Thursday, September 3, 2009
Homo / Media Where It Comes From
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:09 AM
The Seattle Times published an endorsement to approve Referendum 71, and I agree completely with everything they say:
Opponents of the law launched a petition drive to put the core legislation, Senate Bill 5688, into limbo. Their efforts to challenge the law are essentially a waste of time and tax dollars — a nuisance campaign.Voter passage of Referendum 71 is now necessary to continue down a path of basic fairness and equality for registered domestic partners. This is about adults in committed relationships raising families, running businesses and owning property.
Bravo! But enough with the sticky kisses. Polite editorials deconstructing Referendum 71 aren't enough from the Times or the Seattle PI. This referendum came from somewhere, and that somewhere matters. The R-71 backers insist they're trying to limit gay rights in the name of defending Christian mores and protecting families. That's unfiltered crap. This is the product of one carpet-bagging tax evader with a history of profitting from hate-mongering referendums and one trice-married, allegedly wife-beating hypocrite. They lied every step of the way to get this on the ballot. And their money comes from hatefully homophobic bumpkins who honestly believe this measure is about cleansing the state of germ-proliferating sodomy.
We've reported this in detail. Re-report it, Times and PI and television stations and news radio. Go ahead, don't even cite us, we don't care—but don't be complicit in an attempt to fool voters into thinking this is about family. It never has been. No one is asking you to be biased—only to get both sides, and the context of how this thing got on our ballot is part of a fair and balanced story.
In Washington, we've learned that it matters where initiatives came from, and we've learned that even innocuous ballot titles can be disgusting in practice. When Tim Eyman ran the first of his initiatives, I-200, scores of progressive Washington voters were tricked by what appeared to be anti-discrimination language, and they shot down a law that ensured racial minorities had fair opportunities for college education. Other Eyman measures appealed to pocket books but devastated state and county governments by starving them of the capital needed to perform the basic functions.
But we've found that when an Eyman initiative appears on the ballot, it's a slippery trick. The first thing the Times does is holler to warn us that THIS IS A TIM EYMAN INITIATIVE AND ALL OF HIS INITIATIVES SCREW THE ENTIRE STATE. This article on Initiative 1033 starts by naming Eyman and makes haste outlining his his record. This article on 1033 does, too. So does this article in the PI. When Lon Mabon brought his hate-mongering campaign to Washington in the early 1990s, the Times reported on his Oregon roots and pestiferous tactics. They need to give R-71 the same treatment.
Recognizing where a referendum or initiative came from is not nitpicking, or bitching, or dwelling on the past. There's still plenty of room for wholesome discussion and education and press conferences and everything involved in a gay-rights campaign. But part of the media's job is to clearly communicate who is trying to change the law and examine their motives.
So, reporters, every time R-71's spokesman Randall gets quoted, start noting that he's an Oregonian with a history of running anti-gay campaigns, taking home a bunch of money, and then refusing to pay taxes. Mention that is minion, Stickney, isn't committed to his own family, let alone all of ours (and certainly not gay families). Begin letting readers know these two can't even explain what damage domestic-partnerships would do to their hetero marriages. And lastly, tell people that their campaign lied all the way to the ballot. It's all true and it's all relevant. Voters—and readers—deserve to know that R-71 wasn't born from a genuine interest in preserving the providential family. To even give that argument credence without context is disingenuous. This measure exists because a slice of the population believes, first and foremost, that gay people are disgusting and they must remain repressed. And a handful of Christian extremists have found a way to manipulate and profit from that bigotry.
The Seattle Times knows it. The Seattle PI knows it. And it's time for them to diligently tell voters about it.
Share via
2
A writer for The Stranger lecturing the media on ethics and using a civil voice in journalism?
What a joke.
Look within, Stranger hacks. Piety is not your gig. Name calling, making stuff up and deriding people you don't like is more your style.
You are a species that has eroded civility in our community.
What a joke.
Look within, Stranger hacks. Piety is not your gig. Name calling, making stuff up and deriding people you don't like is more your style.
You are a species that has eroded civility in our community.
3
@2: I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I'll take incivility over indecency any day. Getting nasty in a war of words, while being on the right side, is far less of a sin than what these troglodytes are trying to do to innocent families headed by same sex couples.
4
You miss the forest for the trees.
You focus on how much you dislike the folks who have opinions that dare to differ fromn yours and spend your time name calling and obsessing over trivia that doesn't matter..(Hutchinson is a REPUBLICAN...etc)
Here is the BIG PICTURE, Dom.
Every state in the union that has voted on gay marriage has rejected it.
About 40, so far.
Some of them twice.
A good many of those also ban civil union.
Some go out of their way and amend the state Constitution to also refuse to recognize gay marriage or gay civil union from other states.
These measures often have passed with 75% and more of the popular vote.
In other words, opposition to gay marriage and gay civil union is not a fringe position only held by bigots and assholes.
I realize this is news to Stranger staff, but it is true.
Even your President holds that position.
R71 is civil union with all the rights of marriage, a position many Americans and Washingtonians reject.
It is boldly proclaimed by backers and sponsors to be an intermediate step to gay marriage.
Therefore, even someone who favors civil union but opposes gay marriage would reasonably be expected to oppose R71 as an over reach.
It is perfectly reasonable that there would be enough interest to get R71 on the ballot and let voters get the final say themselves.
As in fact has happened.
How shady and disreputable you find backers of the effort to get R71 on the ballot to be is totally beside the point.
It is a wasteful disatrction from the real work to be done.
You would do yourself a favor to spend less time name calling and attacking personalities and more time addressing the issue at hand and explaining why you think R71 should be approved.
You have learned NOTHING from Prop 8.
More...
You focus on how much you dislike the folks who have opinions that dare to differ fromn yours and spend your time name calling and obsessing over trivia that doesn't matter..(Hutchinson is a REPUBLICAN...etc)
Here is the BIG PICTURE, Dom.
Every state in the union that has voted on gay marriage has rejected it.
About 40, so far.
Some of them twice.
A good many of those also ban civil union.
Some go out of their way and amend the state Constitution to also refuse to recognize gay marriage or gay civil union from other states.
These measures often have passed with 75% and more of the popular vote.
In other words, opposition to gay marriage and gay civil union is not a fringe position only held by bigots and assholes.
I realize this is news to Stranger staff, but it is true.
Even your President holds that position.
R71 is civil union with all the rights of marriage, a position many Americans and Washingtonians reject.
It is boldly proclaimed by backers and sponsors to be an intermediate step to gay marriage.
Therefore, even someone who favors civil union but opposes gay marriage would reasonably be expected to oppose R71 as an over reach.
It is perfectly reasonable that there would be enough interest to get R71 on the ballot and let voters get the final say themselves.
As in fact has happened.
How shady and disreputable you find backers of the effort to get R71 on the ballot to be is totally beside the point.
It is a wasteful disatrction from the real work to be done.
You would do yourself a favor to spend less time name calling and attacking personalities and more time addressing the issue at hand and explaining why you think R71 should be approved.
You have learned NOTHING from Prop 8.
6
@4
The corruption of the groups behind is a standard trope in dissecting why the legislation is wrong. Getting your base riled up to get them to the polls on an off year election is incredibly important. The media tries to be unbiased by presenting issues as if they are 50/50 when they aren’t. We need to see reporting as to what we are actually voting on and who is trying to prevent it.
The corruption of the groups behind is a standard trope in dissecting why the legislation is wrong. Getting your base riled up to get them to the polls on an off year election is incredibly important. The media tries to be unbiased by presenting issues as if they are 50/50 when they aren’t. We need to see reporting as to what we are actually voting on and who is trying to prevent it.
7
3
the issue is not that incivility is a sin.
it's that it is ineffective and counter-productive.
your choice is not incivility or decency-
it is incivility or competence.
it would be a shame if incivil assholery caused the 'right side' to lose (again)
the issue is not that incivility is a sin.
it's that it is ineffective and counter-productive.
your choice is not incivility or decency-
it is incivility or competence.
it would be a shame if incivil assholery caused the 'right side' to lose (again)
8
@7: Bullshit. If you honestly believe that, you are absolutely oblivious to the world of human beings.
9
"The R-71 backers insist they're trying to limit gay rights in the name of defending Christian mores...."
I don't get it. You act like this—attempting to legislate from the depths of their holy book—isn't bad enough. I don't care who backed the campaign to restrict people's rights. The point is they're a bunch of dangerous theocrats.
I don't get it. You act like this—attempting to legislate from the depths of their holy book—isn't bad enough. I don't care who backed the campaign to restrict people's rights. The point is they're a bunch of dangerous theocrats.
10
8
"absolutely oblivious to the world of human beings"
and yet my side is riding a 40 state winning streak with zero losses including a stunning come from 20 points down in the last three weeks upset victory in Liberal California...
just imagine what we could do if we were not oblivious
"absolutely oblivious to the world of human beings"
and yet my side is riding a 40 state winning streak with zero losses including a stunning come from 20 points down in the last three weeks upset victory in Liberal California...
just imagine what we could do if we were not oblivious
11
@10 seems to me like you lost in Arizona and had to try again, riding McCain's coat tails the second time.
12
Dom, I've enjoyed all of your reporting on Ref 71, and as sad as it is that it made it on the ballot, it feels like your pieces are coming into a magnificent crescendo as we lead up to the election.
You're right - just like global warming (and countless other "debates") these issues can not be treated as if they are a 50/50 reasonable debate. Fringe issues, or ideas that have been thoroughly debunked or moved past by the majority of the public should be treated as such.
You're right - just like global warming (and countless other "debates") these issues can not be treated as if they are a 50/50 reasonable debate. Fringe issues, or ideas that have been thoroughly debunked or moved past by the majority of the public should be treated as such.
13
I think you're trying to make a distinction without a difference.
Gay rights motivation: to make society as a whole accept homosexual activity and homosexuals.
Religious/Conservative motivation: to make society as a whole reject homosexual activity and homosexuals.
I don't think that the personal lives of the people behind this is relevant, and I think that the fact that all of the people behind it think that gay sex is morally wrong and physically repulsive is a given.
Gay rights motivation: to make society as a whole accept homosexual activity and homosexuals.
Religious/Conservative motivation: to make society as a whole reject homosexual activity and homosexuals.
I don't think that the personal lives of the people behind this is relevant, and I think that the fact that all of the people behind it think that gay sex is morally wrong and physically repulsive is a given.
14
@10 Lee's not attacking you, you dunce. But yes, you're oblivious; to the obvious change that's going on vis a vis public opinion towards gay marriage/civil unions.
Our own state legislature passed DOMA, even overriding the governors veto in 1998. This year, everything-but-marriage passed in Olympia 62-35. And the right *barely* could muster enough signatures to get this damned thing on the ballot. 120,000 signatures out of more than 3.5 million registered voters.
Yeah, you're oblivious. Yeah, you have the conceit of prior victory, but when R71 passes in a landslide this fall, that'll make the sound of 120,000 eyeballs popping out of their sockets that much sweeter, if a little faint to begin with.
Our own state legislature passed DOMA, even overriding the governors veto in 1998. This year, everything-but-marriage passed in Olympia 62-35. And the right *barely* could muster enough signatures to get this damned thing on the ballot. 120,000 signatures out of more than 3.5 million registered voters.
Yeah, you're oblivious. Yeah, you have the conceit of prior victory, but when R71 passes in a landslide this fall, that'll make the sound of 120,000 eyeballs popping out of their sockets that much sweeter, if a little faint to begin with.
15
12
gee BoMO, you're behind the curve-
day by day science is debunking the Liberal Global Warming Hysteria as pseudobabel...
gee BoMO, you're behind the curve-
day by day science is debunking the Liberal Global Warming Hysteria as pseudobabel...
16
14
we'll see.
the fact that R71 is going to the voters after all the 'victories' you cite shows that public support is lacking.
and public opinion can be changed through education.
it's worked before.
we'll see.
the fact that R71 is going to the voters after all the 'victories' you cite shows that public support is lacking.
and public opinion can be changed through education.
it's worked before.
18
They're mad that we keep coming. After a sweep of last-gasp victories in 2004 and a couple of pick-ups in 2006 and 2008, they're still acting as though there's no clear trend toward our favor. Like the 20 point margin that kicked down to a 4 point margin in CA. Or Massachusetts voters supporting equality overwhelmingly. Or Iowa voters in a fairly moderate region rejecting the "traditional marriage candidate" who outfunded his opponent almost 5:1 with 90% of his funding coming from NOM. Or Iowa republicans not wanting to pursue a marriage amendment or repeal. Or Maine and Iowa state officials investigating NOM for fraud. Or a judge in WA pointing out the fraud inherent to the petition process in R-71. Or the WA legislature moving from 65% support of DOMA to 65% support of full domestic partnerships in less than 5 years. Or Connecticut. Or NY voters supporting full marriage equality. Or Texas growing support for GLBT rights by a large margin.
No, they'll say "we'll beat you!!" even though to win they've basically had to resort to fear-mongering and fraud. We can wait, though. It's only a matter of time until the anti-equality/anti-family side does something incredibly stupid.
No, they'll say "we'll beat you!!" even though to win they've basically had to resort to fear-mongering and fraud. We can wait, though. It's only a matter of time until the anti-equality/anti-family side does something incredibly stupid.
19
@16:
Don't you mean "mis-education" and "lies"?
That's what it took to pass the most recent anti-equal rights initiatives.
And for the record: You're on the wrong side of history. You think gay sex is icky. I bet you think "colored" people marrying white people is icky too. You're a hate-filled pig. Your children and grandchildren will look upon you with disgust and pity when they realize what an UNChristian being you are. In the future people will spit upon the memory of ignorant trolls like you. Go peddle your bigotry in Nigeria or Lithuania or one of those other countries where they blame their corruption and moral repulsiveness on Teh Gayz.
Don't you mean "mis-education" and "lies"?
That's what it took to pass the most recent anti-equal rights initiatives.
And for the record: You're on the wrong side of history. You think gay sex is icky. I bet you think "colored" people marrying white people is icky too. You're a hate-filled pig. Your children and grandchildren will look upon you with disgust and pity when they realize what an UNChristian being you are. In the future people will spit upon the memory of ignorant trolls like you. Go peddle your bigotry in Nigeria or Lithuania or one of those other countries where they blame their corruption and moral repulsiveness on Teh Gayz.
20
True, I do look for clues about what's/who's behind an issue rather than the lies to really break down an issue such as this health care debate but the issues around Ref. 71 do not exist simply because some carpetbagger from Oregon invented them. Sure, he is trying to tke advantage of a solid base of anti-gay bigots but the issue goes behind the man. Conservatives don't start to abandon their ideals simply because Bush was an evil corrupt man and on the other side liberals don't question their beliefs simply because Clinton was a lying cheating husband as much as the other side thinks we should.
Hopefully, exposing the man behind the campaign will swing just enough votes for a victory of Ref. 71 but I believe for the vast majority of people on both sides the issue already has larger meaning than this.
Hopefully, exposing the man behind the campaign will swing just enough votes for a victory of Ref. 71 but I believe for the vast majority of people on both sides the issue already has larger meaning than this.
22
19
History is on your side.
We've been here before, the tides of deviancy washing in and then back out, carrying civilizations with them like flotsam.
America is not the first society to have the 'family' structure torn down and pay the social costs, but decadence is a downhill slide and the brakes are hard to engage.
Marriage will be redefined, 'shacking up' will be legitimized, more and more children will grow up in homes without their mother and father, educational attainment will decline, social problems continue to grow, debt continue to rocket as prisons fill and the state takes on more and more functions once handled by the family. Irresponsible sexual behavior is the gasoline that fuels the fire, the family and stable society are consumed.
You will win.
If not this year then soon.
Those who fight to save the family know the battle will be lost eventually.
But it is a fight worth waging.
And waging the struggle is the victory, regardless of outcome.
Societies make choices, and deal with the consequences.
When the choices are wise the society prospers.
When the choices are selfish or depraved the society suffers.
Life is fair.
History is on your side.
We've been here before, the tides of deviancy washing in and then back out, carrying civilizations with them like flotsam.
America is not the first society to have the 'family' structure torn down and pay the social costs, but decadence is a downhill slide and the brakes are hard to engage.
Marriage will be redefined, 'shacking up' will be legitimized, more and more children will grow up in homes without their mother and father, educational attainment will decline, social problems continue to grow, debt continue to rocket as prisons fill and the state takes on more and more functions once handled by the family. Irresponsible sexual behavior is the gasoline that fuels the fire, the family and stable society are consumed.
You will win.
If not this year then soon.
Those who fight to save the family know the battle will be lost eventually.
But it is a fight worth waging.
And waging the struggle is the victory, regardless of outcome.
Societies make choices, and deal with the consequences.
When the choices are wise the society prospers.
When the choices are selfish or depraved the society suffers.
Life is fair.
23
#22
If you people are so concerned about Family and Traditional marriage then why aren't you going after straight people who 'shack-up', or get divorced. I would gladly vote for a referendum outlawing divorce but I'm sure I won't see that in my lifetime. Why is that??
If you people are so concerned about Family and Traditional marriage then why aren't you going after straight people who 'shack-up', or get divorced. I would gladly vote for a referendum outlawing divorce but I'm sure I won't see that in my lifetime. Why is that??
24
This referendum is about hate, but at least the Seattle Times is trying to shoot it down in a diplomatic, positive way. You, meanwhile, Dominic, are resorting to the usual hateful, combative bile that continues to alienate this paper and cement their growing rep as Eat the State! for liberals.
Guess whose approach is more productive to getting citizens on your side?
Guess whose approach is more productive to getting citizens on your side?
28
@22 the fact that all civilizations eventually kick the bucket is really immaterial, don't you think? I mean, I know the party line is that all those vomitoriums and roman orgies killed rome, but if you're really going to use such a simple metric, you might as well argue that the gradual adoption of christianity killed rome.
And hell, the US didn't become a great nation by hanging scarlet letters on adulterers and burning witches, anyways! We became a great society once we grew out of a fearful, puritanical childhood; by becoming a permissive society that allows innovation by not ostracizing people who by birth or by intellect lie outside the mainstream, like Galileo or Alan Turing or Einstein. That's exactly why all the displaced and persecuted European Jews and gays and gypsies and atheists (many of them intellectuals, engineers, doctors, scientists that helped build the fabulously free, wealthy, powerful country you have the privilege of being a citizen of) came to the US last century.
So as lyrical as your argument is, I don't think it holds any water whatsoever. Vague apocalyptic arguments like 'Irresponsible sexual behavior is the gasoline that fuels the fire, the family and stable society are consumed' belong in the bible, not in our statute.
And hell, the US didn't become a great nation by hanging scarlet letters on adulterers and burning witches, anyways! We became a great society once we grew out of a fearful, puritanical childhood; by becoming a permissive society that allows innovation by not ostracizing people who by birth or by intellect lie outside the mainstream, like Galileo or Alan Turing or Einstein. That's exactly why all the displaced and persecuted European Jews and gays and gypsies and atheists (many of them intellectuals, engineers, doctors, scientists that helped build the fabulously free, wealthy, powerful country you have the privilege of being a citizen of) came to the US last century.
So as lyrical as your argument is, I don't think it holds any water whatsoever. Vague apocalyptic arguments like 'Irresponsible sexual behavior is the gasoline that fuels the fire, the family and stable society are consumed' belong in the bible, not in our statute.
29
Tim Eyman is exhibit A of why initiatives shouldn't be part of the political system. It's too easy for scumbags like Eyman to dupe people into voting the wrong way on things they don't understand. Let the elected officials whose job it is to know what they are doing make the laws.
31
@4 + sock puppets: thanks for explaining why putting civil rights to a majority vote is a good thing. Pity you weren't around in Alabama in the 50's - teh blacks would surely have seen the error of their ways and the U.S. of A. would be a better country now.
32
28
the social costs of the out-of-wedlock birthrate are easily measured.
as well STDs transmitted thru promiscuous sex.
to name a couple
the social costs of the out-of-wedlock birthrate are easily measured.
as well STDs transmitted thru promiscuous sex.
to name a couple
33
fuck. I am confused.
"R-71 backers" = homophobic fucknuts right?
But. . .
We (non- homophobic fucknuts) are supposed to APPROVE R-71 when we go to the ballot?
. . . the fucking thing is written backwards?
Jeebus, no wonder this thing made it to the ballot. Tell me what to do, please! Thank You.
"R-71 backers" = homophobic fucknuts right?
But. . .
We (non- homophobic fucknuts) are supposed to APPROVE R-71 when we go to the ballot?
. . . the fucking thing is written backwards?
Jeebus, no wonder this thing made it to the ballot. Tell me what to do, please! Thank You.
34
30. No matter what his motivations are for each initiative he pushes (and yes, many of them are motivated by spite), a lot of Eyman's initiatives get shot down by the voters.
36
33:
You have to vote yes, vote to approve R 71, if it makes the ballot.
Lurleen @ 25, your wiser then this Oregonian on the subject. Is it, http://approvereferendum71.org/ ?
You have to vote yes, vote to approve R 71, if it makes the ballot.
Lurleen @ 25, your wiser then this Oregonian on the subject. Is it, http://approvereferendum71.org/ ?
38
@36.
got it. . . I have to vote YES on R-71 to KEEP the current domestic partnership law.
um. . . is it just me (hopefully) or does this need to be made more clear?
got it. . . I have to vote YES on R-71 to KEEP the current domestic partnership law.
um. . . is it just me (hopefully) or does this need to be made more clear?
39
Just so everyone knows, the confusion of the Vote-Yes-to-Say-No-to-the-Drive-to-Overturn-the-Original-Law thing isn't intentional. No one set out to make this misleading. Because the referendum seeks to overturn or rescind (or whatever) an existing law, you are voting either to (YES) keep the existing law or (NO) axe the existing law.
Confusing, yes. But not nefarious.
Confusing, yes. But not nefarious.
40
@38,
It needs to be made more clear in my opinion, but I'm down here in OR. We're going to have to get the word out, if you Tweet, Facebook, etc., use it. Being low tech, I'm calling and emailing those I know.
It needs to be made more clear in my opinion, but I'm down here in OR. We're going to have to get the word out, if you Tweet, Facebook, etc., use it. Being low tech, I'm calling and emailing those I know.
41
@38, 40: from http://approvereferendum71.org/handouts:
REFERENDUM 71
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. Should this bill be: Approved ___ Rejected ___
It's actually very clear if one reads the text. (A BIG "if," I know)
REFERENDUM 71
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. Should this bill be: Approved ___ Rejected ___
It's actually very clear if one reads the text. (A BIG "if," I know)
42
I just tried clicking on my own link and it doesn't quite work, probably because it involves a PDF. Oops. Still, you can click "handouts" at the top and scroll down to "Download Referendum 71 Ballot Title and Summary."
43
Does the meat of an initiative have to meet any legal or constitutional prerequisite before it's considered for the ballot, or can just about any shit stick?
If there were to be an initiative—say, all of the state's homeless would be rounded up and remotely relocated for "rehabilitation"—disgustingly, it would pass. It would pass in almost any state that put it before the voters. It wouldn't be legal, or moral, but I'm guessing the margin for which it passed would also be depressing.
If there were to be an initiative—say, all of the state's homeless would be rounded up and remotely relocated for "rehabilitation"—disgustingly, it would pass. It would pass in almost any state that put it before the voters. It wouldn't be legal, or moral, but I'm guessing the margin for which it passed would also be depressing.
44
#42 - they either moved it on you or your link was wrong. Here is a direct one that should work:
http://approvereferendum71.org/wp-conten…
http://approvereferendum71.org/wp-conten…
45
"making stuff up and deriding people you don't like is more your style.
You are a species that has eroded civility in our community."
Waaah waaaah we enjoy telling people what they can and can't do in the bedroom and telling them who they can and can't be married to by the state, but don't ever be mean to a bigot! That's... that's... BIGOTRY.
Nice try, douchebags. If your concept of marriage was so strong, you'd care about not electing so many cheating, adulterous whores that just happen to be R.
You are a species that has eroded civility in our community."
Waaah waaaah we enjoy telling people what they can and can't do in the bedroom and telling them who they can and can't be married to by the state, but don't ever be mean to a bigot! That's... that's... BIGOTRY.
Nice try, douchebags. If your concept of marriage was so strong, you'd care about not electing so many cheating, adulterous whores that just happen to be R.
46
Nevada will have everything-but-marriage domestic partnership (except for forcing employers to provide health coverage). It was passed by the legislature this year, vetoed by the governor, and the legislature overrode the veto. It becomes law on October 1.
And nobody gives a shit. There's zero effort to repeal it because the law doesn't take away rights nor does it interfere with gambling, drinking, prostitution, etc.
I assumed NV would be less tolerable for homosexuals/minorities than WA but that is not the case. In fact, it is quite refreshing to see a place where people are not actively trying to repeal laws that provide equal rights. Leave me alone, don't mess with my rights, let me do what I want to do, and I will leave you alone.
WTF is happening in WA?
And nobody gives a shit. There's zero effort to repeal it because the law doesn't take away rights nor does it interfere with gambling, drinking, prostitution, etc.
I assumed NV would be less tolerable for homosexuals/minorities than WA but that is not the case. In fact, it is quite refreshing to see a place where people are not actively trying to repeal laws that provide equal rights. Leave me alone, don't mess with my rights, let me do what I want to do, and I will leave you alone.
WTF is happening in WA?
47
What's funny is that much of Nevada's population is Mormon, and of the various Christian cultures, they have to be among the most bigoted. Yet, Nevada's moving forward.
The thing with Nevada is that they strong-arm legislation through, with no initiaitve and referendum processes or nutbar activist movements derailing their legislation. Every state has bigots. Nevada just doesn't let their's ruin progress. WA, in insisting on giving the public some lawmaking power instead of leaving it to the officials we technically elect to do so, does.
The thing with Nevada is that they strong-arm legislation through, with no initiaitve and referendum processes or nutbar activist movements derailing their legislation. Every state has bigots. Nevada just doesn't let their's ruin progress. WA, in insisting on giving the public some lawmaking power instead of leaving it to the officials we technically elect to do so, does.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (48) RSS