Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 6, 2010
News AG McKenna Will Ask Supreme Court to Uphold Racially Biased Ban on Felon Voting
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna announced this afternoon that he will ask the Supreme Court to reverse yesterday's federal decision to toss out the state's felon voting ban. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban was a violation of the Voting Rights Act because it disproportionately affected nonwhite citizens, who are overrepresented in Washington’s criminal-justice system.
McKenna, while acknowledging that a disproportionate number of inmates in Washington prisons are people of color, says the federal court’s ruling was flawed. The appeals court cited two reports from sociologists in Washington that revealed large racial disparities, including one that found 64 percent of felony drug arrestees in Seattle were of black even though most of the people selling drugs were white (.pdfs here and here). McKenna said that those “limited statistical discrepancies” fail to prove that "the entire system is corrupt with racial discrimination." Moreover, the court erred by applying those racial disparities to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was intended to give nonwhite people equal voting opportunity, because it didn’t examine overall opportunities for people of color, he said. “The fact is that people of color in the state vote often.”
But Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy of the Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., said racial bias is systemic in law enforcement—from the neighborhoods police choose to patrol to the length of sentences issued by judges—and the ban is the "last vestige of the restrictions on voting.” She adds, "At every step of the criminal just system you see racial disparity in increasing levels ... you have a disproportionate number of African Americans who cannot vote because of their previous convictions.”
“Obviously, we were very excited about the 9th Circuit’s decision. It is unfortunate that the attorney general wants to appeal it,” Gotsch said.
Even if McKenna is correct in his analysis of the law—that the felon-voting ban does not unfairly disenfranchise nonwhite citizens and that felons in jail shouldn't be allowed to vote (the latter point is especially legitimate)—this hubbub should be a wakeup call for the state's law enforcement. A federal court has pointed out that overwhelmingly white Washington is locking up nonwhite people at rates so high it threatens the state's democracy. But McKenna doesn't quite see it that way, of course. While he agrees that “racial discrimination should not be tolerated,” he says the onus is on defendants to argue that case—not law enforcement. “We have excellent law enforcement in this state,” McKenna says, “and the city of Seattle has done great work to make sure they have avoid racial profiling.” A larger question that must be answered by society, he said, is “why people of color engage in activities that dispose them to be subject to arrest.” Upholding the voting ban—as three previous circuit courts have done—is necessary because similar "laws in 48 states are at stake," McKenna said.
"If citizens violates rights of other citizens ... it is appropriate to lose the rights of citizenship," said Secretary of State Sam Reed. "I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in our favor." If the Supreme Court takes the case, McKenna expects a hearing by fall of this year.
1
Blah Blah Blah People of Color are overrepresented in Washington Prisons. Sure, I believe it. And I totally agree that they get arrested for committing crimes more often than whites do.
Quick way to solve that discrepancy - DON'T COMMIT CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE. Duh.
As to the ruling, my understanding is that it applies to convicted felons serving jail time. Washington already has a relatively (compared to most other states) simple path to voting rights once someone is out of jail. Incarceration=no voting, and that is what the U.S. Supreme Court will say.
Quick way to solve that discrepancy - DON'T COMMIT CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE. Duh.
As to the ruling, my understanding is that it applies to convicted felons serving jail time. Washington already has a relatively (compared to most other states) simple path to voting rights once someone is out of jail. Incarceration=no voting, and that is what the U.S. Supreme Court will say.
2
I don't care if you're blue, green, black, white, or any color of the rainbow. Incarcerated felons do not get to vote. Period.
3
The question is whether or not convicted felons should have the right to vote.
There is no racial element to that question. It's a simple question and perhaps it should be discussed, but this is not the way to go about it.
I am skeptical that giving felons the right to vote will significantly change or improve the racial issues being brought up here. I see no reason not to have the felon/voting issues opened for discussion. I just don't like the way it's being turned into a racial issue.
There is no racial element to that question. It's a simple question and perhaps it should be discussed, but this is not the way to go about it.
I am skeptical that giving felons the right to vote will significantly change or improve the racial issues being brought up here. I see no reason not to have the felon/voting issues opened for discussion. I just don't like the way it's being turned into a racial issue.
4
It's pretty hilarious that withdrawing voting rights is considered punishment nowadays, in a time where more people vote for American Idol.
It's cool though that we can take away the rights of felons willy-nilly. Next up, can we take away their other constitutional rights, like, say the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Hell, if you can take away one constitutional right, why the hell not take away all of them?
Actually, I'd like to get rid of their right to a fair trial. That way, we can convict them, and once they're felons, the sentencing process could be done via text-message voting.
This could get fun!
It's cool though that we can take away the rights of felons willy-nilly. Next up, can we take away their other constitutional rights, like, say the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? Hell, if you can take away one constitutional right, why the hell not take away all of them?
Actually, I'd like to get rid of their right to a fair trial. That way, we can convict them, and once they're felons, the sentencing process could be done via text-message voting.
This could get fun!
5
Domonic, again I must ask, at what law school did you get your J.D. from? Oh, what's that, you don't even have a fucking high school diploma? Shut the fuck up, you uneducated twat. Does being a faggot give you a pass? Not in the real world, cunt.
6
@4 Or how about we just do away with the prison system entirely because deep down the rapists and murders are really goodhearted people who have just been abused and treated badly. sounds logical, right? Because one out of how many may get a bum trial, lets just do away with the whole idea of prison. Its just unfair to lock up or fellow brothers and sisters, no matter what kind of menace to society they are. We should coddle and nurture them. Right?
7
@1, and, Sam Reed ("If citizens violates rights of other citizens ... it is appropriate to lose the rights of citizenship"),
Why?
There are all sorts of exceptions to this asserted principle. Do we remove the voting rights of police officers who lose lawsuits for use of excessive force? That is a civil rights violation.
Do we remove the voting rights of people who download music? That is both a civil and a criminal copyright violation.
Do we remove the voting rights of business owners who steal their employees' wages and government tax dollars by improperly classifying employees as overtime exempt, or independent contractors?
We _do_ remove the voting rights of people convicted of felony drug possession; they are not violating others' rights, only our society's moral perspective on drug use.
This one falls into the "because that's always the way we've done it" category. And just like the death penalty, straight-only marriage, minority disenfranchisement, womens' disenfranchisement, "becuase that's always the way we've done it" isn't a strong enough rationale to maintain selected minority, er, felon disenfranchisement.
Why?
There are all sorts of exceptions to this asserted principle. Do we remove the voting rights of police officers who lose lawsuits for use of excessive force? That is a civil rights violation.
Do we remove the voting rights of people who download music? That is both a civil and a criminal copyright violation.
Do we remove the voting rights of business owners who steal their employees' wages and government tax dollars by improperly classifying employees as overtime exempt, or independent contractors?
We _do_ remove the voting rights of people convicted of felony drug possession; they are not violating others' rights, only our society's moral perspective on drug use.
This one falls into the "because that's always the way we've done it" category. And just like the death penalty, straight-only marriage, minority disenfranchisement, womens' disenfranchisement, "becuase that's always the way we've done it" isn't a strong enough rationale to maintain selected minority, er, felon disenfranchisement.
8
@6, no. We should just abandon the constitution every chance we get. That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure how you missed the point of my original post. I spelled it out pretty clearly for you.
Hell, If I had my way, we'd just set them all alight and dance around the fire for days and days. Tossing one felon after another into the flames, and roasting marshmallows over their corpses.
They say a society can be judged by how it treats its criminals. And frankly, I want us to be judged as really fucking badass, ruthless sons of bitches who fuck shit up constantly. Don't you? Or is your commie pinko bleeding heart gonna get in the way of this righteous bloodbath?
Hell, If I had my way, we'd just set them all alight and dance around the fire for days and days. Tossing one felon after another into the flames, and roasting marshmallows over their corpses.
They say a society can be judged by how it treats its criminals. And frankly, I want us to be judged as really fucking badass, ruthless sons of bitches who fuck shit up constantly. Don't you? Or is your commie pinko bleeding heart gonna get in the way of this righteous bloodbath?
9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the if the Supreme Court rules that WA felons can vote, doesn't that reinstate the for ALL felons nationwide? Not that I'm complaining. Citizen = you can vote.
10
"I just don't like the way it's being turned into a racial issue."
It isn't being turned into a racial issue. It is a racial issue.
Read the opinion. The undisputed facts of the case are that Washington's criminal justice system is systemically infected with racial bias. There are disparities in arrests, convictions, sentencing, etc. that, when controlling for all other factors, cannot be explained except through race bias.
The State did not even attempt to introduce evidence otherwise, to the district court; it simply asserted that even conceding a racially biased criminal justice system as a fact, there was no Voting Rights Act violation.
The state won before the district court, and lost at the court of appeals. Them is the breaks.
It isn't being turned into a racial issue. It is a racial issue.
Read the opinion. The undisputed facts of the case are that Washington's criminal justice system is systemically infected with racial bias. There are disparities in arrests, convictions, sentencing, etc. that, when controlling for all other factors, cannot be explained except through race bias.
The State did not even attempt to introduce evidence otherwise, to the district court; it simply asserted that even conceding a racially biased criminal justice system as a fact, there was no Voting Rights Act violation.
The state won before the district court, and lost at the court of appeals. Them is the breaks.
11
Felons can't vote. If the poor mistreated held down by the man irresponsible blacks in prison would stop blaming the world and take some personal responsibility and stop the crime, they could vote.
I am sick of this nonsense. If the black wants respect they have to stop this whining, stop doing crime, and earn respect by being a good citizen. If obama were not president I doubt they would give one shit about voting. They know he is going to get voted out and their free race card will vanish in 2012.
nobody forces them to commit crimes. Guess what. All races who are felons cannot vote. Deal with it, criminals.
I am sick of this nonsense. If the black wants respect they have to stop this whining, stop doing crime, and earn respect by being a good citizen. If obama were not president I doubt they would give one shit about voting. They know he is going to get voted out and their free race card will vanish in 2012.
nobody forces them to commit crimes. Guess what. All races who are felons cannot vote. Deal with it, criminals.
12
Even with the white apologist liberals handing them the future, the negro just throws it away by stealing his TV and raping his white women. I hoping that they'll try to make it so that black felons are allowed special voting privileges so that they push their appeasement nonsense just a tiny bit further to the much-needed breaking point.
13
They are really honor students just about to turn their life around, right!
Didn't do nuffin'
The reasons the prisons are full of blacks is because they commit more crime.
If you want to stay out of jail...try honest working for a change, and respect others and the law.
We all know that's impossible for most blacks.
If you're a jamoke, you don't vote!
Didn't do nuffin'
The reasons the prisons are full of blacks is because they commit more crime.
If you want to stay out of jail...try honest working for a change, and respect others and the law.
We all know that's impossible for most blacks.
If you're a jamoke, you don't vote!
14
If savage and feral jungle animals are going to run around committing crimes they should not be squawking about what they perceive to be niggardly laws.
15
@11, I like the first part of your 'argument.' ... 'Felons can't vote.'
Well dang, I guess we just missed the whole point of this article. Gee shucks!
Here is your last post, reduced to mere (topical) logic.
Felons can't vote.
If they weren't felons, they could vote.
They should stop becoming felons.
Nobody made them become felons.
All felons can't vote.
Do you see what you did there? You went nowhere with your logic. In other words, you have no point. You made no point. You are not smart.
All idiots who write comments suck. They are idiots, and when they write comments, they suck. Sucking is what they do when they write comments. Comments are what they write, and all idiots who write comments suck.
Well dang, I guess we just missed the whole point of this article. Gee shucks!
Here is your last post, reduced to mere (topical) logic.
Felons can't vote.
If they weren't felons, they could vote.
They should stop becoming felons.
Nobody made them become felons.
All felons can't vote.
Do you see what you did there? You went nowhere with your logic. In other words, you have no point. You made no point. You are not smart.
All idiots who write comments suck. They are idiots, and when they write comments, they suck. Sucking is what they do when they write comments. Comments are what they write, and all idiots who write comments suck.
16
@7 - with all of your examples, if they are convicted of a felony, they cannot vote.
As to whether or not that is constitutional (I'm pulling this from usconstitution.net):
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
____________________
The fact is that there is constitutional limits as to why you can deny someone the right to vote, but not the right itself.
This particular lawsuit, contrary to 10, is about race. The decision hinges on the fact that minorities are hugely disproportionately represented in Washington prisons, and as such, the question is whether or not that justifies granting convicted felons CURRENTLY in prison the right to vote. The 9th Circuit panel concluded that, because of the racial disparity, they do. It does not address felon voting rights directly and, were the US Supreme Court to uphold the decision, it would NOT grant all felons the right to vote.
Rather, it would create a system whereby the federal government would have to determine which states are the biggest offenders re: racial disparity with respect to incarceration, and in turn, felons in their prisons would be allowed to vote.
Considering the current makeup of the Court, it is likely they will take this case on, and will overturn the lower Court. And that is the correct response. Period.
And 11 - fuck you. Your argument sucks, and makes mine look bad. Don't agree with me. Go back to watching Glen Beck, you fucking cocksucker.
More...
As to whether or not that is constitutional (I'm pulling this from usconstitution.net):
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
____________________
The fact is that there is constitutional limits as to why you can deny someone the right to vote, but not the right itself.
This particular lawsuit, contrary to 10, is about race. The decision hinges on the fact that minorities are hugely disproportionately represented in Washington prisons, and as such, the question is whether or not that justifies granting convicted felons CURRENTLY in prison the right to vote. The 9th Circuit panel concluded that, because of the racial disparity, they do. It does not address felon voting rights directly and, were the US Supreme Court to uphold the decision, it would NOT grant all felons the right to vote.
Rather, it would create a system whereby the federal government would have to determine which states are the biggest offenders re: racial disparity with respect to incarceration, and in turn, felons in their prisons would be allowed to vote.
Considering the current makeup of the Court, it is likely they will take this case on, and will overturn the lower Court. And that is the correct response. Period.
And 11 - fuck you. Your argument sucks, and makes mine look bad. Don't agree with me. Go back to watching Glen Beck, you fucking cocksucker.
17
There's nothing in the US constitution that prevents felon (currently incarcerated or out) from voting: the states make those laws. Maine and Vermont let prisoners vote, and others (like Washington) let ex-cons vote.
So, @1, it's not as simple as "incarceration = no voting," though in the past (e.g., Johnson v. Bush), the Supreme Court has upheld state's rights to deny felons that right (for life in that case), so it's doubtful they'll decide against the state on the incarceration issue.
So, @1, it's not as simple as "incarceration = no voting," though in the past (e.g., Johnson v. Bush), the Supreme Court has upheld state's rights to deny felons that right (for life in that case), so it's doubtful they'll decide against the state on the incarceration issue.
18
I guess for each black that commits a crime and gets sent to prison we need to send an innocent white person to prison to keep a nice 50 - 50 balance.
For every 60 blacks that committed felonies we need to incarcerate 60 innocent whites just to keep the moronic liberals happy.
Bullsh-t, if the blacks don't want to be in prison, they should stop violating the laws. Laws that others have no problem abiding by.
For every 60 blacks that committed felonies we need to incarcerate 60 innocent whites just to keep the moronic liberals happy.
Bullsh-t, if the blacks don't want to be in prison, they should stop violating the laws. Laws that others have no problem abiding by.
19
Dominic,
Are you for or against an incarcerated felon being enfranchised, i. e. being allowed to vote? I don't have a problem with ex-cons having the their voting rights restored. I DO have a problem with current incarcerated felons voting. As a result, I side with AG McKenna in his solicitation to the Wash. SC.
As for disproportionate representation of African-Americans in Wash. prisons, @1 has a point. Much of it isn't bias but is actual behavior. Read Heather MacDonald's stats:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0105…
There's a major crisis in the AA community Dominic and it isn't racism.
Finally, there was indeed "a wakeup call for the state's law enforcement". Five of the six police officers who happened to be white were killed by African-American perpetrators. It was a tragedy for ALL Washington state residents. The "systematic racism" argument is getting old.
Are you for or against an incarcerated felon being enfranchised, i. e. being allowed to vote? I don't have a problem with ex-cons having the their voting rights restored. I DO have a problem with current incarcerated felons voting. As a result, I side with AG McKenna in his solicitation to the Wash. SC.
As for disproportionate representation of African-Americans in Wash. prisons, @1 has a point. Much of it isn't bias but is actual behavior. Read Heather MacDonald's stats:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0105…
There's a major crisis in the AA community Dominic and it isn't racism.
Finally, there was indeed "a wakeup call for the state's law enforcement". Five of the six police officers who happened to be white were killed by African-American perpetrators. It was a tragedy for ALL Washington state residents. The "systematic racism" argument is getting old.
20
@ 19) I'm split over whether incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote. On one hand, I don't think convicted murderers and rapists should have a say in, well, much of anything during their sentences. But other felons--like someone caught with 0.1 grams of cocaine, which is a felony in Washington--have only committed a consensual crime, and shouldn't be jailed in the first place. So I'm fine if those folks vote. But ultimately, I'm happy to let the courts sort it out.
But your other point--that we shouldn't address major systemic racial inequities in the criminal justice system because the discussion is "old"--falls flat. Historically, racial minorities are subject to higher rates of arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing than white people accused of the same crimes. (To be clear: A black person is more likely to be convicted of the same crime a white person commits, and the black person is likely to get a longer sentence than a white person being sentenced for the same crime.) The reason the debate continues is because it's still a problem and the debate--sorry it feels so old--it's going to continue until it's fixed.
But your other point--that we shouldn't address major systemic racial inequities in the criminal justice system because the discussion is "old"--falls flat. Historically, racial minorities are subject to higher rates of arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing than white people accused of the same crimes. (To be clear: A black person is more likely to be convicted of the same crime a white person commits, and the black person is likely to get a longer sentence than a white person being sentenced for the same crime.) The reason the debate continues is because it's still a problem and the debate--sorry it feels so old--it's going to continue until it's fixed.
21
Do people learn anything in school any more?
The whole POINT of jail is supposed to be stripping a person of their normal rights as citizens in society.
Of course, we probably should do away with some low-level places that allow gyms and movie nights and other things that tend to keep prisoners happy but do away with that essential point then.
I agree with Dominic that there are non-violent minor offenders who get penalized by this, but they shouldn't be put in jail at all -- which would solve the voting problem.
And if there's a racial problem in our justice system, how about we focus on improving that, instead of just letting people vote so that we can feel better about it but ignore the actual problem?
The whole POINT of jail is supposed to be stripping a person of their normal rights as citizens in society.
Of course, we probably should do away with some low-level places that allow gyms and movie nights and other things that tend to keep prisoners happy but do away with that essential point then.
I agree with Dominic that there are non-violent minor offenders who get penalized by this, but they shouldn't be put in jail at all -- which would solve the voting problem.
And if there's a racial problem in our justice system, how about we focus on improving that, instead of just letting people vote so that we can feel better about it but ignore the actual problem?
22
Dominic,
Thanks for your civil retort. I agree you have a point. I think allowing a convict who committed a violent felony (assault, rape or murder) to vote is far easier to prohibit than say one caught with 0.1 grams of coke probably purchased consensually. But, I think it is a question of rights vs. sentencing. I contend tougher sentences for violent cons and perhaps more lenient sentences for drug offenses depending. However, I am still against felons voting.
But, I have to say I disagree with you on your second point. It doesn't fall flat. You miss the point that the crisis in the black family (72% out-of-wedlock births, i.e. no fathers to raise and discipline their sons) is directly precipitating the disproportionate incarceration rates and limiting HS graduation among African-American males. This is the great long term tragedy in America. It effects all Americans. And, it still is occurring under the Obama Administration. When the crisis in the A-A family is fixed you will see a system fixed. I part with you Dominic. It isn't racial bias.
Thanks for your civil retort. I agree you have a point. I think allowing a convict who committed a violent felony (assault, rape or murder) to vote is far easier to prohibit than say one caught with 0.1 grams of coke probably purchased consensually. But, I think it is a question of rights vs. sentencing. I contend tougher sentences for violent cons and perhaps more lenient sentences for drug offenses depending. However, I am still against felons voting.
But, I have to say I disagree with you on your second point. It doesn't fall flat. You miss the point that the crisis in the black family (72% out-of-wedlock births, i.e. no fathers to raise and discipline their sons) is directly precipitating the disproportionate incarceration rates and limiting HS graduation among African-American males. This is the great long term tragedy in America. It effects all Americans. And, it still is occurring under the Obama Administration. When the crisis in the A-A family is fixed you will see a system fixed. I part with you Dominic. It isn't racial bias.
24
Gee, I actually agree with both Rob McKenna, Sam Reed and the Governor (all at the same time) for a change. I doubt that will happen again for quite a while.
25
The Case was Brought by a Nation of Islam puppet with the intended strategy of getting more blacks on the voting rolls. Due to Jamal doing time for robbing the 7/11 he dilutes the "black" citizen voting block. Liberals need blacks to vote en mass, as they did for Da One, BHO.
26
The issue re: what felons can and can not vote -
I think that it's absolutely asinine to have marijuana and cocaine illegal, however, they still are. People who possess, distribute, use, etc, these substances do so with the full knowledge that they are engaging in illegal activity, which means there is a chance that they will be arrested and convicted of a felony, and thereby lose their voting rights. That is a risk that they are taking, and until our drug laws are fixed - in the State of Washington, a felon is a felon, which means no voting rights while incarcerated.
I think that it's absolutely asinine to have marijuana and cocaine illegal, however, they still are. People who possess, distribute, use, etc, these substances do so with the full knowledge that they are engaging in illegal activity, which means there is a chance that they will be arrested and convicted of a felony, and thereby lose their voting rights. That is a risk that they are taking, and until our drug laws are fixed - in the State of Washington, a felon is a felon, which means no voting rights while incarcerated.
28
Part of the punishment for committing felonies is losing your right to vote. There's nothing racist about that! If it so happens that more blacks are disposed to committing felonies than Asians, Hispanics, or Whites, well that's not the law's fault. Perhaps the blacks should stop pointing the finger of blame at everything in the world and start pointing it at themselves for a change. Instead of saying the laws are racist, they should start asking themselves why they continually engage in criminal activities!
And while I'm fantasizing, I hope a pink unicorn shows up in my back yard tomorrow.
And while I'm fantasizing, I hope a pink unicorn shows up in my back yard tomorrow.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS