Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 3, 2012
Homo Democrat Paull Shin Defends Anti-Gay Vote
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM
In a statement sent to reporters this morning, state senator Paul Shinn from Edmonds—one of only three Democrats to vote against marriage equality on Wednesday—explains that he believes gay people should be treated as second class citizens because Jesus:
I want to thank you for your understanding during these past weeks as I considered my vote on Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage equality. My office has received hundreds of phone calls, emails, and letters, and I know that this is a very important issue to many of you in the 21st district. As your senator, there is no question that you deserve to know the reasoning behind my vote on this bill.
- Sen. Shin: Discrimination in the name of God.
His "reasoning" continues after the jump:
As many of you know, I spent my childhood on the streets of Korea during the Japanese occupation and Korean War. I slept wherever there was shelter, and found food amongst the garbage. This hard life came to an end when I was taken in by a U.S. military officers’ unit as their house boy. A few years later I was adopted by one of those officers, who brought me to America where I was welcomed into his family as a son and brother. To this day there is no doubt in my mind that this act of love and kindness saved my life and made me who I am today.
My adopted family raised me as they raised their own children, with strong Christian values. To this day, I cherish those values and try to live my life in accordance with their teachings. Therefore my vote against passage of this bill was one that was deeply personal.
At the same time, I have the utmost respect for the proponents of this bill and for their right to live their lives as they see fit. I respect their right to cherish their own values and to live in accordance with the teachings of their own faith. These are our brothers and our sisters, our sons and daughters. My Christian values teach that we should love all God’s children equally.
It is in that spirit that I voted against the proposal to send this issue to the people for a vote. I believe strongly that it is far better to foster unity and compassion than to promote divisiveness and anger. Thus, it is our duty as your elected representatives to make these difficult decisions and to avoid protracted and potentially bitter campaigns. I strongly believe that sending such a divisive issue to the voters would only serve to take the burden off of us, as your legislators, at the expense of the people.
I have no doubt that my vote on Wednesday is one that will be applauded by some and abhorred by others. But as we tackle these divisive issues, nothing is more important than our mutual respect for one another, both as Americans and as Washingtonians. It is my hope that regardless of your position on this one issue, I will continue to have your respect as a legislator and your respect as a friend and neighbor.
Plenty of people who love, love, love Jesus also believe gay couples deserve equal rights. Even Shin admits that Christianity is about equality and compassion. So it looks like Christian values aren't the problem. It's Paull Shinn's embrace of discrimination. He's a bigot.
3
no doubt the guy's got conflicts in his values - buy Dom, you haven't been paying attention to how Ed Murray got this done.. he got it done by not calling everyone who comes to a different conclusion a bigot (even if he might, I suspect, feel that way). I'm just so impressed with Sen. Murray's approach in achieving the goal of fully equality. And I firmly believe his approach led it to come to fruition sooner rather than later. It's an example that should be emulated in many "battles" yet to be won.
5
Yeah, I wouldn't call it bigotry. I'm sure the higher power he fears is earthly.
I want to point out something: in his paean to his own piety, he mentions his poverty and how christian values pulled him off the streets. Well, those same values have made gay youth a huge percentage of the homeless population.
I want to point out something: in his paean to his own piety, he mentions his poverty and how christian values pulled him off the streets. Well, those same values have made gay youth a huge percentage of the homeless population.
6
@3) I love Mr. Shinn. I would be nice to him and respectful to him in every interaction. And I would vote, if I had the chance, to make sure he held all the rights of other Americans. But we can love someone and still be accurate with our words, even when they are harsh. A racist is a racist, and a homphobe is a homophobe--and both are bigots. We don't need to soften language.
8
AS a senator what YOU fucking believe is of absolutely no consequence. What WE THE PEOPLE who are YOUR BOSSES believe is what's important. JAckass.
9
I respect the fact his vote was entirely personal.
The same way it will be entirely personal when I donate money for a Democratic primary challenger for the first time ever.
Slog, stay on top of this one. I'm gonna want to know where to send my check.
The same way it will be entirely personal when I donate money for a Democratic primary challenger for the first time ever.
Slog, stay on top of this one. I'm gonna want to know where to send my check.
10
This hard life came to an end when I was taken in by a U.S. military officers’ unit as their house boy. A few years later I was adopted by one of those officers, who brought me to America where I was welcomed into his family as a son and brother. To this day there is no doubt in my mind that this act of love and kindness saved my life and made me who I am today.
What act? the adoption or being taken in by a US military officer's unit? Let me guess, back then the U.S. military officer's unit was all men? An all-men organization rescues a boy from a hard life and he votes like this?
What act? the adoption or being taken in by a US military officer's unit? Let me guess, back then the U.S. military officer's unit was all men? An all-men organization rescues a boy from a hard life and he votes like this?
11
He doesn't get points for voting against the amendment to put it on the ballot directly, when a referendum was and is a virtual certainty. I'd have more respect for him if he stuck to his [warped] principles all the way through.
And apparently, with Romney in the running, Mormons in public positions (including Romney himself) are avoiding the M-word like the plague and talking about "Christian" values only.
And apparently, with Romney in the running, Mormons in public positions (including Romney himself) are avoiding the M-word like the plague and talking about "Christian" values only.
12
I don't understand his reasoning here. He claims he voted AGAINST sending this issue to "the people". But it's my understanding that isn't what the bill intended, and that in any case, such an action falls completely outside of the legislature's purview, as the right to refer laws to public vote rests with citizens and NOT with the legislature, correct? Otherwise, why would opponents need to gather signatures to qualify a referendum for the ballot, if the legislature could just automatically place it there?
So, how can he claim his vote AGAINST Marriage Equality was simply a vote NOT to refer the issue to a public vote, if that was neither the intent of the bill he voted against, nor even within the power of the legislature in the first place?
And if the above IS correct, and yet this is what he's claiming as his rationale, then I have to say Sen. Shin must have a very poor understanding of how the legislative process in this state works; which is doubly scary, since he's been put in a position of being responsible for administering that very process.
So, how can he claim his vote AGAINST Marriage Equality was simply a vote NOT to refer the issue to a public vote, if that was neither the intent of the bill he voted against, nor even within the power of the legislature in the first place?
And if the above IS correct, and yet this is what he's claiming as his rationale, then I have to say Sen. Shin must have a very poor understanding of how the legislative process in this state works; which is doubly scary, since he's been put in a position of being responsible for administering that very process.
13
At least he's honest that his rationale was 100% a religious one. There is no logical secular argument for voting against gay marriage...
16
No. No. You do NOT get to vote against, disagree with, or put our rights up for a vote and then try to play the "let's all respect each other even though we disagree." This isn't a simple policy disagreement, these are people's lives we're talking about. I refuse to be characterized as an a-hole, when I fight back, simply because you played that "I-still-love-you-want-to-be-friends" card. You do not get to walk away and frame the conversation in that way.
17
No. No. You do NOT get to vote against, disagree with, or put our rights up for a vote and then try to play the "let's all respect each other even though we disagree." This isn't a simple policy disagreement, these are people's lives we're talking about. I refuse to be characterized as an a-hole, when I fight back, simply because you played that "I-still-love-you-want-to-be-friends" card. You do not get to walk away and frame the conversation in that way.
19
@13.. i'd argue there is no logical christian argument for voting against gay marriage either, logic being the operative word here.
20
"I have the utmost respect for the proponents of this bill and for their right to live their lives as they see fit."
No, you refuse to let them live their lives as they see fit, as a married couple, with attendant rights and benefits.
"I believe strongly that it is far better to foster unity and compassion than to promote divisiveness and anger."
ARE YOU KIDDING? Your "no" vote futhers unity and compassion?
Ugh, this guy.
No, you refuse to let them live their lives as they see fit, as a married couple, with attendant rights and benefits.
"I believe strongly that it is far better to foster unity and compassion than to promote divisiveness and anger."
ARE YOU KIDDING? Your "no" vote futhers unity and compassion?
Ugh, this guy.
21
I believe that in this case you are wrong. Senator Shin is cowardly, to that I will agree. But because there is no open animosity towards the gay community I do not believe that the man is a bigot.
22
And yet – and yet – and yet think about the implications of what he's not saying. He was uprooted geographically and culturally, also expected to (um, would forced be too harsh a word in this case?) adopt the dominant religion of his new family. Many people who adopt children today from around the globe do their utmost to uphold a child's memories and original beliefs. Sadly, though, not in his case. He must have felt so grateful to no longer be a houseboy, but a real boy. I guess it's that old missionary-evangelical zeal being practised still. Plus, hey, because Jesus. Which, as a two-word argument, is intended to halt any opposing debate.
Now, imagine if he'd been adopted by a same-sex couple (forgetting about the actual impossibility for the times). Who didn't indoctrinate him. And then imagine him voting in favour of the bill, precisely because of the diversity and fairness, love and compassion he'd experienced from parents who lived their tolerance (rather than merely mouthing it).
Every argument he uses (fostering respect, living his Christian values, wanting others to be free to live their lives in accordance with their faith) is contradictory. He doesn't want divisiveness? Nah, he just wants the argument and proponents of equal marriage to become silent and invisible, to fade away. So not the same thing.
Now, imagine if he'd been adopted by a same-sex couple (forgetting about the actual impossibility for the times). Who didn't indoctrinate him. And then imagine him voting in favour of the bill, precisely because of the diversity and fairness, love and compassion he'd experienced from parents who lived their tolerance (rather than merely mouthing it).
Every argument he uses (fostering respect, living his Christian values, wanting others to be free to live their lives in accordance with their faith) is contradictory. He doesn't want divisiveness? Nah, he just wants the argument and proponents of equal marriage to become silent and invisible, to fade away. So not the same thing.
24
@6 Agree completely. Also wrote a respectful letter telling just how full of crap he is to base his vote on religion. If you're a representative of the people and you are basing your vote on your personal religious beliefs, you have failed as a representative of the people.
25
I was under the impression that he wasn't planning on running for reelection. I don't know where I heard that, though, so it might be totally false.
28
Let me translate this for everyone: "I cant vote for something as a Senator if it violates my own personal beliefs."
I'd rather have people who cant vote for something because of their beliefs recuse themselves and abstain from voting.
But of course, Govt by religious beliefs is wrong if it is Sharia Law and Muslim but not if it is Christian. That's different.
I'd rather have people who cant vote for something because of their beliefs recuse themselves and abstain from voting.
But of course, Govt by religious beliefs is wrong if it is Sharia Law and Muslim but not if it is Christian. That's different.
29
"I voted against this bill because, after all these years, I'm still deathly afraid of my adopted father."
30
Paul Shin needs a refresher course on the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. Too bad Justice Bill Brennan -- a devout Catholic who voted to constitutionally protect abortion rights in Roe v. Wade -- isn't around to explain the concept to him. People who base public policy decisions on their own personal religious beliefs have no place in a non-discriminatory secular government.
32
I watched this from the Senate gallery, and I have to say the debate was very civil. I also gained an appreciation for even those who did not vote with us this time, but talked about how the they personally struggled. I don't know what went into Sen. Shinn's thoughts, but the tenor of the debate, overall, demonstrated a level of respect among colleagues that has come with personal relationships and time. So while this victory is incredible, we also can be very proud of legislators on both sides of the aisle for nurturing a culture of respect over the years. I hope they take inspiration from this as they seek to overcome many other tremendous obstacles we face.
34
How could I hate another? As a self-ascribed "Christian", I automatically love everyone equally, no matter how I treat them!
35
translation: i kind of know i'm wrong. but the people who taught me to hate gay people (for love of 'god') did too good a job. sorry.
36
Don't worry folks. Next election Shinn and others who took the right side of this debate will be rewarded by those of us who value marriage and family. Your apologists for gays as citizens with more rights than others? Yeah, they'll get their reward too in being able to return to private life when they lose elective office.
I mean, as a means of energizing the majority of Americans, you really couldn't have planned any better. Plenty of money and political organization will be activated inside and outside of Washington state to educate you in your place as citizens equal to others, not exalted above them.
And don't plan any big gay weddings too quickly. The referendum will teach those legislators who put the good of a self selecting 1% or 2% of the population ahead of the remainder a solid lesson in representative democracy.
Enjoy your temporary victory while you can. It won't last.
Don't worry folks. Next election Shinn and others who took the right side of this debate will be rewarded by those of us who value marriage and family. Your apologists for gays as citizens with more rights than others? Yeah, they'll get their reward too in being able to return to private life when they lose elective office.
I mean, as a means of energizing the majority of Americans, you really couldn't have planned any better. Plenty of money and political organization will be activated inside and outside of Washington state to educate you in your place as citizens equal to others, not exalted above them.
And don't plan any big gay weddings too quickly. The referendum will teach those legislators who put the good of a self selecting 1% or 2% of the population ahead of the remainder a solid lesson in representative democracy.
Enjoy your temporary victory while you can. It won't last.
37
I find it kind of funny that gay Democrats feel that the homophobes in their party need to "defend" their bigoted votes. Wouldn't it just be simpler to demand full equality for LGBT people and kick out everybody who doesn't agree rather than claim the party is pro-LGBT when it's not?
I'm not the smartest man, Jenny, but even I know that a party that allows Fred Phelps to run on their ticket ain't all that friendly to the queers.
I'm not the smartest man, Jenny, but even I know that a party that allows Fred Phelps to run on their ticket ain't all that friendly to the queers.
38
@36 you haven't been looking at the polling data. hate's time for ruling the day on this issue is coming to an end. it is simple demographics. it is you who should be enjoying your last few victories before your only safe place to hate & discriminate against gays is in the deep south.
39
@38
My old Grandad had hisself a sayin'.
Don't count yer chickens afore they hatch.
What people say to the nice person talking on the phone and how they vote in the privacy of their home or a booth can differ radically.
As for what hate has to do with it, I'd guess you understand the convulutions of your own twisted logic better than I do here.
Maybe you should have finished school, buddy.
My old Grandad had hisself a sayin'.
Don't count yer chickens afore they hatch.
What people say to the nice person talking on the phone and how they vote in the privacy of their home or a booth can differ radically.
As for what hate has to do with it, I'd guess you understand the convulutions of your own twisted logic better than I do here.
Maybe you should have finished school, buddy.
40
@39 another person who reaches for an insult based on my name or typing style. pathetic. not as pathetic as your political stances, mind you. but pathetic.
42
Shin seems to be confused about just what he was voting on: "It is in that spirit that I voted against the proposal to send this issue to the people for a vote." Wha?
44
@36, 39 Thanks, SB! It's easy for me to get caught up in my graduate program and get complacent on political issues, but now I'll be able to think back to your words and remember just how unfeeling and cruel the bigots are, and how crucial this fight is. It'll give me extra motivation! Maybe I'll fly home for a few weeks to knock on doors and work phone banks. I'll definitely be setting aside a portion of my graduate stipend to donate to the marriage equality campaign.
Of course, I don't owe it all to you or anything. I'd probably do that anyway. But your smug callousness and petty threats are a useful reminder that we need to stay focused on this goal.
Of course, I don't owe it all to you or anything. I'd probably do that anyway. But your smug callousness and petty threats are a useful reminder that we need to stay focused on this goal.
45
@39 You seem awfully confident that Washington state will vote against same sex-marriage, SB. I'm not saying they will or they won't but here are some things to consider. In 2008 California voters passed Prop 8 (if you don't know what that is use the Google), but they approved it by a fairly narrow margin (52% for, 48% against). Pretty much every study done on the subject shows that the public has become more sympathetic to the Marriage Equality movement in the last 4 years. Also, one of the reasons Prop 8 passed was that racial and ethic minorities tended to vote for it. Washington is a lot whiter than California, so that is an advantage your side won't have this time.
46
Many of us who value marriage and family are on the opposite side of this issue from yours, Seattleblues. And you have never once explained what rights same-sex couples would receive if they were allowed to participate in civil marriage contracts that traditional couples do not currently enjoy, or would not continue to enjoy if those rights were extended to others. Until and unless you do, you have one of two choices--cease using that terminology, or be prepared to have it pointed out that you've never offered an iota of factual support for your argument, and that it is rhetorically tantamount to theology, as satisfactory a position of debate as "God did it!"
Big gay weddings will likely go on regardless of what the legislature decides.
And don't plan any big gay weddings too quickly.Interestingly enough, in my experience, "big gay weddings" haven't exactly been waiting on the state. I've been an invited member of many a "wedding" party to couples whose relations were indistinguishable, in terms of social, economic, emotional, or spiritual function, from the one my wife and I share. The only difference is that the state recognizes ours, but not theirs.
Big gay weddings will likely go on regardless of what the legislature decides.
47
@36 Your comment: "Your apologists for gays as citizens with more rights than others?" doesn't really fly. Gays aren't asking for "more" rights. They're asking for "the same" rights as any other citizen.
And if the religious folk want to keep marriage a "heterosexual's only" club, no problem. But via our Constitution's first and fourteenth amendments, heterosexual married couples may no longer receive any marriage-based federal rights or privileges of any kind. I'll list three federal examples, though there are many others..
1) Joint filing of federal income tax
2) Not being required to testify against your heterosexual spouse in federal court
3) Medical benefits provided to the heterosexual spouse of a war veteran
Homosexuals only want "the same" rights as any other US citizen where federal marriage benefits are concerned. Since the *only* argument left that can be used against homosexuals deserving these same federally protected rights is one based entirely in religion, then via the first and fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution these rights can not and should not be denied to any US citizen regardless of sexual orientation.
And if the religious folk want to keep marriage a "heterosexual's only" club, no problem. But via our Constitution's first and fourteenth amendments, heterosexual married couples may no longer receive any marriage-based federal rights or privileges of any kind. I'll list three federal examples, though there are many others..
1) Joint filing of federal income tax
2) Not being required to testify against your heterosexual spouse in federal court
3) Medical benefits provided to the heterosexual spouse of a war veteran
Homosexuals only want "the same" rights as any other US citizen where federal marriage benefits are concerned. Since the *only* argument left that can be used against homosexuals deserving these same federally protected rights is one based entirely in religion, then via the first and fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution these rights can not and should not be denied to any US citizen regardless of sexual orientation.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues 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 (48) RSS