Politicians cannot make laws that affect us willy-nilly without the people who elected them having a say in it.
The supporters of the criminal enterprise who seeks to publish the names and addresses of the signers are already threatening said people who want to have their voices heard through the democratic process on this matter with comments like "Beware" and such, under such threats it seems perfectly reasonable for the people who signed for Referendum 71 to take place to ask their government to step in and protect them and their families from possible harm that might be done to them by those on the other side.
15
A side note: remember that Tim Eyman's newest initiative scheme would take away our right to review these public records... along with some other crappy initiative reforms
16
The supporters of the criminal enterprise who seeks to take away rights from taxpaying citizens are already threatening said people who want to have their voices heard through the democratic process on this matter with comments like "Beware" and such, under such threats it seems perfectly reasonable for the people who voted for a liberal majority into Olympia to ask their government to step in and protect them and their families from possible harm that might be done to them by those on the other side.
Sound familiar Loveschild?
Sound familiar Loveschild?
18
"Politicians cannot make laws that affect us willy-nilly without the people who elected them having a say in it."
And as for the above quote- we have a representative democracy so the minority can be protected from a majority that would create a second-class citizenship for any minority. Would the people of the 1960s south have voted to destroy Jim Crow laws?
And as for the above quote- we have a representative democracy so the minority can be protected from a majority that would create a second-class citizenship for any minority. Would the people of the 1960s south have voted to destroy Jim Crow laws?
19
@14 "Politicians cannot make laws that affect us willy-nilly without the people who elected them having a say in it."
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Seriously, how can you not understand this by now? If you want a direct democracy, find another country. Also, the "everything-but-marriage" affected no one negatively, so why should they ask you personally? Is it really so terrible when a government grants equal rights to its citizens?
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Seriously, how can you not understand this by now? If you want a direct democracy, find another country. Also, the "everything-but-marriage" affected no one negatively, so why should they ask you personally? Is it really so terrible when a government grants equal rights to its citizens?
20
Those individuals who attempt to deny Civil Rights to others that they themselves enjoy need to understand that they and they alone are responsible for the consequences of their behavior.
Democracy is an ugly and scary process. It has consequences. The supporters of the criminal Radical Religious Extremists that would deny Civil Equality to Americans are right to be afraid. They are harming children, ruining families, and denying others the freedom of choice that they say God has given to humans. Thus they stand in the way of God's will.
This public service of disclosing signers names and other information makes America a better place to live. It provides transparency and more importantly it fosters responsibility for one's actions.
Democracy is an ugly and scary process. It has consequences. The supporters of the criminal Radical Religious Extremists that would deny Civil Equality to Americans are right to be afraid. They are harming children, ruining families, and denying others the freedom of choice that they say God has given to humans. Thus they stand in the way of God's will.
This public service of disclosing signers names and other information makes America a better place to live. It provides transparency and more importantly it fosters responsibility for one's actions.
21
@14: Loveschild, Gary Randall, the sponsor, is not a Washington voter. Shouldn't we be able to verify that he is not on the petition signature list? And now that we know of the outright deception used (and caught on video), shouldn't people have recourse to contest their presence on the petition forms?
Moreover, you say "criminal", a specious claim at best. The Public Records Act is the collective name of the changes brought on by Intiative 276, an initiative to the people and not a legislative act. The courts CAN NOT block release of the names, just parts of information contained therein, and failing any actual legitimate promised threat, it's likely that they can't block anything.
Unless you can show proof of a concerted and well-planned threat, then you are simply making things up and fear-mongering. Of course, considering the fear-mongering surrounding the DP bill, completely unsurprised, here.
RCW 42.56.050
Invasion of privacy, when.
A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The provisions of this chapter dealing with the right to privacy in certain public records do not create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specified in this chapter as express exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records.
Moreover, you say "criminal", a specious claim at best. The Public Records Act is the collective name of the changes brought on by Intiative 276, an initiative to the people and not a legislative act. The courts CAN NOT block release of the names, just parts of information contained therein, and failing any actual legitimate promised threat, it's likely that they can't block anything.
Unless you can show proof of a concerted and well-planned threat, then you are simply making things up and fear-mongering. Of course, considering the fear-mongering surrounding the DP bill, completely unsurprised, here.
22
oh Loveschild... good to see your ignorance continues.
Want to explain to us how publishing PUBLIC information is a criminal enterprise?
Want to explain to us how publishing PUBLIC information is a criminal enterprise?
23
@20 "Those individuals who attempt to deny Civil Rights to others that they themselves enjoy need to understand that they and they alone are responsible for the consequences of their behavior."
Okay, I may get into trouble for this...
The KKK wore masks to protect their identities. Sadly, (or rather, fortunately) the referendum signers have no such protection. Perhaps if they donned their own masks they could force their restrictions onto others with a privacy they're more comfortable with.
Okay, I may get into trouble for this...
The KKK wore masks to protect their identities. Sadly, (or rather, fortunately) the referendum signers have no such protection. Perhaps if they donned their own masks they could force their restrictions onto others with a privacy they're more comfortable with.
24
It's always fear with you, LC. Fear of "indoctrination", fear of "bad parent role modeling", fear of "possible persecution from adding your name to a public record", fear, fear, fear. You sound like you have no faith in God what so ever, that God isn't in control of what happens in the world. It never occurs to you that God might be cool with marriage equality, that he's pleased with those US states and other nations that have the balls to stop discriminating and treat all His children equally? After all, he hasn't sent any fire and brimstone to rain down on them. Maybe, he's pissed that lies were used to get people to sign the petition and he wants to give individuals the opportuinity to know the truth? Perhaps, making the names of people who signed accountable for signing the petition, is his will? Maybe, God wants separation of church and state, because he doesn't want people like you forcing your views and preferences on others. Just think LC, maybe he wants his followers to worship HIM, not this nation, not the traditional family, not marriage, but HIM. Maybe, that's why he gives us his Spirit, not so we can run around pointing at other people, but so we can get our own damn logs out of our eyes. You should try it.
25
Wow, Kim, that's pretty ranty for you. Not that I'm complaining, since those are the thoughts I want to voice to people I know, but... wow. Good rant.
26
Once submitted, they are public record. The real reason they don't want the names published is probably that there are quite a few fraudulent entries that they don't want investigated.
27
Seems like a very frivolous lawsuit because there's no US constitutional issue here.
There's no US constitutional "right to privacy" that extends to someone keeping their own signature "private" -- when they publicly signed a public petition to be publicly submitted to public office for public name counting to change a public law.
The report says our State AG agreed to a temporary restraining order. Why would they do that ? Are they "throwing" this defense? Seems like they should have said to the court the whole suit is frivolous and can't support any federal injunction against state officials and anyone with a real stake in disclosure can simply sue in state court as per the normal course under our state public records act.
There's no US constitutional "right to privacy" that extends to someone keeping their own signature "private" -- when they publicly signed a public petition to be publicly submitted to public office for public name counting to change a public law.
The report says our State AG agreed to a temporary restraining order. Why would they do that ? Are they "throwing" this defense? Seems like they should have said to the court the whole suit is frivolous and can't support any federal injunction against state officials and anyone with a real stake in disclosure can simply sue in state court as per the normal course under our state public records act.
28
@26: Like Gary Randall's name. I've no doubt that at some point he was prompted to sign in some sort of act of faith in front of a congregation that was having trouble joining in on his petition.
Probably in Washougal or Camas, since those are two smallish Washington towns close to his home in Oregon.
Probably in Washougal or Camas, since those are two smallish Washington towns close to his home in Oregon.
29
Kim, you are a light amongst the darkness of religious bigotry.
If we had more church leaders who think like you speak up to their congregations like you do in the Slog, I think there would be a lot more progress on this issue.
If we had more church leaders who think like you speak up to their congregations like you do in the Slog, I think there would be a lot more progress on this issue.
30
I'm all for verifiying the signatures, it makes it legitimate and gives strength to our democracy to do so. What I do not favor is the tainting of the process with people that outright say that they will discount twenty five percent of the signatures because that has been the norm, with people who clearly come out in favor of one side by accusing the other of trying "to force a vote". There should be impartiality in the process of verification and no people who might taint it should be allow to be near the signatures. In the face of such blatant threats and harassment as the ones being made by "who" and its supporters against the people who worked so hard to bring these signatures on the date accorded, the least that the government of Washington can do is keep those criminal elements who want to have access to their identities and residences away from such information. The government of Washington state need to look no further than the criminal incidents that took place in California once the names, jobs and addreses of the supporters of traditional marriage became public, Does Olympia wants a repeat of that? If such happened in California what would happen in a more grossly anarchistic place like Seattle where such behaviors abound much more?
I wouldn't doubt for a minute in the existence of plants being used to discredit the democratic process and disenfranchise the people in favor of Ref-71. It's a very common form of sabotage used by those on the anti-traditional marriage side.
I wouldn't doubt for a minute in the existence of plants being used to discredit the democratic process and disenfranchise the people in favor of Ref-71. It's a very common form of sabotage used by those on the anti-traditional marriage side.
31
Simple rule of thumb: if you'd be embarrassed or ashamed to have people know you signed an initiative petition, DON'T frigging SIGN it. See? Problem solved!
Public information is public information. I work for a public sector entity. Anyone who wishes can look up my job title, then look up my salary. It's public information. I'm not entitled to protect that data. Neither are initiative petition signers - of ANY such petition - entitled to protect or hide that data.
Public information is public information. I work for a public sector entity. Anyone who wishes can look up my job title, then look up my salary. It's public information. I'm not entitled to protect that data. Neither are initiative petition signers - of ANY such petition - entitled to protect or hide that data.
32
@30: Provide proof, Loveschild.
You tie your claims of threats to California, but how is that tied to the release of public records when there are no reports of people accessing a list of petition signers for that purpose? You claim David Ammons is biased, but on what grounds-- the deadline for signatures is past and that is indeed the historic pad needed to validate a referendum measure -- it would seem he'd only do himself well to be honest at this point, which he is doing.
There are tons of reports on who donated to the Ref 71 petition online and easily accessible, but how many acts of violence tied to that info have there been in the many weeks they've been listed?
Provide a firm number and legitimate news reports on violence tied to the release of information pertaining to anti-family/anti-equality activists signatures on an anti-equality measure, otherwise, you're being a crackpot.
Show some balance and thoughtfulness for once, LC.
You tie your claims of threats to California, but how is that tied to the release of public records when there are no reports of people accessing a list of petition signers for that purpose? You claim David Ammons is biased, but on what grounds-- the deadline for signatures is past and that is indeed the historic pad needed to validate a referendum measure -- it would seem he'd only do himself well to be honest at this point, which he is doing.
There are tons of reports on who donated to the Ref 71 petition online and easily accessible, but how many acts of violence tied to that info have there been in the many weeks they've been listed?
Provide a firm number and legitimate news reports on violence tied to the release of information pertaining to anti-family/anti-equality activists signatures on an anti-equality measure, otherwise, you're being a crackpot.
Show some balance and thoughtfulness for once, LC.
33
"I wouldn't doubt for a minute in the existence of plants being used to discredit the democratic process and disenfranchise the people in favor of Ref-71. It's a very common form of sabotage used by those on the anti-traditional marriage side."
And I wouldn't doubt for a moment that those bigots collecting signatures told lies to confuse people and try to boost the number of signatures. With all the lies you tell every day on Slog, how do we know you're one of those lying signature gatherers who doesn't want her petition disqualified because people call in to remove their name from the list?
And I wouldn't doubt for a moment that those bigots collecting signatures told lies to confuse people and try to boost the number of signatures. With all the lies you tell every day on Slog, how do we know you're one of those lying signature gatherers who doesn't want her petition disqualified because people call in to remove their name from the list?
34
Sue all you want, Constitution-haters! Luckily our State gives we citizens the RIGHT to know who it is amongst us that hates our citizens!
So, when do we push out the iPhone app that lists them by address? Is it this week or has the heat wave delayed it to next week?
So, when do we push out the iPhone app that lists them by address? Is it this week or has the heat wave delayed it to next week?
36
32 What planet do you live on? You're telling me you did not saw the publishing in gay sites or links to sites from them with the names and addreses of supporters of those who supported traditional marriage in California? You're being disingenuous (what can you expect). In those same sites where links where provided to lists of traditional marriage supporters (in those same sites) people are starting to make threats against the supporters of the democratic process and those who want to have their voices heard in WA state.
One needs to look no further than here, look at 2, 6, 13, 17.
To what extent should the government condone this type of harassment?
What would happen when they do know the names and addresses? I don't think the government should want to find out what the criminal elements in our society would do to honest hardworking citizens when they know where their names, where they live and where they work.
One needs to look no further than here, look at 2, 6, 13, 17.
To what extent should the government condone this type of harassment?
What would happen when they do know the names and addresses? I don't think the government should want to find out what the criminal elements in our society would do to honest hardworking citizens when they know where their names, where they live and where they work.
37
What did those threats consist of, Loveschild? Boycotts of stores owned by people who supported Prop 8 is the only "harassment" I heard about.
So are you saying people shouldn't be able to shop where they want? Should people be forced to spend money at a place that will use that money to take away rights from patrons?
I take the issue of harassment seriously, everyone in the LGBT community must. Gay bashings have been on the rise recently because people like you stoke the fears of people already on the edge to see us as less than human.
How do your actions protect hardworking citizens from being attacked?
So are you saying people shouldn't be able to shop where they want? Should people be forced to spend money at a place that will use that money to take away rights from patrons?
I take the issue of harassment seriously, everyone in the LGBT community must. Gay bashings have been on the rise recently because people like you stoke the fears of people already on the edge to see us as less than human.
How do your actions protect hardworking citizens from being attacked?
38
@ 36, what part of making public records public don't you like? There's nothing criminal about that.
Yet another parallel between gay rights and civil rights - those who work to deny the rights want to stay in the dark and not be known to the public.
Yet another parallel between gay rights and civil rights - those who work to deny the rights want to stay in the dark and not be known to the public.
39
@37 - "everyone in the LGBT community must"
take out all but the first and last words and you'll have a profound truth.
take out all but the first and last words and you'll have a profound truth.
40
37 I'm outright against harassment, threats and bashings. So if you're also then at least there's something we can agree on and of which I can stand right next to you against. But it seems to me that you're being a hypocrite when you say you're against harassment and bashing and at the same time seem to not recall the vandalism in churches, private property and the harassment made by gays against minority groups and people of faith. Do you not recall that Enigma or are you as other peers of yours here choosing to conveniently overlook that fact? It was not only "Boycotts of stores" that took place (even though the picketing and confontrations with patrons would constitute harassment enough). It went way beyond that, livelihoods were threatened and places of worship were desecrated and under high alert due to people on your side. Have some dignity and recognize it once and or all
41
@36, here's what I said:
I'm asking for specific proof that someone accessed a public document of this sort and used it to facilitate an illegal crime, and you haven't provided any, nor is there any case law that supports that notion.
Asking if I'm refuting the notion that interested and affected parties ever accessed public documents fails any sort of logic. Of course people looked at who supported XYZ measure, it always happens. That's not what you're arguing, though. You're arguing that since people do it, it implies a probable and imminent threat to a person's physical self.
You tie your claims of threats to California, but how is that tied to the release of public records when there are no reports of people accessing a list of petition signers for that purpose?
I'm asking for specific proof that someone accessed a public document of this sort and used it to facilitate an illegal crime, and you haven't provided any, nor is there any case law that supports that notion.
Asking if I'm refuting the notion that interested and affected parties ever accessed public documents fails any sort of logic. Of course people looked at who supported XYZ measure, it always happens. That's not what you're arguing, though. You're arguing that since people do it, it implies a probable and imminent threat to a person's physical self.
42
LC your grammar is, at best, pitiful. At times it seems like you are just randomly banging keys and using words you like at the expense of making any sense. I suggest greater clarity in your thinking and word usage that needs less, not more, sentences. And use a spell-checker, for goodness sake.
43
Alright, I will acknowledge that people from our side acted impulsively and there was vandalism on church buildings and such. I had forgotten.
But there was no threat to individual people Those vandals did not wish to harm individuals at those churches but expose them for the hate they espoused in taking away rights to American citizens. No one in the aftermath of Prop 8 were beaten up by pro-gay people.
And since I admitted to something maybe you will return the favor. Admit that you do not believe I should have the full rights of an American citizen just because I was born queer. I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?
But there was no threat to individual people Those vandals did not wish to harm individuals at those churches but expose them for the hate they espoused in taking away rights to American citizens. No one in the aftermath of Prop 8 were beaten up by pro-gay people.
And since I admitted to something maybe you will return the favor. Admit that you do not believe I should have the full rights of an American citizen just because I was born queer. I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?
44
41, LC doesn't need no stinkin' facts. She's got her lies and made up stories!
If you sign your name to a petition, expect that information to become public record. It's that simple, and it's perfectly lawful. People have the right to challenge a petition.
If you sign your name to a petition, expect that information to become public record. It's that simple, and it's perfectly lawful. People have the right to challenge a petition.
45
I forgot a central point I was trying to make in my first paragraph-
Those vandals didn't need the release of public information to target those churches. The Mormons were very public about their support of Prop 8 and those were the churches that were targeted.
I don't really condone the tagging and defacing of those churches, but I understand the anger that would push otherwise law-abiding citizens to engage in it.
Those vandals didn't need the release of public information to target those churches. The Mormons were very public about their support of Prop 8 and those were the churches that were targeted.
I don't really condone the tagging and defacing of those churches, but I understand the anger that would push otherwise law-abiding citizens to engage in it.
46
Vandalism, scare-tactics, harassment – I think we [mostly] all agree are wrong. But, LC, what reaction would you expect to get when you make a legal movement to take away someone’s rights? You expect them to roll over and accept it? If someone took away my right as a woman to vote, you bet your ass I’d want names of those supporters. To abuse or harass? Not likely, but I would want to know who was attacking my hard-won rights. So how do you expect Washington residents to react when a group of people swoop in and attempt to take away their hard-won-not-quite-equal-to-everyone-else’s-three-years-in-the-coming rights? Of course people are angry and of course they’re making not-quite-threats. Did you (and all the petition pushers) expect people to be okay with having their rights revoked? Grow up. Accept that petitions are part of the public record and people are angry.
Also consider that of the anger-induced violence throughout history, the majority was caused by straight white men…
And if the stereotypes you love so much are true, most gay men can’t throw a punch and don’t own guns, so you likely have nothing to worry about.
Also consider that of the anger-induced violence throughout history, the majority was caused by straight white men…
And if the stereotypes you love so much are true, most gay men can’t throw a punch and don’t own guns, so you likely have nothing to worry about.
47
I think maybe the term "physical threats" is being used in place of personally boycotting someone's business and livelihood. Maybe what LC should instead be saying that we don't have a choice about where we shop since that is, after all, a "religious issue" and by not shopping there we are basically discriminating against someone for their religion even though they continually try to make discrimination against gays into actual laws.
Violence is not the MO of gays but the anti-gay bigots like to frame things into "what would we do" if we were confronted with a list from the other side.
Violence is not the MO of gays but the anti-gay bigots like to frame things into "what would we do" if we were confronted with a list from the other side.
48
43 What about the reported cases of gays harassing African Americans and prohibiting their access through places where they (gays) reside. "We don't want them here" was more than once expressed by gays when it came to African Americans who were unfortunate enough to encounter gays. What about the Mormons? You know the type of abuse and harassing they were subjected to. How is that not wishing harm on others Enigma? I'm having a very hard time understanding your reasoning, how could you not see that as an premeditated act of harm against other individuals?
I wouldn't vote for a Ref-71, I have no problem with civil unions but I do not like the attempts that have been made by politicians and homosexual groups at keeping the public away from decision making on this issue. I recognize that if they succeed at doing it with Ref-71 they will soon do it with homosexual marriage and I cannot stand idly by while that happens. I believe that as an american citizen you (Enigma) are free to do as you wish in this country, I also believe that we as a society have sought through the government to solidify the institution of marriage for a very specific purpose and that it should not be tampered with because if it is it will destroy such purpose and one of the pillars that strengthen our nation.
I wouldn't vote for a Ref-71, I have no problem with civil unions but I do not like the attempts that have been made by politicians and homosexual groups at keeping the public away from decision making on this issue. I recognize that if they succeed at doing it with Ref-71 they will soon do it with homosexual marriage and I cannot stand idly by while that happens. I believe that as an american citizen you (Enigma) are free to do as you wish in this country, I also believe that we as a society have sought through the government to solidify the institution of marriage for a very specific purpose and that it should not be tampered with because if it is it will destroy such purpose and one of the pillars that strengthen our nation.
50
"I also believe that we as a society have sought through the government to solidify the institution of marriage for a very specific purpose and that it should not be tampered with..."
I believe you left "evangelical Christian" out of the above statement.
The purpose of marriage has been tampered with all throughout human history. In the early history of Christianity there have been documented homosexual marriages. Those were done away with, along with priestly marriage, because the Church wanted to control its members.
Women were considered property of their fathers until the 1900's. Those fathers could choose marriages which benefited the family regardless of the wishes of the woman. After marriage the woman became property of the husband. This form of marriage no longer exists- and I'm sure you are appreciative.
If you go back far enough in ancient history you'll see evidence that only the upper classes of society married because of inheritance issues. The peasants barely bothered with it because there was nothing for them to protect.
You've heard all these arguments before, so which do you wish to submit to?
The pillars of our nation are built upon the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Allowing LGBT Americans to join their lives to one another destroys nothing you hold dear about America. What frightens you is that we challenge your religious beliefs. But the United States was also founded without an official religion in order to avoid situations like this; where a majority would create tyranny over a minority.
Couples all across this nation get married every day with no thought to having children, that is not what marriage is about today.
Civil Marriage is about two people choosing to commit their lives to one another. How will that destroy anything America stands for?
More...
I believe you left "evangelical Christian" out of the above statement.
The purpose of marriage has been tampered with all throughout human history. In the early history of Christianity there have been documented homosexual marriages. Those were done away with, along with priestly marriage, because the Church wanted to control its members.
Women were considered property of their fathers until the 1900's. Those fathers could choose marriages which benefited the family regardless of the wishes of the woman. After marriage the woman became property of the husband. This form of marriage no longer exists- and I'm sure you are appreciative.
If you go back far enough in ancient history you'll see evidence that only the upper classes of society married because of inheritance issues. The peasants barely bothered with it because there was nothing for them to protect.
You've heard all these arguments before, so which do you wish to submit to?
The pillars of our nation are built upon the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Allowing LGBT Americans to join their lives to one another destroys nothing you hold dear about America. What frightens you is that we challenge your religious beliefs. But the United States was also founded without an official religion in order to avoid situations like this; where a majority would create tyranny over a minority.
Couples all across this nation get married every day with no thought to having children, that is not what marriage is about today.
Civil Marriage is about two people choosing to commit their lives to one another. How will that destroy anything America stands for?
51
46 You're viewing this is in a very negative way. If you truly are confident that you have the support that you need to keep this on the books then it seems to me you should have no problem whatsoever with Ref-71 unless what you truly want is to silence the voters and arbitrarily impose laws on the population without them having a say in them. That's not the way our laws work. People are afforded the discretion to amend or retain laws through the ballot box. You coming out in favor of those who want to intimidate voters does no good in terms of public relations for your side, it makes you seem as resentful, vindictive and wanting to retaliate in any shape or form against anyone who has a diverging view from yours.
52
@48: Proof, Loveschild, not hearsay.
You need to prove this is endemic to any single group in order to apply it so broadly as you are doing now. You're implying that because something happened in reaction to a similar measure, it will happen here. You have not, however, proven that it was public access to information that caused these purported incidents, nor have you identified a suspect class or shown actual tangible and actionable proof of their intent to commit any illegal act of vandalism, intimidation or physical violence. You also have not given any proof of any wide-scale prosecutions in reaction to Prop 8 and any subsequent and appropriate correlation to community-based coordination of the crimes.
Vandalism is rampant throughout the city, but we don't lock up a group that shares a commonality with the perpetrating group, nor are we locking up the common demographics that have been committing gun crimes in this city in order to reduce it. Why? Because there's no proof of intent or that correlation equals causation.
You need proof, not hearsay. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, you can't just define guilt pre-emptively.
Finally, you speak of solidifying the institution of marriage, but do you know how common it was for the founding fathers to be adulterers and to have children on the side? Or former presidents? Or great social leaders? It's all about specks and planks, quite frankly, and applying a slippery slope to your argument serves nobody because it creates no logic-based argument, only fear.
You need to prove this is endemic to any single group in order to apply it so broadly as you are doing now. You're implying that because something happened in reaction to a similar measure, it will happen here. You have not, however, proven that it was public access to information that caused these purported incidents, nor have you identified a suspect class or shown actual tangible and actionable proof of their intent to commit any illegal act of vandalism, intimidation or physical violence. You also have not given any proof of any wide-scale prosecutions in reaction to Prop 8 and any subsequent and appropriate correlation to community-based coordination of the crimes.
Vandalism is rampant throughout the city, but we don't lock up a group that shares a commonality with the perpetrating group, nor are we locking up the common demographics that have been committing gun crimes in this city in order to reduce it. Why? Because there's no proof of intent or that correlation equals causation.
You need proof, not hearsay. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, you can't just define guilt pre-emptively.
Finally, you speak of solidifying the institution of marriage, but do you know how common it was for the founding fathers to be adulterers and to have children on the side? Or former presidents? Or great social leaders? It's all about specks and planks, quite frankly, and applying a slippery slope to your argument serves nobody because it creates no logic-based argument, only fear.
53
"I'm having a very hard time understanding your reasoning, how could you not see that as an premeditated act of harm against other individuals?"
As to this point, I will try to be more clear.
Large religious institutions (specifically Mormon and Catholic) used their great influence to deny civil rights to a minority of Americans. When these institutions were targeted in the aftermath it was born out of frustration and anger. In much the way the Rodney King riots were a release of pain of the African American community, the acts of vandalism on Mormon Churches spoke to a pain the LGBT community felt at being trod upon once again.
I said in my earlier post, "I don't really condone the tagging and defacing of those churches, but I understand the anger that would push otherwise law-abiding citizens to engage in it."
The point you're confusing is the difference between an institution and an individual. There were no documented reports that any person who supported Prop 8 was harmed by members of the LGBT community or allies. The community targeted institutions to express their anger. And that is a form of harassment, but so is all Civil Disobedience.
When the suffragists stood in front of the White House to express their frustration at an unsympathetic president, they were harassing Wilson. When the African American community boycotted the Montgomery transit system they were harassing the government to repeal racist laws.
Damaging property is stepping over the line, but standing in front of the Mormon temple in L.A. was keeping in line with historic forms of harassment used to fight for civil rights.
As to this point, I will try to be more clear.
Large religious institutions (specifically Mormon and Catholic) used their great influence to deny civil rights to a minority of Americans. When these institutions were targeted in the aftermath it was born out of frustration and anger. In much the way the Rodney King riots were a release of pain of the African American community, the acts of vandalism on Mormon Churches spoke to a pain the LGBT community felt at being trod upon once again.
I said in my earlier post, "I don't really condone the tagging and defacing of those churches, but I understand the anger that would push otherwise law-abiding citizens to engage in it."
The point you're confusing is the difference between an institution and an individual. There were no documented reports that any person who supported Prop 8 was harmed by members of the LGBT community or allies. The community targeted institutions to express their anger. And that is a form of harassment, but so is all Civil Disobedience.
When the suffragists stood in front of the White House to express their frustration at an unsympathetic president, they were harassing Wilson. When the African American community boycotted the Montgomery transit system they were harassing the government to repeal racist laws.
Damaging property is stepping over the line, but standing in front of the Mormon temple in L.A. was keeping in line with historic forms of harassment used to fight for civil rights.
54
@51 you don't have any evidence at all that anyone has ever illegaly victimized by putting their signature on any referendum.
It's all a big lie you're spreading. You're a dishonest liar. That's not very American and it's not Christian either. It's a sin. You are a sinner. Go away and repent for a while, you need to say 100 Hail Mary's a donate to HRC to gain absolution for your lying sinful ways.
Liar.
It's all a big lie you're spreading. You're a dishonest liar. That's not very American and it's not Christian either. It's a sin. You are a sinner. Go away and repent for a while, you need to say 100 Hail Mary's a donate to HRC to gain absolution for your lying sinful ways.
Liar.
55
@51: You've given no proof of an organized and actionable intent to intimidate voters, nor have you given us proof of it happening in the past. What you have, essentially, is someone who decided he wants to publish names so that folks know that they aren't signing an anonymous document and to ensure whole-hearted consideration of the measure rather than a "the church/my family/my friends/the signature gatherer says I should sign it" empty signing. The idea to contact them was of course a silly idea, but interest groups contact you all the time in election season based on what you signed. This is no different.
Implying that this is some kind of battleplan for physical violence and intimidation is terribly stupid, since that is the sole reason for any sort of dismissal of a public records request and would obviously lead to the arrest of the person arranging it.
I'd like to ask why you are afraid of people verifying names on their own, such as recently deceased relatives or family members that recently moved? And why you'd want to prevent people from seeing if their own name was on the list? And why you are essentially complicit in the lies of the man videotaped telling a woman the petition would be to legalize gay marriage after he found out she was in support of it? And why are you afraid of people looking for names like Oregon voter and Ref 71 sponsor Gary Randall?
Implying that this is some kind of battleplan for physical violence and intimidation is terribly stupid, since that is the sole reason for any sort of dismissal of a public records request and would obviously lead to the arrest of the person arranging it.
I'd like to ask why you are afraid of people verifying names on their own, such as recently deceased relatives or family members that recently moved? And why you'd want to prevent people from seeing if their own name was on the list? And why you are essentially complicit in the lies of the man videotaped telling a woman the petition would be to legalize gay marriage after he found out she was in support of it? And why are you afraid of people looking for names like Oregon voter and Ref 71 sponsor Gary Randall?
56
@51
Equal rights should never be put to a vote. Getting individual and societal rights has always been a hard-won battle and rarely popular until granted. How long did it take Mississippi to accept equal rights for blacks? Sorry, trick question. If put to a vote today, equal rights for blacks would not likely get a majority vote among whites in MS - which is why it’ll never be up for a vote, thanks to the Fed Gov’t.
Equal rights should never be put to a vote.
Equal rights should never be put to a vote. Getting individual and societal rights has always been a hard-won battle and rarely popular until granted. How long did it take Mississippi to accept equal rights for blacks? Sorry, trick question. If put to a vote today, equal rights for blacks would not likely get a majority vote among whites in MS - which is why it’ll never be up for a vote, thanks to the Fed Gov’t.
Equal rights should never be put to a vote.
57
@51 - “You coming out in favor of those who want to intimidate voters does no good in terms of public relations for your side”
I am not in favor of intimidation. I never said I was (besides, I know and love some of the Ref-71 signers, despite their stance, and wish no harassment to come to them). I said: what kind of a reaction do you expect to get when you’re attacking someone’s rights? I said we (most of us) all agree that harassment and vandalism are wrong, but when a group of people have been so attacked, what response were you hoping to get? Acceptance?
I am not in favor of intimidation. I never said I was (besides, I know and love some of the Ref-71 signers, despite their stance, and wish no harassment to come to them). I said: what kind of a reaction do you expect to get when you’re attacking someone’s rights? I said we (most of us) all agree that harassment and vandalism are wrong, but when a group of people have been so attacked, what response were you hoping to get? Acceptance?
58
@57: "Thanks for bombing me for being gay, it really helped me see the light!" http://www.komonews.com/news/local/52009…
60
Have any of you heard about Ms Christine Cloud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ5K31XOa…
Just hearing the love and compassion that this brave woman professes for her aggressors moved me into tears. She's one of those who where in fact physically hurt by gays in CA. She is truly a follower of Christ and I would not like to see a repeat of what happened to her or worst because of such a weapon as the one that's about to be handed to the criminal group "who".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ5K31XOa…
Just hearing the love and compassion that this brave woman professes for her aggressors moved me into tears. She's one of those who where in fact physically hurt by gays in CA. She is truly a follower of Christ and I would not like to see a repeat of what happened to her or worst because of such a weapon as the one that's about to be handed to the criminal group "who".
61
It is unfortunate that a civil rights activist stepped over the line and attacked someone. I don't think you'll find many people here that will condone that behavior.
But that incident does not excuse the hundreds of gay bashings done every year in the name of Christ. Nor does it answer my question I posed to you earlier, Loveschild:
"I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?"
But that incident does not excuse the hundreds of gay bashings done every year in the name of Christ. Nor does it answer my question I posed to you earlier, Loveschild:
"I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?"
62
And I keep forgetting the topic of this post-
Christine Cloud was attacked in a public space espousing anti-gay beliefs. No one has the right to attack her physically for that stance, but that still doesn't prove that she was targeted because her name was on a public disclosure of supporters.
Do you have any evidence that LGBT rights groups or individuals used the records in order to target people at their homes in order to harm them?
Christine Cloud was attacked in a public space espousing anti-gay beliefs. No one has the right to attack her physically for that stance, but that still doesn't prove that she was targeted because her name was on a public disclosure of supporters.
Do you have any evidence that LGBT rights groups or individuals used the records in order to target people at their homes in order to harm them?
64
@63: Any citation of a news outlet that isn't WND? So far you have Christine Cloud, whose group enters the Castro to preach forced conversions, and then you present a citation-less WND article that does not point to any police reports, media reports or anything of value that would indicate that this was an actual malicious and orchestrated series of attacks or even an isolated event.
On the other hand, Loveschild, a woman was gangraped in the East Bay soon after Prop 8. Google "Four Sought in Gang Rape of Lesbian in San Francisco's East Bay". There seems to be an inequality in reaction. Should we adjust our reaction to fit your side's viewpoint?
And for the record, WND thinks the president is from Kenya. Pick and choose, eh?
On the other hand, Loveschild, a woman was gangraped in the East Bay soon after Prop 8. Google "Four Sought in Gang Rape of Lesbian in San Francisco's East Bay". There seems to be an inequality in reaction. Should we adjust our reaction to fit your side's viewpoint?
And for the record, WND thinks the president is from Kenya. Pick and choose, eh?
65
WorldNetDaily, LC? Conservative "news source" who's integrity is frequently in question. WorldNetDaily that maintains the Obama Conspiracy, and who are determined to prove that Obama isn't a US citizin. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie… You're using WorldNetDaily to support your argument, LC? I thought you understood you can't use biased sources. I thought you learned that lesson when you quoted a Catholic site to defend the attack against the young men in Seaside as evidence of gays being violent on Prop 8 supporters: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
67
58 I deplore such actions, no one should be subjected to acts of violence. I do get the impression that unlike Enigma (with whom I disagree on many points) you are more than happy to overlook the aggressions your side has committed.
62 Ms Cloud was just singing amazing grace, she was not forcing anyone, unlike others here you seem willing to admit to some of the wrongs on your side. Therefor I ask you to think deeply about the consequences that may arise from disclosing the names and addresses of the signers to people who want to use it for not so good purposes. Truly stand against harassment, intimidation and bashings Enigma, and you will see that even people like me on the other side will stand with you if such actions are perpetrated against you.
In God's Love.
62 Ms Cloud was just singing amazing grace, she was not forcing anyone, unlike others here you seem willing to admit to some of the wrongs on your side. Therefor I ask you to think deeply about the consequences that may arise from disclosing the names and addresses of the signers to people who want to use it for not so good purposes. Truly stand against harassment, intimidation and bashings Enigma, and you will see that even people like me on the other side will stand with you if such actions are perpetrated against you.
In God's Love.
68
@65: my fave from that thread:
More...
@ Loveschild: I delurked just for you! So, I googled "gay attacks on churches" and came up with the attack on Mt. Hope, where gay anarchists assaulted the congregation... with glitter. OH NO. NOT GLITTER! Oh help! The humanity! OK - so it wasn't just glitter. There were also condoms and kissing. And a banner! Yikes. Unfortunately, the fire alarms were pulled, of which I do not approve.
The first six hits were about the incident at Mt. Hope.
The next was about a man who open-fired on a church for "harboring gays and multiracial families."
All following hits were about violence against gays, not by them.
When I tried to find anything on gays attacking straights, a few articles about name-calling (breeder) came up. Most hits were about gay-bashing.
A lot of churches preach against homosexuality. Being victimized hurts. Gay people are hurting, and a lot of them are crying out against their attackers - these are people who are despairing.
No one calls straight people, across the board, a blight on the earth. No one thinks it's socially acceptable to broadcast feelings of hatred or disgust against all straight people. It's socially acceptable in a large portion of this country to hate gay people. That is absolutely not right! How could it be? How could hate be right? And a lot of the people cheering their hatred ARE Christians, and they're using their religion as the vessel for their hatred. How could they do that? How could they turn something that's supposed to be peaceful and joyful and loving into something so ugly?
And frankly, trying to claim that Christian groups are just as persecuted as gay people, from this married white woman's perspective, smacks of the old "well, people are racist against whites, too!" Maybe people are racist against whites, too - but generally, a white person is still going to benefit from his or her whiteness by being afforded more opportunities (socially, economically, educationally) than someone of another race. So the white racism thing doesn't hold water.
Likewise, straight people are afforded the safety of probably never getting beaten to a pulp for loving their significant others because of his or her gender. I can kiss my husband at a restaurant when we're out for our anniversary. I can hold his hand whenever I want. I can hug him hello and goodbye and tell him I love him, and I never have to worry about anyone hurting me (or him) for these simple acts.
The appropriate response to an attack like this one is never, "BUT BUT BUT!"
It's "all people have a right to be safe, no matter what." The appropriate response is sadness and anger and empathy.
You claim to be religious. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan again. I think you missed the lesson.
(And I really am sorry that the Mt. Hope service was interrupted, mostly because fire alarms were pulled and that can cause property damage if they make the sprinkler system come on - and that, also, is not acceptable.)
69
Here Loveschild, I googled for you http://wbztv.com/national/lesbian.gang.r… Does this woman not deserve your tears, too. Or do you save your tears, for those who conform to your belief system? Do you have any tears for this person either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mksz043x-…
70
@67: No, Loveschild, they show up several times every week to pray and they immediately get on their knees when the camera crews show up and begin singing and praising and a-hollerin' for the lard. At some point, some jerk hit her over the head with her own bible, which is stupid. There is no police report, she just shrugged it off as some testosterone addled kid getting bent out of shape for her excoriations of their deeper selves.
That's not what you were saying in the thread about Seaside:
Care to comment? In that case, you were saying it wasn't a hate crime, and when presented with quotes from the attacked, you still expressed doubt, saying "I'm reserving my condemnation in terms of the labeling of this incident as a hate crime against gays (unless proven otherwise )".
Your rebuttal is always "you deny that this happened" when I haven't, you just present things without proof or you blow it out of proportion. The flip-side of the coin is that you diminish any act of aggression against the GLBT community as though getting popped over the head with a bible is the same as getting beaten unconscious.
The value you place on gays and lesbians is obviously very low if you think that Cloud getting bopped by some idiot is the same as a bombing at the gay games or the beating of two young men.
More...
Truly stand against harassment, intimidation and bashings Enigma, and you will see that even people like me on the other side will stand with you if such actions are perpetrated against you.
That's not what you were saying in the thread about Seaside:
42 How do you really know they were attack for being gay? Homosexuality is not some trait you can identify on other when on the streets. The truth is you can't really know. For all we know they could've been involved in some gangs or in illicit drug trafficking or prostitution or this could've been something done by other gays to them. The thing is this sort of violent acts have been happening to all Seattlelites and it just seems that all this could easily boil down to a few taking advantage of the spike in violent acts to further their own agendas and trying to play on the emotions of some. Not saying this is necessarily the case here but it's a possibility and until the police thoroughly investigate the incident, I'm not going to rush into conclusions.
Posted by Loveschild on March 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Care to comment? In that case, you were saying it wasn't a hate crime, and when presented with quotes from the attacked, you still expressed doubt, saying "I'm reserving my condemnation in terms of the labeling of this incident as a hate crime against gays (unless proven otherwise )".
Your rebuttal is always "you deny that this happened" when I haven't, you just present things without proof or you blow it out of proportion. The flip-side of the coin is that you diminish any act of aggression against the GLBT community as though getting popped over the head with a bible is the same as getting beaten unconscious.
The value you place on gays and lesbians is obviously very low if you think that Cloud getting bopped by some idiot is the same as a bombing at the gay games or the beating of two young men.
71
Loveschild @ 67,
You have the audacity to demand what you yourself cannot provide. There is video evidence of your pro Ref. 71 sign collectors lying. There is photographic evidence of their lying as well. The sheer volume of gays being harassed and violently attacked in the news, out numbers attacks on Christians by gays. Yet, you can't acknowledge your sides lies, harassment, and violence? The tiny chance that someone will have an awkward conversation because they signed the Ref. 71, and you want to claim potential violence? It's always fear with you.
You have the audacity to demand what you yourself cannot provide. There is video evidence of your pro Ref. 71 sign collectors lying. There is photographic evidence of their lying as well. The sheer volume of gays being harassed and violently attacked in the news, out numbers attacks on Christians by gays. Yet, you can't acknowledge your sides lies, harassment, and violence? The tiny chance that someone will have an awkward conversation because they signed the Ref. 71, and you want to claim potential violence? It's always fear with you.
72
"In God's Love."
Hey look everyone, I made a friend!
I always stand against harassment, Loveschild that we can agree on. But I also believe in open government and that's what the issue is here. You have given a lot of anecdotal evidence about people being harassed, but no evidence. See @68 for evidence of LGBT harassment.
The people on this list will not be targeted for violence, I can guarantee you. But because of all the lies told by the signature gatherers it is important to the Democratic process that they be examined by the public.People need to know if their names were added under false pretense.
You still haven't answered my question from a previous comment.
"I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?"
Hey look everyone, I made a friend!
I always stand against harassment, Loveschild that we can agree on. But I also believe in open government and that's what the issue is here. You have given a lot of anecdotal evidence about people being harassed, but no evidence. See @68 for evidence of LGBT harassment.
The people on this list will not be targeted for violence, I can guarantee you. But because of all the lies told by the signature gatherers it is important to the Democratic process that they be examined by the public.People need to know if their names were added under false pretense.
You still haven't answered my question from a previous comment.
"I do not belong to your religion, and therefore should not be bound by the strictures of your religion. My faith says it is fine to love whoever you choose. So why should your faith be able to dictate what my faith allows?"
73
@71: Remember that she said this regarding the two attacked in Seaside:
You think she cares about people who aren't in lockstep with her?
For all we know they could've been involved in some gangs or in illicit drug trafficking or prostitution or this could've been something done by other gays to them.
You think she cares about people who aren't in lockstep with her?
74
By the way, the court issued a temporary restraining order in this case. They're now going to challenge the entirety of the Public Records Act, so say goodbye to things like Sex Offender Registries since the FOIA does not extend quite far enough.
75
74 You brought this upon yourselves. Do you honestly believe that you were going to gather support by threatening people with disclosing their identities? That's the mere definition of being un-democratic in our republic, our votes are private precisely to keep the sort of abuses and witch hunts you champion from taking place.
76
72 This is not about religion, this is about making sure that you as a member of an influential group do not get away with intimidating people so that they forfeit their right to vote on issues and laws that govern us.
I believe that you (Enigma) regardless of your proclivities are a child of God just like me.
And even though there's sarcasm in your comment, yes, as the child of the Almighty that I know you're (even if you don't see yourself as such) you can consider me your friend and much more.
In God's Love.
I believe that you (Enigma) regardless of your proclivities are a child of God just like me.
And even though there's sarcasm in your comment, yes, as the child of the Almighty that I know you're (even if you don't see yourself as such) you can consider me your friend and much more.
In God's Love.
77
@75: People voted for the Public Records Act in the 70s by initiative, Loveschild, I didn't bring this upon anybody.
And I hardly champion things of the sort you do. I don't condone violence, but you said that the two in Seaside were probably prostitutes or drug traffickers in effect condoning it and diminishing the violence.
Sheesh.
And I hardly champion things of the sort you do. I don't condone violence, but you said that the two in Seaside were probably prostitutes or drug traffickers in effect condoning it and diminishing the violence.
Sheesh.
78
With love, friendship, and Christ like testimony like yours. Who needs enemies, Loveschild? You belittle and insult with every word. Why would anyone want to know your God? I know if all I had was your example, I'd run like hell.
"I believe that you (Enigma) regardless of your proclivities are a child of God just like me.
And even though there's sarcasm in your comment, yes, as the child of the Almighty that I know you're (even if you don't see yourself as such) you can consider me your friend and much more.
In God's Love.
Posted by Loveschild on July 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM "
"I believe that you (Enigma) regardless of your proclivities are a child of God just like me.
And even though there's sarcasm in your comment, yes, as the child of the Almighty that I know you're (even if you don't see yourself as such) you can consider me your friend and much more.
In God's Love.
Posted by Loveschild on July 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM "
79
Everything you say comes from a religious context. You say because your Bible tells you that two people of the same gender should not have sex, that we are all immoral and are not deserving of the same rights you have. But I don't believe in your Bible. There are American citizens that belong to traditions that are older than Christianity that do condone same-sex relationships. It is your religious moral code that you are trying to impose on every other citizen.
But you're loosing, and you know it and it scares you. Kim is right when she says all you talk about is fear. You try to get people to be afraid of the same things you are so you can maintain the power the church used to have in society. You fear Christianity will never have the far reaching power it did even a century ago. But it will always be around, and there will always be disagreements about its tenants. Take you and Kim for an example. If you look at history, once a religious idea takes hold, it doesn't go away anytime soon. I know people that still look to the Egyptian pantheon for guidance.
You know there will be no violence caused by releasing the names of the petition signers. Our side doesn't condone random violence. But you know your side does, so with the tables turned you can't understand why we wouldn't react in the same way evangelical Christians do.
But you're loosing, and you know it and it scares you. Kim is right when she says all you talk about is fear. You try to get people to be afraid of the same things you are so you can maintain the power the church used to have in society. You fear Christianity will never have the far reaching power it did even a century ago. But it will always be around, and there will always be disagreements about its tenants. Take you and Kim for an example. If you look at history, once a religious idea takes hold, it doesn't go away anytime soon. I know people that still look to the Egyptian pantheon for guidance.
You know there will be no violence caused by releasing the names of the petition signers. Our side doesn't condone random violence. But you know your side does, so with the tables turned you can't understand why we wouldn't react in the same way evangelical Christians do.
80
So there was exactly one instance of one bigot assaulted by someone who is gay? Well, I will have to apologize for what I said at 49, but everyone else has done a wonderful job putting it into its proper context and LC has done her usual freakout job because she's not Christian enough to acknowledge the humanity of her movement's victims.
81
@75: "You brought this upon yourselves". Um, yeah, LC, right back at you.
Freedom of speech brings with it certain responsibilities and challenges. Such as, for example, being willing to acknowledge that you, in fact, said something. By all means, sign your petitions. But don't pretend that you deserve special protection because of how "brave" you are to express a common, unthinking bigotry. To quote you, again, "this is about making sure that you as a member of an influential group do not get away with intimidating people so that they" can't act on their right to the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom of speech brings with it certain responsibilities and challenges. Such as, for example, being willing to acknowledge that you, in fact, said something. By all means, sign your petitions. But don't pretend that you deserve special protection because of how "brave" you are to express a common, unthinking bigotry. To quote you, again, "this is about making sure that you as a member of an influential group do not get away with intimidating people so that they" can't act on their right to the pursuit of happiness.
82
79 "You know there will be no violence caused by releasing the names of the petition signers. Our side doesn't condone random violence."
Why in heavens do homosexual groups need to have that information then? You know they plan to use it to scare, intimidate and harm pro-traditional marriage people. They wont be throwing flowers and roses at us.
"There are American citizens that belong to traditions that are older than Christianity that do condone same-sex relationships."
Really? And who are these American citizens and more importantly what are these "traditions" that you speak of? So far as I know the vast majority of religious traditions throughout the world have admonitions against homosexuality. I think that the "traditions" that you're speaking of are the same moral relativism and the anything goes ideology that Kim espouses. In that case let me inform you my dear Enigma, that ideology is not a tradition, quite the opposite. It is a almalgamation of personal perspectives from anti-religious intellectuals that seek at its core to do away precisely with anything that has to do with tradition itself, like the family and the basic structures of our society.
Why in heavens do homosexual groups need to have that information then? You know they plan to use it to scare, intimidate and harm pro-traditional marriage people. They wont be throwing flowers and roses at us.
"There are American citizens that belong to traditions that are older than Christianity that do condone same-sex relationships."
Really? And who are these American citizens and more importantly what are these "traditions" that you speak of? So far as I know the vast majority of religious traditions throughout the world have admonitions against homosexuality. I think that the "traditions" that you're speaking of are the same moral relativism and the anything goes ideology that Kim espouses. In that case let me inform you my dear Enigma, that ideology is not a tradition, quite the opposite. It is a almalgamation of personal perspectives from anti-religious intellectuals that seek at its core to do away precisely with anything that has to do with tradition itself, like the family and the basic structures of our society.
83
When we found out they were outright lying to people in order to get signatures, we decided to act. (As if it's not bad enough to want to deny basic civil rights to people.)
If the reports I got back from my friends are accurate (and all I have is their word, but no reason to doubt them), their little 15% cushion ain't gonna save 'em. Serves them right, cowardly bigots.
If the reports I got back from my friends are accurate (and all I have is their word, but no reason to doubt them), their little 15% cushion ain't gonna save 'em. Serves them right, cowardly bigots.
84
Loveschild,
You have made yourself out to be the fool. I've tried to be very kind to you, as you are either a liar or a infant in Christ (that's church speak for new Christian). I've tired to give you slack, for your rudeness and presumption, but no longer. You're either a liar or infant in Christ, which is it? You're own comments bellow, from March 18, 2009, where you state your know little about Christianity, little about the Bible, and don't attend church often convict you. That means you've only been this authority on all things biblical for 134 days. In 134 short days, you know everything there is to know about God, the Scriptures, and the catholic (meaning universal) church. In your 134 days you have determined that you get to sit at the right hand of Christ in heaven and pronounce judgement on the rest of us? In your 134 days, you have determined that only you know what scripture passages actually mean and how they are to be interpreted? What you are is a spoiled prideful child. You have absolutely no business here, claiming you are speaking for the Almighty, the Creator. You have no business pointing your finger at me, stating that I'm espousing an anything goes ideology. Sweetie, I'm your elder in Christ, I don't have your tiny 134 days of Bible study, I have well over a decade, and years of writing Bible studies for infant Christians, like you. There are people who comment on SLOG who have a Master Degree in Divinity, who you keep pointing your finger at. The apostle Paul calls you a milk Christian, unable to grasp the deeper levels of the scriptures (the deeper levels are solid food in his analogy). Your job is to drink your milk, learn, and to be quiet. It isn't to post here, or flip through the back of your Bible to cherry pick a scripture you thinks supports your prejudices. Your pride, presumptuousness, and rudeness are only turning people off to Christ. You have succeeded in becoming SLOG's poster-child for bigotry and atheism. And, a source of shame for many of us here. The only person here who you are qualified to pass judgement on, is yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
"I find your response to my simple question to you highly insulting.
First, Dan is an avowed racist bigot. What else would you call anyone who blames the passing of a law that he doesn't like on African Americans? A racist bigot. This is not new, he has been doing this for a while.
Second, As for you calling me a bigot all I can respond to your insulting description of me is, I love my family, my community and my culture. That's why I fully support laws that seek to protect them. And I will not stand silent while others attack them just because they call me names as you have.
Homosexuals can do as they wish but I will not let my government celebrate homosexual marriages with my tax payer dollars, society doesn't have to celebrate that behavior, I will not stand quietly while my kids are being taught in school that two kings marrying is fine and I will not let programs be shown on the TV about how cool homosexual sex is. If thats what you want for your family that's your problem. But that Kim doesn't make me nor the majority of Americans bigots.
Last, I have been nothing but respectful of your religion even thought I do not understand much of it. My mere mention of it was an attempt by me of trying to ask you what does it teach about associations with or admiring racists, as you do Dan. I'm sorry I ever asked you that. I naively thought that you would reciprocate the countless questions you have asked of me and the times I have responded to you in a clear firm but respectful manner.
Posted by Loveschild on March 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM "
"You have a strange way of apologizing (if that's what you intended to do), as for Savage, he is what he is. Just read the tittle of his latest post. He enjoys vilifying African Americans. And the trash that he posts is hurtful to all black people.
I also find it funny that you can quote all these Bible passages to support something that from what I have read from the Bible (me not being that much of a regular church attendant) is something very clearly explained yet you cannot find one single passage about racism.
Kim do your "best" in thinking about how your 'fondness" of a racist person might influence subconsciously your life. I still like to think you're a nice well intentioned misguided person.
Best to you and yours.
Posted by Loveschild on March 18, 2009 at 8:03 PM "
"Loveschild @ 57,
I disagree with you that I am misguided. We just don't agree on this subject. When Christ commands us to "love our neighbor as ourselves" in Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:31 and Luke 10:27, he isn't just saying love the person who lives next door, he is saying to love the person different from you, because the person is made in the image of himself. I am choosing to love both you and Savage. Not because we agree, but because Christ died for you both.
Posted by kim in portland on March 19, 2009 at 8:52 AM "
More...
You have made yourself out to be the fool. I've tried to be very kind to you, as you are either a liar or a infant in Christ (that's church speak for new Christian). I've tired to give you slack, for your rudeness and presumption, but no longer. You're either a liar or infant in Christ, which is it? You're own comments bellow, from March 18, 2009, where you state your know little about Christianity, little about the Bible, and don't attend church often convict you. That means you've only been this authority on all things biblical for 134 days. In 134 short days, you know everything there is to know about God, the Scriptures, and the catholic (meaning universal) church. In your 134 days you have determined that you get to sit at the right hand of Christ in heaven and pronounce judgement on the rest of us? In your 134 days, you have determined that only you know what scripture passages actually mean and how they are to be interpreted? What you are is a spoiled prideful child. You have absolutely no business here, claiming you are speaking for the Almighty, the Creator. You have no business pointing your finger at me, stating that I'm espousing an anything goes ideology. Sweetie, I'm your elder in Christ, I don't have your tiny 134 days of Bible study, I have well over a decade, and years of writing Bible studies for infant Christians, like you. There are people who comment on SLOG who have a Master Degree in Divinity, who you keep pointing your finger at. The apostle Paul calls you a milk Christian, unable to grasp the deeper levels of the scriptures (the deeper levels are solid food in his analogy). Your job is to drink your milk, learn, and to be quiet. It isn't to post here, or flip through the back of your Bible to cherry pick a scripture you thinks supports your prejudices. Your pride, presumptuousness, and rudeness are only turning people off to Christ. You have succeeded in becoming SLOG's poster-child for bigotry and atheism. And, a source of shame for many of us here. The only person here who you are qualified to pass judgement on, is yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
"I find your response to my simple question to you highly insulting.
First, Dan is an avowed racist bigot. What else would you call anyone who blames the passing of a law that he doesn't like on African Americans? A racist bigot. This is not new, he has been doing this for a while.
Second, As for you calling me a bigot all I can respond to your insulting description of me is, I love my family, my community and my culture. That's why I fully support laws that seek to protect them. And I will not stand silent while others attack them just because they call me names as you have.
Homosexuals can do as they wish but I will not let my government celebrate homosexual marriages with my tax payer dollars, society doesn't have to celebrate that behavior, I will not stand quietly while my kids are being taught in school that two kings marrying is fine and I will not let programs be shown on the TV about how cool homosexual sex is. If thats what you want for your family that's your problem. But that Kim doesn't make me nor the majority of Americans bigots.
Last, I have been nothing but respectful of your religion even thought I do not understand much of it. My mere mention of it was an attempt by me of trying to ask you what does it teach about associations with or admiring racists, as you do Dan. I'm sorry I ever asked you that. I naively thought that you would reciprocate the countless questions you have asked of me and the times I have responded to you in a clear firm but respectful manner.
Posted by Loveschild on March 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM "
"You have a strange way of apologizing (if that's what you intended to do), as for Savage, he is what he is. Just read the tittle of his latest post. He enjoys vilifying African Americans. And the trash that he posts is hurtful to all black people.
I also find it funny that you can quote all these Bible passages to support something that from what I have read from the Bible (me not being that much of a regular church attendant) is something very clearly explained yet you cannot find one single passage about racism.
Kim do your "best" in thinking about how your 'fondness" of a racist person might influence subconsciously your life. I still like to think you're a nice well intentioned misguided person.
Best to you and yours.
Posted by Loveschild on March 18, 2009 at 8:03 PM "
"Loveschild @ 57,
I disagree with you that I am misguided. We just don't agree on this subject. When Christ commands us to "love our neighbor as ourselves" in Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:31 and Luke 10:27, he isn't just saying love the person who lives next door, he is saying to love the person different from you, because the person is made in the image of himself. I am choosing to love both you and Savage. Not because we agree, but because Christ died for you both.
Posted by kim in portland on March 19, 2009 at 8:52 AM "
85
LC # 82
YOu have heard of North American Indians? Their cultural / religious practices include acceptance of third genders ....I recommend you read a little Will Roscoe.
And you would do better not to critcize Kim: what is that saying in your tradition about casting the first stone?
And PLEASE quit talking as if the concept of family were immutable!
YOu have heard of North American Indians? Their cultural / religious practices include acceptance of third genders ....I recommend you read a little Will Roscoe.
And you would do better not to critcize Kim: what is that saying in your tradition about casting the first stone?
And PLEASE quit talking as if the concept of family were immutable!
86
Enigma @ 79,
You will have to pity, Loveschild. She's been a Christian for 134 days, and is thinks she knows everything there is to know about the Bible, Christianity, etc. Her comments here are presumptive, prideful, and rude. I fear she's become SLOG's own poster-child for "Why People Should Choose Atheism". She is indeed a fearful one, and should be pitied.
You will have to pity, Loveschild. She's been a Christian for 134 days, and is thinks she knows everything there is to know about the Bible, Christianity, etc. Her comments here are presumptive, prideful, and rude. I fear she's become SLOG's own poster-child for "Why People Should Choose Atheism". She is indeed a fearful one, and should be pitied.
87
Hey Kim - I hope all goes well with you and yours - keep cool! And please don't let Loveschild's rants prey upon your mind.... you radiate warmth and compassion and loving kindness in every post. You almost make me reconsider Chritianity - almost.
88
And Kim - I didn't mean I considered you a sinner in telling LC not to cast the first stone! I was attempting to convey to LC that she might look at her own faults and tendencies rather than projecting her shadow upon others. ...
89
Theo,
No worries, I understood what you were saying. In truth, I am a sinner, so is LC, but the difference is I consciously seek to get my own logs out of my eye, and she apparently believes her 134 days gives her the right to point at the specks in other peoples eyes. Plus she doesn't grasp the Biblical truth that a Christian is only allowed to judge another Christian, and if they do decide to judge they have to be perfect in following Christ. She doesn't seem to grasp that part of Christ's sermon on the Mount. For if she did, she'd understand that she couldn't point fingers at those who don't share her faith, and she'd understand that sanctification is a long process that takes a lifetime to achieve.
It greatly grieves me that Christians are supposed to be know for their compassion and their thirst for righteousness, justice and equality. And, that is not how most of the world views us.
No worries, I understood what you were saying. In truth, I am a sinner, so is LC, but the difference is I consciously seek to get my own logs out of my eye, and she apparently believes her 134 days gives her the right to point at the specks in other peoples eyes. Plus she doesn't grasp the Biblical truth that a Christian is only allowed to judge another Christian, and if they do decide to judge they have to be perfect in following Christ. She doesn't seem to grasp that part of Christ's sermon on the Mount. For if she did, she'd understand that she couldn't point fingers at those who don't share her faith, and she'd understand that sanctification is a long process that takes a lifetime to achieve.
It greatly grieves me that Christians are supposed to be know for their compassion and their thirst for righteousness, justice and equality. And, that is not how most of the world views us.
90
Kim:
Sometimes I think the worst thing that happened to Christianity is that Constantine recognized it as the official state religion.... once Christians gained temporal power, they used and protected that power in a horrendous manner (Hypatia et al...)
Sometimes I think the worst thing that happened to Christianity is that Constantine recognized it as the official state religion.... once Christians gained temporal power, they used and protected that power in a horrendous manner (Hypatia et al...)
91
I would not be surprised in Loveschild is actually a gay leather daddy using reverse psychology to convince more people to support civil rights. Seriously - the arguments are presented in such and earnest, yet naive and poorly thought out manner, with such ridiculous twists of logic and reasoning, that this is the most credible explanation. Even my idiot bible-beating cousins in Ohio have a better ability to form a reasonable argument - and they know when they are being counter-productive to their cause and when it is time to quit and move on.
Regardless of LC's true identity, you are not serving the cause you supposedly adhere to very well. If anything, you are having the opposite effect. Thank you for your contribution to supporting civil rights and equality for all Washingtonians!
Regardless of LC's true identity, you are not serving the cause you supposedly adhere to very well. If anything, you are having the opposite effect. Thank you for your contribution to supporting civil rights and equality for all Washingtonians!
92
85 Ah yes, I've heard this one before. I'm humbly going to inform you on the realities here in the U.S. There are 561 federally recognized Native American tribes within the U.S my dear Theo. Out of all those federally recognized sovereign nations only one obscure tiny tribe allows gay marriage and a good chunk of all others have sought to pass in one form or another gay marriage bans instead (including the nation's largest reservation). So much for your "tradition" argument, Theo.
From Webster's, - tradition : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom). The handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. Cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions.
Furthermore the coined terms "third gender" or "two spirit" that some like to throw out in their attempts at linking their agenda with some distant past (in the context of Native American history) in order to further gains of gay laws, meant something very differently (to some tribes since not all tribes believed in it) from what we consider as gay today. Instead the Native American belief (of some tribes) of a person having the spirit of both a man and a woman (two spirit) had more to do with the only way in which they knew at the time on how to deal with those cases of abnormal sexual organ formations in individuals that they saw (hermaphrodites) and bears no relationship whatsoever with the term "gay" as it has come to be known presently in the western eurocentric culture.
From what I gather the author of this thread (to use as an example) as do the majority of those who engage in homosexual acts "gays" is not a hermaphrodite, so your "North American Indians" "traditions" correlation with homosexuality is an inaccurate one.
Regardless, that's not what this thread is about. What's at question here is why do a group of people who seek tolerance from others want to silence and deprive the citizenry of their right to vote? Why the use of intimidation and threats? We've seen what these sort of tactics have led to in other parts of the world (maybe your own homeland Theo) and we have rejected them here.
More...
From Webster's, - tradition : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom). The handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. Cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions.
Furthermore the coined terms "third gender" or "two spirit" that some like to throw out in their attempts at linking their agenda with some distant past (in the context of Native American history) in order to further gains of gay laws, meant something very differently (to some tribes since not all tribes believed in it) from what we consider as gay today. Instead the Native American belief (of some tribes) of a person having the spirit of both a man and a woman (two spirit) had more to do with the only way in which they knew at the time on how to deal with those cases of abnormal sexual organ formations in individuals that they saw (hermaphrodites) and bears no relationship whatsoever with the term "gay" as it has come to be known presently in the western eurocentric culture.
From what I gather the author of this thread (to use as an example) as do the majority of those who engage in homosexual acts "gays" is not a hermaphrodite, so your "North American Indians" "traditions" correlation with homosexuality is an inaccurate one.
Regardless, that's not what this thread is about. What's at question here is why do a group of people who seek tolerance from others want to silence and deprive the citizenry of their right to vote? Why the use of intimidation and threats? We've seen what these sort of tactics have led to in other parts of the world (maybe your own homeland Theo) and we have rejected them here.
93
Kim - Matthew 24:11, Matthew 24:23, Romans 13:2, Job 34:37, Proverbs 17:11, 1 Samuel 15:23 and Isaiah 14:12-15
In God's Love.
In God's Love.
94
Y'all are bashing your head against a brick wall. LC is not a true Christian, she is a christian of convenience. It is a shield for her to hide her bigotry. She doesn't have to look any further than the bible to justify her bigotry. Nevermind that the same book was used for generations to enslave an entire race. In her mind, that is totally different and even suggesting the fact is itself an act of bigotry to her. She will continue to do to the LGBT community what southern baptists did to Africans, using the same book, because otherwise she would have to confront her own bigotry. It's much easier to say I am a certain way because a book tells me that's how I have to behave. But to be a bigot for bigotry's sake, she would have to admit that her soul is really that ugly. She won't change because now she can view herself as the righteous one; her bigotry proves it to herself. It's much easier to say I hate gay people because the bible says to rather than I hate gay people because I'm a bigot.
95
The people who started the "Who Signed" effort are doing harm to the cause of equality. It is already taking up valuable time and energy that should be used to go out a campaign for a no vote on 71 if it makes it to the ballot.
The inititave is wrong. I agree that our civil rights should not be up for popular vote, but if it goes up for a vote we should focus on the issue and not on the individuals who signed the petition.
The inititave is wrong. I agree that our civil rights should not be up for popular vote, but if it goes up for a vote we should focus on the issue and not on the individuals who signed the petition.
96
@93
LC,
You seem to be interested in the Bible.I'd encourage that. Be careful however, remember that genocide, prostitution, slavery, child beating, opression of blacks and women and any kind of evil other can and been argued for by "creative usage", cut -and- pasting of selective biblical parts.Dont fall into trap of justifying hatemongering using Bible quotes!
I admire your self-criticism by bringing up verses about false prophets, you are indeed one , but dont lose heart, you can still wise up in time!
This verse deserves attention, may i explain its meaning to you.
"""Prov 17 11: An evil man is bent only on rebellion;
a merciless official will be sent against him."""
it doesnt mean anybody who is rebelling against the officials is evil. Martin Luther King, leaders of antislavery, and anti-nazi, etc. movemements indeed dealt with "merciless officials send against them"
But they werent evil- they were godly man that fought for other people rights. God smiles at such "rebels" :)
LC,
You seem to be interested in the Bible.I'd encourage that. Be careful however, remember that genocide, prostitution, slavery, child beating, opression of blacks and women and any kind of evil other can and been argued for by "creative usage", cut -and- pasting of selective biblical parts.Dont fall into trap of justifying hatemongering using Bible quotes!
I admire your self-criticism by bringing up verses about false prophets, you are indeed one , but dont lose heart, you can still wise up in time!
This verse deserves attention, may i explain its meaning to you.
"""Prov 17 11: An evil man is bent only on rebellion;
a merciless official will be sent against him."""
it doesnt mean anybody who is rebelling against the officials is evil. Martin Luther King, leaders of antislavery, and anti-nazi, etc. movemements indeed dealt with "merciless officials send against them"
But they werent evil- they were godly man that fought for other people rights. God smiles at such "rebels" :)
97
@ 91
thanks, rob, thats what i been suspecting for a while, too. LC is the best advocate of gay movement by showing how bad her arguments are.Maybe she is actually on our side, playing "idiotic opposition" role on purpose?
***
Kim,
dont get weary, and keep up a good fight! there are brethren/sisters that keep you in their prayers :)
thanks, rob, thats what i been suspecting for a while, too. LC is the best advocate of gay movement by showing how bad her arguments are.Maybe she is actually on our side, playing "idiotic opposition" role on purpose?
***
Kim,
dont get weary, and keep up a good fight! there are brethren/sisters that keep you in their prayers :)
98
Loveschild, I was a Theology major at Seattle University. If you don't know about the school, it is a Catholic institution modeled in the Jesuit Tradition.
I don't bring this fact up much because I am not Christian and don't want to argue a point of faith with a person who belongs to that tradition. But I do know something about active reading and questioning the text. I know that the Christian Bible was written over the course of about 2000 years, starting with the Hebrew texts on how to live as one of the tribe and finishing with the Council of Trent in 1546 for Catholics. Even after that date some groups took some books out because of differing opinions of authenticity.
Most people that cling to the belief that this book is the unerring word of God don't know a lot of that history. We're not taught to question in Sunday school, just memorize texts from Matthew and Mark about how much Jesus loves us. I actually got reprimanded in Sunday school for asking too many questions.
And all of this has led me to your quote:
"I think that the "traditions" that you're speaking of are the same moral relativism and the anything goes ideology that Kim espouses. In that case let me inform you my dear Enigma, that ideology is not a tradition, quite the opposite. It is a almalgamation of personal perspectives from anti-religious intellectuals that seek at its core to do away precisely with anything that has to do with tradition itself, like the family and the basic structures of our society."
And this quote demonstrates very well what Kim has been saying about you for a while. You are afraid. You are scared that your children will leave the safety of your understanding of the world and try to discover the world for themselves. You are scared that people that do not automatically agree with you about faith matters will be elected by the populace and your group will not have the special access it has come to expect.
When I spoke of ancient tradition I did have Native Americans in mind. Your derision of these people shows how afraid you are of the truth of the world. In one minute I found a reference to how prevalent this was and is in Native tribes: "As of 1991, male and female bodied Two-Spirit people have been "documented in over 130 tribes, in every region of North America, among every type of native culture." Roscoe, Will (1991). The Zuni Man-Woman, p.5. ISBN 0826312535.
Where is your evidence that only one tribe recognizes this viewpoint?
And just to make it clear in my religious leanings: I am Wiccan. One of those relativistic groups that believes people can think for themselves but follow a similar faith path. Our highest tenant- An it harm none, Do what you will.
Is that a dangerous belief Loveschild?
More...
I don't bring this fact up much because I am not Christian and don't want to argue a point of faith with a person who belongs to that tradition. But I do know something about active reading and questioning the text. I know that the Christian Bible was written over the course of about 2000 years, starting with the Hebrew texts on how to live as one of the tribe and finishing with the Council of Trent in 1546 for Catholics. Even after that date some groups took some books out because of differing opinions of authenticity.
Most people that cling to the belief that this book is the unerring word of God don't know a lot of that history. We're not taught to question in Sunday school, just memorize texts from Matthew and Mark about how much Jesus loves us. I actually got reprimanded in Sunday school for asking too many questions.
And all of this has led me to your quote:
"I think that the "traditions" that you're speaking of are the same moral relativism and the anything goes ideology that Kim espouses. In that case let me inform you my dear Enigma, that ideology is not a tradition, quite the opposite. It is a almalgamation of personal perspectives from anti-religious intellectuals that seek at its core to do away precisely with anything that has to do with tradition itself, like the family and the basic structures of our society."
And this quote demonstrates very well what Kim has been saying about you for a while. You are afraid. You are scared that your children will leave the safety of your understanding of the world and try to discover the world for themselves. You are scared that people that do not automatically agree with you about faith matters will be elected by the populace and your group will not have the special access it has come to expect.
When I spoke of ancient tradition I did have Native Americans in mind. Your derision of these people shows how afraid you are of the truth of the world. In one minute I found a reference to how prevalent this was and is in Native tribes: "As of 1991, male and female bodied Two-Spirit people have been "documented in over 130 tribes, in every region of North America, among every type of native culture." Roscoe, Will (1991). The Zuni Man-Woman, p.5. ISBN 0826312535.
Where is your evidence that only one tribe recognizes this viewpoint?
And just to make it clear in my religious leanings: I am Wiccan. One of those relativistic groups that believes people can think for themselves but follow a similar faith path. Our highest tenant- An it harm none, Do what you will.
Is that a dangerous belief Loveschild?
99
Loveschild,
Am I supposed to be impressed that your 135 days of Christianity has taught you to use the back of your Bible to pull scriptures out of context? Am I supposed to be impressed, that you an impertinent infant in Christ as deemed yourself judge of me? NOPE, your but the little toddler who bangs her rattle on the table because she is proud and haughty, and thinks she knows everything. Go back to drinking your milk, child. Your spiritual immaturity is showing, again.
Perhaps, you should focus on why you lie. 135 days of being a Christian, and you had the audacity to rudely claim to Alinka (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…) that you and your husband have been following the Lord and raising you children in his word. Your two over 6 feet tall boys with girlfriends and your daughter are well over 135 days old. Stop throwing stones, get the massive logs out of your own eye, and be quiet.
I forgive you. You don't get to judge me, child. I have elders I'm accountable to, not a 135 day old infant in Christ who comes here to throw her judgemental tantrums. And, winds up being the poster-child for Christian bigotry.
Am I supposed to be impressed that your 135 days of Christianity has taught you to use the back of your Bible to pull scriptures out of context? Am I supposed to be impressed, that you an impertinent infant in Christ as deemed yourself judge of me? NOPE, your but the little toddler who bangs her rattle on the table because she is proud and haughty, and thinks she knows everything. Go back to drinking your milk, child. Your spiritual immaturity is showing, again.
Perhaps, you should focus on why you lie. 135 days of being a Christian, and you had the audacity to rudely claim to Alinka (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…) that you and your husband have been following the Lord and raising you children in his word. Your two over 6 feet tall boys with girlfriends and your daughter are well over 135 days old. Stop throwing stones, get the massive logs out of your own eye, and be quiet.
I forgive you. You don't get to judge me, child. I have elders I'm accountable to, not a 135 day old infant in Christ who comes here to throw her judgemental tantrums. And, winds up being the poster-child for Christian bigotry.
100
98 I know the place Enigma and I don't know how else I can relate to you that even though I would like you to come to know Jesus Christ through a personal revelation as your Savior in a very lasting way, I respect your beliefs and I wouldn't want anyone trampling over them as some are trying to do with mine and others like me.
If you see a mob (like those of "who signed") advancing towards your house (I'm using a metaphor here, though it might actually take place) after having seen what they have done to other houses (other states like CA) is it not wise to take the needed precautions to defend, call upon those who are sworn to protect me and my family and warn others of a pending assault? That's not being afraid that's cherishing the lives of my loved ones.
"Where is your evidence that only one tribe recognizes this viewpoint?"
Name What other tribe besides the coquille allows gay marriage? I can name you a couple that have passed (much to their credit, as they saw foresaw what was coming) gay marriage bans.
You know that's what I was talking about. Although I can cite many tribes that did not have the "two spirit" concept amongst them, like the Apache, Iroquois and some Alaskan tribes to name a few. I did not negate the recognition of hermaphrodites or non-gender specific individual by some tribes. And in those that two spirit individuals did engage in relationships it was seen as heterosexual, usually taking on the role of a female-with a male partner, in most cases to aid a widower in house work. It was rare and did not had any of the homosexual connotations that some (like you) are trying to impart on it today.
Now, can you explain to me, others and yourself why would you want to give my name and address to some people who might use it in ways that might prove to be hazardous to me and my family? I would never do that to you or anyone on your side no matter how much I disagree with your ideology because I know that there are crazies on both sides that will not contain themselves from harming others. So why? Why are you giving such a tool to someone even if its only one crazy, why would you hand them that? Is it that you're unwilling to put aside your dislike of Christians for a moment in order to act in a prudent and caring manner?
More...
If you see a mob (like those of "who signed") advancing towards your house (I'm using a metaphor here, though it might actually take place) after having seen what they have done to other houses (other states like CA) is it not wise to take the needed precautions to defend, call upon those who are sworn to protect me and my family and warn others of a pending assault? That's not being afraid that's cherishing the lives of my loved ones.
"Where is your evidence that only one tribe recognizes this viewpoint?"
Name What other tribe besides the coquille allows gay marriage? I can name you a couple that have passed (much to their credit, as they saw foresaw what was coming) gay marriage bans.
You know that's what I was talking about. Although I can cite many tribes that did not have the "two spirit" concept amongst them, like the Apache, Iroquois and some Alaskan tribes to name a few. I did not negate the recognition of hermaphrodites or non-gender specific individual by some tribes. And in those that two spirit individuals did engage in relationships it was seen as heterosexual, usually taking on the role of a female-with a male partner, in most cases to aid a widower in house work. It was rare and did not had any of the homosexual connotations that some (like you) are trying to impart on it today.
Now, can you explain to me, others and yourself why would you want to give my name and address to some people who might use it in ways that might prove to be hazardous to me and my family? I would never do that to you or anyone on your side no matter how much I disagree with your ideology because I know that there are crazies on both sides that will not contain themselves from harming others. So why? Why are you giving such a tool to someone even if its only one crazy, why would you hand them that? Is it that you're unwilling to put aside your dislike of Christians for a moment in order to act in a prudent and caring manner?
101
Loveschild,
Can you name a specific group that is trying to deny you your civil rights because of your faith? A specific group that wants to deny you survival benefits from your partner, or prevent you from putting your children on your partners heath insurance, because your a Christian? This specific group wants to persecute you for your faith, and deny you civil rights because your family doesn't fit their idea of what the "traditional family" should look like? This specific group that wants to trample of your beliefs and disrespect you, and has determined that your a only worthy of being treated as a "second class" citizen? This specific group that goes around discussing your proclivities and stating your a custodial surrogate for those three children in your house and, and therefore can not be treated equally under the law because your a Christian?
Miss 135 days of Christianity, coming on here espousing judgement on others is not respecting the beliefs of others. Nor, is telling them that God loves them irregardless of their proclivities (see your rude post at 76, if you can't remember). It isn't showing others that you want them to know Jesus either, it's giving them justification to run the other way. You have done more harm to the cause of spreading the gospel than you can imagine, and you still don't have the sense, manners, or maturity to be quiet. Face the mirror and get your logs out, Loveschild. Your nothing but a hypocrite until you do.
Can you name a specific group that is trying to deny you your civil rights because of your faith? A specific group that wants to deny you survival benefits from your partner, or prevent you from putting your children on your partners heath insurance, because your a Christian? This specific group wants to persecute you for your faith, and deny you civil rights because your family doesn't fit their idea of what the "traditional family" should look like? This specific group that wants to trample of your beliefs and disrespect you, and has determined that your a only worthy of being treated as a "second class" citizen? This specific group that goes around discussing your proclivities and stating your a custodial surrogate for those three children in your house and, and therefore can not be treated equally under the law because your a Christian?
Miss 135 days of Christianity, coming on here espousing judgement on others is not respecting the beliefs of others. Nor, is telling them that God loves them irregardless of their proclivities (see your rude post at 76, if you can't remember). It isn't showing others that you want them to know Jesus either, it's giving them justification to run the other way. You have done more harm to the cause of spreading the gospel than you can imagine, and you still don't have the sense, manners, or maturity to be quiet. Face the mirror and get your logs out, Loveschild. Your nothing but a hypocrite until you do.
102
In an open and democratic society, no one should be afraid to take responsibility for articulating their support on a petition. Petitions are a public request to the government to consider the a request. If you are ashamed to request it, then you shouldn't. Your only recourse should be hope that it makes the SECRET ballot without your signature, where you can indulge your bigotry and hypocrisy in the privacy of a statutorily private ballot.
Everyone needs to understand the difference between a private and public position. Petitions are public. Votes are private. How your elected representatives vote are public. If you are ashamed of the your positions that affect other people, then wait until you have a private outlet.
Everyone needs to understand the difference between a private and public position. Petitions are public. Votes are private. How your elected representatives vote are public. If you are ashamed of the your positions that affect other people, then wait until you have a private outlet.
103
"I respect your beliefs and I wouldn't want anyone trampling over them as some are trying to do with mine and others like me."
This quote just demonstrates how far you twist your arguments to justify your narrow worldview.
You are trampling over my beliefs. You are saying that my Wiccan tradition that recognizes same-sex marriages and polyamorous marriages aren't as good as your evangelical Christian tradition.
In our tradition love is above everything. 'An it harm None, Do what you will.' That is what I believe in. And your actions harm me, my friends and family. You deny my rights because we do not follow your religious beliefs. That is harm.
"Now, can you explain to me, others and yourself why would you want to give my name and address to some people who might use it in ways that might prove to be hazardous to me and my family?"
And besides your one citation of Christine Cloud being bopped on the head, in the Castro, near bar closing time, right after Prop 8 passed, you have not showed any evidence of homes or individuals targeted. Our side does not condone violence, your allies are the ones who throw bombs and seek out those who are different to bash.
You signed a public petition that you knew would be public record when you signed it. As I have said in many posts before, that you choose to ignore, your side has engaged in cheating and lies to get signatures of people. The entire Washington community has a vested interest in making sure every signature on every petition initiative is valid, yours is not special and should not be given special rights because you have a martyr complex.
This quote just demonstrates how far you twist your arguments to justify your narrow worldview.
You are trampling over my beliefs. You are saying that my Wiccan tradition that recognizes same-sex marriages and polyamorous marriages aren't as good as your evangelical Christian tradition.
In our tradition love is above everything. 'An it harm None, Do what you will.' That is what I believe in. And your actions harm me, my friends and family. You deny my rights because we do not follow your religious beliefs. That is harm.
"Now, can you explain to me, others and yourself why would you want to give my name and address to some people who might use it in ways that might prove to be hazardous to me and my family?"
And besides your one citation of Christine Cloud being bopped on the head, in the Castro, near bar closing time, right after Prop 8 passed, you have not showed any evidence of homes or individuals targeted. Our side does not condone violence, your allies are the ones who throw bombs and seek out those who are different to bash.
You signed a public petition that you knew would be public record when you signed it. As I have said in many posts before, that you choose to ignore, your side has engaged in cheating and lies to get signatures of people. The entire Washington community has a vested interest in making sure every signature on every petition initiative is valid, yours is not special and should not be given special rights because you have a martyr complex.
104
When I think of all the gay soldiers I trained that moved to this state later in life (from Canada), and how you would deny them marriage rights it just makes me upset.
105
From the introduction to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56.030), which for some reason applies to everyone in Washington other than proponents of R-71, due to their special rights:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
106
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Any and all of you reading this site know full well that the homos engage in as much harassment as the fundies. Dan Savage, for example, routinely gives out the contact information of people he doesn't like and encourages his readers to fuck with them.
Yeah, that's legal. But let's look at the spirit of the law as well as the letter for one hot minute. We have a secret ballot when we elect people to high office in this country because we don't want them harassed or targeted for retribution by people whose politics are different than theirs.
The fact that you're gay, or pro-homo, doesn't mean that publishing the names of people who voted for something you think is unconscionable is a just act. The fact that it's legal doesn't make it right, and if you think this is a just act because your heart is pure, you're the bad guy.
Any and all of you reading this site know full well that the homos engage in as much harassment as the fundies. Dan Savage, for example, routinely gives out the contact information of people he doesn't like and encourages his readers to fuck with them.
Yeah, that's legal. But let's look at the spirit of the law as well as the letter for one hot minute. We have a secret ballot when we elect people to high office in this country because we don't want them harassed or targeted for retribution by people whose politics are different than theirs.
The fact that you're gay, or pro-homo, doesn't mean that publishing the names of people who voted for something you think is unconscionable is a just act. The fact that it's legal doesn't make it right, and if you think this is a just act because your heart is pure, you're the bad guy.
107
Terminally Frosty,
You made some excellent points about voting and voter privacy. And, I agree with you.
But, you do realize we aren't talking about voting here? This is issue is about a Referendum 71 which is a petition. Petitions are a public request to the government to consider a request to be put on a future ballot. At present, the law states (RCW 42.56.030) that the signatures on the those petitions are public record. By law, the public has the right to view those signatures and confirm their verification.
To make things simple. Petitions = Public, and Votes = Private.
My personal $0.02 is that "Who Signed" effort is not helpful. But, I must say that I do not condone the lies that were used to obtain some of those public signatures. Nor, do I condone the slandering being done by individuals calling into Christian radio stations, claiming that they have to sleep in the living room with their children because "teh gays" may come and throw Molotov cocktails through their children's bedroom windows for signing a public petition, Ref. 71 (no joke, actually heard a man say exactly that over the radio), or Loveschild coming on here slandering "teh gays" and claiming that they mean to do violence or harass Christians for signing the Ref. 71 petition. The petition process is a public process, the law states that all signatures are available for public viewing. Any individual that starts spouting that they are going to be martyred, persecuted, or harassed for their faith because they signed a public petition, knowing full well that the present law makes their signatures public information, is a hypocrite.
If the law that makes the petition process a public process in the state of Washington moral or not? Is a discussion for entirely different thread.
More...
You made some excellent points about voting and voter privacy. And, I agree with you.
But, you do realize we aren't talking about voting here? This is issue is about a Referendum 71 which is a petition. Petitions are a public request to the government to consider a request to be put on a future ballot. At present, the law states (RCW 42.56.030) that the signatures on the those petitions are public record. By law, the public has the right to view those signatures and confirm their verification.
To make things simple. Petitions = Public, and Votes = Private.
My personal $0.02 is that "Who Signed" effort is not helpful. But, I must say that I do not condone the lies that were used to obtain some of those public signatures. Nor, do I condone the slandering being done by individuals calling into Christian radio stations, claiming that they have to sleep in the living room with their children because "teh gays" may come and throw Molotov cocktails through their children's bedroom windows for signing a public petition, Ref. 71 (no joke, actually heard a man say exactly that over the radio), or Loveschild coming on here slandering "teh gays" and claiming that they mean to do violence or harass Christians for signing the Ref. 71 petition. The petition process is a public process, the law states that all signatures are available for public viewing. Any individual that starts spouting that they are going to be martyred, persecuted, or harassed for their faith because they signed a public petition, knowing full well that the present law makes their signatures public information, is a hypocrite.
If the law that makes the petition process a public process in the state of Washington moral or not? Is a discussion for entirely different thread.
108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSP…
If this was done last year under similar circumstances against others in the street, then what's to be expected when the same group finds out the names and addresses of pro-traditional marriage people over here?
To view this as just another case where records are handed out to the public is a crass oversight of the acts of violence, threats and harassment that have taken place in other places against pro-traditional marriage people.
If this was done last year under similar circumstances against others in the street, then what's to be expected when the same group finds out the names and addresses of pro-traditional marriage people over here?
To view this as just another case where records are handed out to the public is a crass oversight of the acts of violence, threats and harassment that have taken place in other places against pro-traditional marriage people.
109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTe9vhE8i…
After all the tactics used to keep those who wanted to sponsor this petition from doing so, the minimum that the state of WA can do is protect us from the impending mobs that will seize any information provided to them and use it against said signers. Some politicians may like such tactics being used so that the citizenry becomes afraid and inhibits itself from taking part in decisions that govern them but those few in office who still believe in our democracy and the freedoms provided under our Constitution (for the people to be involved in the affairs that govern their community) need to please stand up and curtail the persecution that can be seen coming our way by not handing out personal information indiscriminately. I pray that the state does not abandon and throws on harms way those who have exercised their democratic right and duty under threats (which sole purpose have been to obstruct and impede those who wanted to sign the petition from doing so). By handing out personal information to everyone in the public the state is just giving life to the anti democratic tactics that some have chosen to use. If the state needs to verify it can do so without risking the petitioners well being. We need to avoid confrontations because unlike other countries in our democracy the battles of ideas are fought civilly in the ballot box and not on the street.
God bless and guide all of us into peace and respect for one another.
After all the tactics used to keep those who wanted to sponsor this petition from doing so, the minimum that the state of WA can do is protect us from the impending mobs that will seize any information provided to them and use it against said signers. Some politicians may like such tactics being used so that the citizenry becomes afraid and inhibits itself from taking part in decisions that govern them but those few in office who still believe in our democracy and the freedoms provided under our Constitution (for the people to be involved in the affairs that govern their community) need to please stand up and curtail the persecution that can be seen coming our way by not handing out personal information indiscriminately. I pray that the state does not abandon and throws on harms way those who have exercised their democratic right and duty under threats (which sole purpose have been to obstruct and impede those who wanted to sign the petition from doing so). By handing out personal information to everyone in the public the state is just giving life to the anti democratic tactics that some have chosen to use. If the state needs to verify it can do so without risking the petitioners well being. We need to avoid confrontations because unlike other countries in our democracy the battles of ideas are fought civilly in the ballot box and not on the street.
God bless and guide all of us into peace and respect for one another.
110
LC,
read the explanations that you were given in the posts above.
Petitions are PUBLIC. If you are not brave enough,responsibility is way too much for you, dont sign it. If the kitchen is too hot , get out of there.Don't get involved.
And this quote of yours
""""unlike other countries in our democracy the battles of ideas are fought civilly in the ballot box and not on the street""" - LOL
That's rigth, Rosa Parks just civilly voted for her rights in the ballot box,and not on the street, and no civil disobedience was ever involved.
read the explanations that you were given in the posts above.
Petitions are PUBLIC. If you are not brave enough,responsibility is way too much for you, dont sign it. If the kitchen is too hot , get out of there.Don't get involved.
And this quote of yours
""""unlike other countries in our democracy the battles of ideas are fought civilly in the ballot box and not on the street""" - LOL
That's rigth, Rosa Parks just civilly voted for her rights in the ballot box,and not on the street, and no civil disobedience was ever involved.
111
Loveschild,
Where on your youtube post of some people be escorted out of the Castro District in S.F., does it say that those people being escorted out lived there? Where does it say that they were fleeing their homes? Fleeing, because the protesters had their addresses? It doesn't.
Don't try and justify your fear and slandering without the facts you claim they indicate. It makes you out to be a liar and a hypocrite.
Where on your youtube post of some people be escorted out of the Castro District in S.F., does it say that those people being escorted out lived there? Where does it say that they were fleeing their homes? Fleeing, because the protesters had their addresses? It doesn't.
Don't try and justify your fear and slandering without the facts you claim they indicate. It makes you out to be a liar and a hypocrite.
112
Loveschild,
Why can't I find any police reports about this? If this was as horrific as the young woman in your post at 109 was saying, how come when I Google it only Christian websites have any information? You'd think having hot coffee thrown in your face, and being pushed in the forehead, etc. Would have garnished more attention than some youtube videos and Christian web sites.
I'm very sorry for those young people, it must have been a very unnerving and tense experience for them. BUT, it doesn't support your argument that their information was given out about how they voted. And, that they were fleeing their homes?
This was civil disobedience. You're choosing it to defend your point is slanderous. Shame on you.
Shame on you, for not acknowledging the video taped, and photographed lies that your signature gathers used.
Shame on you for not condemning the bold faced lies that were printed in bold on those petitions as well.
You're side is covered in lies, and filth. You share their sins. Everytime you defend them, as innocent individuals just doing their deomocratic duty you sink further into the slime. Your guilty and you know it, but your pride won't let you admit it.
Why can't I find any police reports about this? If this was as horrific as the young woman in your post at 109 was saying, how come when I Google it only Christian websites have any information? You'd think having hot coffee thrown in your face, and being pushed in the forehead, etc. Would have garnished more attention than some youtube videos and Christian web sites.
I'm very sorry for those young people, it must have been a very unnerving and tense experience for them. BUT, it doesn't support your argument that their information was given out about how they voted. And, that they were fleeing their homes?
This was civil disobedience. You're choosing it to defend your point is slanderous. Shame on you.
Shame on you, for not acknowledging the video taped, and photographed lies that your signature gathers used.
Shame on you for not condemning the bold faced lies that were printed in bold on those petitions as well.
You're side is covered in lies, and filth. You share their sins. Everytime you defend them, as innocent individuals just doing their deomocratic duty you sink further into the slime. Your guilty and you know it, but your pride won't let you admit it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (112) RSS