Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 6, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA / Olympia House Hearing on Gay Marriage
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Happening now, streaming right here, and at this very moment featuring the testimony of Ken Hutcherson.
- From his testimony: "Representative Pedersen, you are the worst."
Wondering how it's all going to go down in the house, and what happens after that? Right here.
3
If it wasn't so early, I'd totally come up with a "Gay Marriage Hearing" drinking game:
Take a drink:
- Every time some bigot claims that Gay Marriage really "discriminates" against religious groups....
- Every time some NOM-funded jackoff from out of state argues that Gay Marriage will destroy civilization....
- Every time a religious nut speaks on behalf of God....
- Every time an ignorant redneck brings up "the AIDS disease"....
Of course, you could also take a drink:
- Every time a Gay Marriage supporter's testimony causes you to choke up a little....
- Every time a right-winger or Republican breaks a stereotype and supports the Bill b/c he or she actually knows some gay people....
I'm sure there are more....
Take a drink:
- Every time some bigot claims that Gay Marriage really "discriminates" against religious groups....
- Every time some NOM-funded jackoff from out of state argues that Gay Marriage will destroy civilization....
- Every time a religious nut speaks on behalf of God....
- Every time an ignorant redneck brings up "the AIDS disease"....
Of course, you could also take a drink:
- Every time a Gay Marriage supporter's testimony causes you to choke up a little....
- Every time a right-winger or Republican breaks a stereotype and supports the Bill b/c he or she actually knows some gay people....
I'm sure there are more....
4
Having Ken Hucherson testifying at a gay marriage hearing is like having a Grand Dragon from the KKK testifying at a civil rights hearing.
5
Ha ha! Crazy lady from Spokane says giving gays the right to marry is just like when Bill Clinton made "oral sex" okay, and submits the Book of Genesis to the record.
Take three drinks for this one....
Take three drinks for this one....
6
Oh damn, the woman who is testifying now worked in HPV and is submitting the book of Genesis as a part of her testimony.
12
You put two bulls in a pen... and you don't get a calf?!?
Well, that settles it. No gay marriage.
Well, that settles it. No gay marriage.
13
So if you find that a bull or cow is infertile don't you shoot it and sell it? Watch out infertile men and women, the farmer is a'comin!
14
Such a well-spoken, educated little bigot. "Gay marriage = trying to walk with two left shoes."
Ridiculous non-sequitur metaphor? Take a drink!
Ridiculous non-sequitur metaphor? Take a drink!
15
The metaphorializing is killing me! I'm a bull in two left shoes trying to cut down a tree with a hammer!
18
It's a little infuriating that no one questioned the crazy people but the lesbian couple with the newborn were asked if they were going to encourage their child to track down their biological father to pursue a relationship, as if that's relevant at all to the marriage equality bill?
22
Washingtons legislature, like that of New York, has decided already to put the interests of a tiny self selecting minority above those of the majority of the state, of family, of morality and of the welfare of the next generation of citizens.
This testimony is just due diligence. Without clearly letting them know what they're doing on the record we can't hold them directly accountable in the next elections for their appalling behavior.
@18
I'm confused. The lesbians ARE the crazy people who can't even understand basic human sexuality.
This testimony is just due diligence. Without clearly letting them know what they're doing on the record we can't hold them directly accountable in the next elections for their appalling behavior.
@18
I'm confused. The lesbians ARE the crazy people who can't even understand basic human sexuality.
23
@ 22, why aren't you out "waging war" like you said the other day?
Come on, man, bring it! "Defend" marriage! Quit being a basement dwelling wuss.
Come on, man, bring it! "Defend" marriage! Quit being a basement dwelling wuss.
24
@22 Seattleblues -- what are you going to say if the inevitable referendum fails, and Washington voters endorse the rights of our gay friends and family to marry on December 7, 2012?
25
@22 Yes, they are letting them know what they are doing: instituting Sharia Law by letting gays marry.
Oh, and I think the lesbos get human sexuality just fine. It's you who want to deny your gayness.
Oh, and I think the lesbos get human sexuality just fine. It's you who want to deny your gayness.
28
@21, all I can figure is that the Rev. Hutch didn't like that one family photo where Jamie and Eric and the kids all dressed alike. Hard to forgive, but some of us did manage...
29
@24
I already answered this question of yours on another thread.
My employees have orders to pull bids for gay or lesbian clients, and not to bid on any work in the future for anyone who is gay or lesbian.
I won't hire a gay man or lesbian, nor do business with a firm I know to have gay or lesbian employees or management. I've already let two firms know this, and why our business relationship is severed.
I won't lease rental units to gay or lesbian couples. I have 2 such tenants at the moment, and their leases won't be renewed.
See, when what was asked was mutual tolerance for each others lifestyle choices, I was and am happy to grant that. When what's demanded is special citizen status for gays and lesbians, a place in which 3% of the popululation demands their 'right' to set terms for the remaining 97% that is simple war on their own culture. I didn't ask for that war, but I won't accept defeat in it either.
Finally, if things get so depraved and degraded in my own country, I have a home in a little village in Italy. If the barbarians win here, I'll move there.
I already answered this question of yours on another thread.
My employees have orders to pull bids for gay or lesbian clients, and not to bid on any work in the future for anyone who is gay or lesbian.
I won't hire a gay man or lesbian, nor do business with a firm I know to have gay or lesbian employees or management. I've already let two firms know this, and why our business relationship is severed.
I won't lease rental units to gay or lesbian couples. I have 2 such tenants at the moment, and their leases won't be renewed.
See, when what was asked was mutual tolerance for each others lifestyle choices, I was and am happy to grant that. When what's demanded is special citizen status for gays and lesbians, a place in which 3% of the popululation demands their 'right' to set terms for the remaining 97% that is simple war on their own culture. I didn't ask for that war, but I won't accept defeat in it either.
Finally, if things get so depraved and degraded in my own country, I have a home in a little village in Italy. If the barbarians win here, I'll move there.
31
@25
Since I'm neither Muslim nor gay I think you might do some fact checking. However, it's telling that you think calling someone gay to be an insult.
As I wrote, if mutual tolerance is the goal, I'm happy to work with that. If demanding others enable your lifestyle as some kind of priviledge you have as a gay man or lesbian woman? Not so much.
@27
Ah. So you're willfully ignorant rather than uneducated on the matter. Good to know.
Since I'm neither Muslim nor gay I think you might do some fact checking. However, it's telling that you think calling someone gay to be an insult.
As I wrote, if mutual tolerance is the goal, I'm happy to work with that. If demanding others enable your lifestyle as some kind of priviledge you have as a gay man or lesbian woman? Not so much.
@27
Ah. So you're willfully ignorant rather than uneducated on the matter. Good to know.
32
@29 Ah, the old "If the gays win, I'll move to Europe" line. Please by all means, pack your bags.
33
I can only imagine the number of good people who'll breath a quiet sigh of relief when @29 kicks the bucket.
34
@33
Well, I'm healthy and 40, so don't get your pleasant little deathwish for me too high.
Sorry. My mistake. You wrote 'good' people.
Well, I'm healthy and 40, so don't get your pleasant little deathwish for me too high.
Sorry. My mistake. You wrote 'good' people.
36
First off, I doubt you really own a business, or have employees. You're a low level employee with little power in your life. This is why you troll on Slog. You feel empowered by being here. You are also very preoccupied with gay sex.
Why should you have the special right of engaging in the behaviors biracial sex and marriage. People cannot help what sex they are born any more than they can their race. You chose miscegenation.
Why should you have the special right of engaging in the behaviors biracial sex and marriage. People cannot help what sex they are born any more than they can their race. You chose miscegenation.
My employees have orders to pull bids for biracial married clients, and not to bid on any work in the future for anyone who is in a biracial marriage.
I won't hire a biracially married person, nor do business with a firm I know to have biracially married employees or management. I've already let two firms know this, and why our business relationship is severed.
I won't lease rental units to biracially married couples. I have 2 such tenants at the moment, and their leases won't be renewed.
See, when what was asked was mutual tolerance for each others lifestyle choices, I was and am happy to grant that. When what's demanded is special citizen status for biracially married people, a place in which 3% of the popululation demands their 'right' to set terms for the remaining 97% that is simple war on their own culture. I didn't ask for that war, but I won't accept defeat in it either.
37
Breaking News: 9th Circuit to rule on Prop 8 case tomorrow.
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02…
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02…
39
@29, I wouldn't be so quick to admit you are not renewing leases based on sexual orientation. Whether you like it or not, depending on where these alleged rental properties are, sexual orientation may be a protected class in terms of housing.
Now, what all good bigots do is simply find some other bogus reason to justify terminating a lease. However, since you've admitted it, in advance, in a public forum, and the internet is forever...
Now, what all good bigots do is simply find some other bogus reason to justify terminating a lease. However, since you've admitted it, in advance, in a public forum, and the internet is forever...
40
Seattleblues,
Please stop besmirching the fine name of "the blues", and go get a can of gasoline and set you sorry bigoted ass on fire.
Sincerely,
Humanity
PS - it's illegal to refuse to rent to biracial couples, you racist fuckhead.
Please stop besmirching the fine name of "the blues", and go get a can of gasoline and set you sorry bigoted ass on fire.
Sincerely,
Humanity
PS - it's illegal to refuse to rent to biracial couples, you racist fuckhead.
42
@31 It's no insult. You're obsessed with gays. I've seen one too many closet cases who are so repressed they need to call people like Dan Savage "deviants" (yes, that would be you) because he likes man parts--while they secretly like man parts. Perhaps I'm just pickup on a niche stereotype, but I assure you it's not an insult.
Your employment/rental practices are illegal in Washington, btw. Whatever happened to "following the law" when it's the law as you say so much--because we live in a constitutional republic and all?
Your employment/rental practices are illegal in Washington, btw. Whatever happened to "following the law" when it's the law as you say so much--because we live in a constitutional republic and all?
43
@22: "I'm confused."
And dumb, and a bigot. You don't need to remind us, and yet you do, with every post.
And dumb, and a bigot. You don't need to remind us, and yet you do, with every post.
45
@22: You claim that the lesbians don't understand basic human sexuality, thus implying that you do.
Basic Human Sexuality 101: Some people are gay, some people are bi, most people are straight, and you can't choose what you get. Also, tits.
@29: If you are sued for discriminating against tenants based on sexual orientation, can you post a copy of the legal briefs or whatever? Remember, it's illegal to do so in unincorporated King County, Seattle, Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater!
Basic Human Sexuality 101: Some people are gay, some people are bi, most people are straight, and you can't choose what you get. Also, tits.
@29: If you are sued for discriminating against tenants based on sexual orientation, can you post a copy of the legal briefs or whatever? Remember, it's illegal to do so in unincorporated King County, Seattle, Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater!
46
I need to take up for my old pal, Seattleblues, once again.
Y'all need to see that it's his duty to evict his queer tenants and to decline contracts from gays and lesbians. It's what Thoreau called Civil Disobedience.
You see, those gays and lesbians who moved into his apartments--well, they're redefining landlordship for the 97% of landlords who are normal! And those gay and lesbian clients, they're redefining free enterprise for heterosexual people. And it's the same thing about marriage, like Seattleblues keeps saying, but nobody understands.
Here in the south we understand these things. I wouldn't of let no gays and lesbians move into the mobile home park I put on the plantation, except that they didn't tell me in advance, and now I'm kinda stuck with them because they've built decks and put in landscaping and all. And I wouldn't sell the gasoline in my convenience store to 'em if I had a way of knowing up front what they liked to do in bed, because that just redefines convenience stores for the rest of us. So if Seattleblues has ironclad evidence, and he doesn't want to rent to 'em or do business with 'em, well, that's all right with me.
Y'all need to see that it's his duty to evict his queer tenants and to decline contracts from gays and lesbians. It's what Thoreau called Civil Disobedience.
You see, those gays and lesbians who moved into his apartments--well, they're redefining landlordship for the 97% of landlords who are normal! And those gay and lesbian clients, they're redefining free enterprise for heterosexual people. And it's the same thing about marriage, like Seattleblues keeps saying, but nobody understands.
Here in the south we understand these things. I wouldn't of let no gays and lesbians move into the mobile home park I put on the plantation, except that they didn't tell me in advance, and now I'm kinda stuck with them because they've built decks and put in landscaping and all. And I wouldn't sell the gasoline in my convenience store to 'em if I had a way of knowing up front what they liked to do in bed, because that just redefines convenience stores for the rest of us. So if Seattleblues has ironclad evidence, and he doesn't want to rent to 'em or do business with 'em, well, that's all right with me.
47
@42
So sue me. If the laws are now to be used to encourage the destruction of family and marriage, the laws can go to hell. I haven't done this before, and if gay and lesbian citizens stop their assualt on our legal and social structure I won't need to continue. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Law is supposed to serve the good of the majority in a representative democracy, not the whinings of a self selecting minority. But don't worry, the folks in Washingtons legislature will fully understand this next election.
I post on many of the errors liberals fall into. Stealing one mans income for the support of a less financially astute fellow citizen annoys me on basic principles of economic justice. Now, I admit I can't follow your logic. Does this make me 'closet' wealthy or 'out' poor? I suppose I could be 'closet' poor or 'out' wealthy too. Maybe a repressed plutocrat living on a fixed income with a vast savings account?
The issue at present that's in the forefront is the demand gays and lesbians are making to set social and legal terms for their personal convenience for the 97% of people who aren't gay or lesbian. So that's the one I'm writing about. See how simple reality can be?
So sue me. If the laws are now to be used to encourage the destruction of family and marriage, the laws can go to hell. I haven't done this before, and if gay and lesbian citizens stop their assualt on our legal and social structure I won't need to continue. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Law is supposed to serve the good of the majority in a representative democracy, not the whinings of a self selecting minority. But don't worry, the folks in Washingtons legislature will fully understand this next election.
I post on many of the errors liberals fall into. Stealing one mans income for the support of a less financially astute fellow citizen annoys me on basic principles of economic justice. Now, I admit I can't follow your logic. Does this make me 'closet' wealthy or 'out' poor? I suppose I could be 'closet' poor or 'out' wealthy too. Maybe a repressed plutocrat living on a fixed income with a vast savings account?
The issue at present that's in the forefront is the demand gays and lesbians are making to set social and legal terms for their personal convenience for the 97% of people who aren't gay or lesbian. So that's the one I'm writing about. See how simple reality can be?
48
Law is supposed to serve the good of the majority in a representative democracy, not the whinings of a self selecting minority.In the voice of Foghorn Leghorn, please.
49
@47 So I guess what it comes down to is you want to choose your statism, especially when it involves deviants. If it involves legal, constitutional taxation, then it's "stealing."
The state has no business in marriage except to register that it happened. That's it. Anything else is theocracy and "special rights" for heteros, moralists, and hypocritical Xtians.
The state has no business in marriage except to register that it happened. That's it. Anything else is theocracy and "special rights" for heteros, moralists, and hypocritical Xtians.
50
Sometime I'm going to have to print a pamphlet tranlating Liberal into English.
As for instance-
Bigot- Someone who takes a principled stance on something, with which stance I disagree. And they're a meany-head hater too!
Economic Justice- Armed robbery of one mans income to pay for the financial mistakes of another using federal or state tax policy as the weapon.
Legislature- Means of making a minority view the law of the land in spite of what's good for or in the interests of the majority or basic common sense.
You folks refuse to speak English by definition, so I suppose at least understanding what you're on about will help the real Americans out there. Sort of a new Devils Dictionary.
As for instance-
Bigot- Someone who takes a principled stance on something, with which stance I disagree. And they're a meany-head hater too!
Economic Justice- Armed robbery of one mans income to pay for the financial mistakes of another using federal or state tax policy as the weapon.
Legislature- Means of making a minority view the law of the land in spite of what's good for or in the interests of the majority or basic common sense.
You folks refuse to speak English by definition, so I suppose at least understanding what you're on about will help the real Americans out there. Sort of a new Devils Dictionary.
51
@47--you wrote "Law is supposed to serve the good of the majority in a representative democracy, not the whinings of a self selecting minority."
Silly me. I thought law was supposed to serve the good of ALL people! Thanks for the correction.
Silly me. I thought law was supposed to serve the good of ALL people! Thanks for the correction.
53
Aww look how your tune has changed SB. Back when that gal in New York state wouldn't do her job and give out marriage licenses you said it was her duty to obey the law, but now you want to break the law and cost yourself a lot of money. You might want to run that by the Mrs, since you will lose, and it will cost you, and then how will you afford your house in Italy and that private school you send your kids to? Is she ready to home school them? I think you're just talking smack because you're pissed that the world is changing and you can't stop it. But you know, I could be wrong. You could be stupid and short sighted enough to follow through on your threats. But the only people you will be hurting is your family.
54
@49
Sorry, you reminded me of one to add to the lexicon-
Xtian- Someone who espouses the Christian faith in a way I don't like. Esp. someone who realizes that in a democracy voting for a candidate whose personal and faith values you share is entirely your right. Curiously, replacing the Christ with an 'X' is construed by those who use this mysterious term as some sort of vague insult.
Sorry, you reminded me of one to add to the lexicon-
Xtian- Someone who espouses the Christian faith in a way I don't like. Esp. someone who realizes that in a democracy voting for a candidate whose personal and faith values you share is entirely your right. Curiously, replacing the Christ with an 'X' is construed by those who use this mysterious term as some sort of vague insult.
55
@51
"Silly me. I thought law was supposed to serve the good of ALL people!"
That is a pure impossibility. Any law is going to negatively impact someone, somewhere. The Constitution provides boundaries on who can be impacted, and protects certain things like free expression or criminal civil rights. But we don't alter the burglary laws because a few percent of the population are negatively impacted by imprisonment. And we shouldn't change the marital laws because a few percent won't choose relationships that work within them.
"Silly me. I thought law was supposed to serve the good of ALL people!"
That is a pure impossibility. Any law is going to negatively impact someone, somewhere. The Constitution provides boundaries on who can be impacted, and protects certain things like free expression or criminal civil rights. But we don't alter the burglary laws because a few percent of the population are negatively impacted by imprisonment. And we shouldn't change the marital laws because a few percent won't choose relationships that work within them.
56
@ 50, hey, I can play that game, too!
Translating Con-speak to English:
"Family" - A man's personal fiefdom
"Marriage" - Something that's always changed yet I pretend it never has
"American" - White Christian Male who doesn't believe anyone else is his equal
"Rights" - Something to be enjoyed by "Americans" (see def. above)
"Majority" - See "Americans"
"Capitalism" - The government-enabled and assisted way by which a man delude himself into thinking he was successful all by himself.
"Decency" - Polite hatred
Translating Con-speak to English:
"Family" - A man's personal fiefdom
"Marriage" - Something that's always changed yet I pretend it never has
"American" - White Christian Male who doesn't believe anyone else is his equal
"Rights" - Something to be enjoyed by "Americans" (see def. above)
"Majority" - See "Americans"
"Capitalism" - The government-enabled and assisted way by which a man delude himself into thinking he was successful all by himself.
"Decency" - Polite hatred
57
@54 Again, I am so sorry you're quick to see things as insults. The reason that I replace "Christ" is that seldom are his charlatan "followers" worthy of attaching their name to him--they smear him and glorify just the opposite when they preach hatred.
58
Now hold on, everbody, your all pickin on Seattleblues again, and it's not right.
Way back in the 25th or so comment, he wrote "See, when what was asked was mutual tolerance for each others lifestyle choices, I was and am happy to grant that."
I know just what he means, because if homos and lesbos would just keep things to themselves, it would all be a lot smoother. I mean, what they're doing still wouldn't be right, but at least we wouldn't have to put up with it.
That's how tht lesbian couple wound up in the spot down by the river in my trailer park. Since one is a Sherrif's deputy and one's a gym teacher, I just thoguht they was sharing a trailer because they didn't get paid much. I wouldn't know better today, except that my granddaughter got invited to a barbecue at their place. She's a good girl, my granddaughter, and I just know she's going to try and witness to 'em band bring 'em to the church.
But that gay couple that lives just up the road--one of 'em is always calling the other his husband--like that was normal! And it just sticks in my craw.
I really don't know what's worse. If they're all out and in everbody's face, well, they get upset if you tell 'em to keep it to themselves. And if they keep it to themselves, before you know it, you have a lesbian couple having barbecues in your trailer park with all their lesbo friends, and a nice girl like my granddauther who don't know no better finds herslef at one of the parties.
It's like misegnation. Once the Supreme Court got all up in everybody's business and said misegenation was okay, well that just changed things for everybody! And the first generation or two you could tell who was the yellow babies and who wasn't, but now you have people liek that actress Rashida Jones, who looks like a nice, pretty white girl, but whos the product of a misegenated marriage, and it's just not right, and all that gay marriage is going to turn out the same way, and that's just not right either.
More...
Way back in the 25th or so comment, he wrote "See, when what was asked was mutual tolerance for each others lifestyle choices, I was and am happy to grant that."
I know just what he means, because if homos and lesbos would just keep things to themselves, it would all be a lot smoother. I mean, what they're doing still wouldn't be right, but at least we wouldn't have to put up with it.
That's how tht lesbian couple wound up in the spot down by the river in my trailer park. Since one is a Sherrif's deputy and one's a gym teacher, I just thoguht they was sharing a trailer because they didn't get paid much. I wouldn't know better today, except that my granddaughter got invited to a barbecue at their place. She's a good girl, my granddaughter, and I just know she's going to try and witness to 'em band bring 'em to the church.
But that gay couple that lives just up the road--one of 'em is always calling the other his husband--like that was normal! And it just sticks in my craw.
I really don't know what's worse. If they're all out and in everbody's face, well, they get upset if you tell 'em to keep it to themselves. And if they keep it to themselves, before you know it, you have a lesbian couple having barbecues in your trailer park with all their lesbo friends, and a nice girl like my granddauther who don't know no better finds herslef at one of the parties.
It's like misegnation. Once the Supreme Court got all up in everybody's business and said misegenation was okay, well that just changed things for everybody! And the first generation or two you could tell who was the yellow babies and who wasn't, but now you have people liek that actress Rashida Jones, who looks like a nice, pretty white girl, but whos the product of a misegenated marriage, and it's just not right, and all that gay marriage is going to turn out the same way, and that's just not right either.
59
@50: The actions you are threatening to take are not examples of a "principle stance". They are an example of spoiled child breaking their own toys rather than share them. You're going to end up with no toys, and no one to play with and it will nobody's fault but your own.
62
@58 You are the least convincing sock puppet of all time. No matter how much racist bile you spill about your own family (hella classy btw), you're not convincing anyone.
63
@5 - I wonder if that was the same crazy Spokane lady who worried that passing the domestic partnership law would "legalize adultery."
64
@62: seersucker is a Poe, and a damn funny one too in my opinion. I mean come on, he can't evict his gay tenants because they've built decks and landscaped around their mobile home on his plantation so what can he do? He cracks me up!
65
@64 Sometimes it's hard to tell what's sincere and what's parody in these threads. I'm still not entirely convinced the other one is a real thing.
66
Making note of those currently testifying before congress that homosexual marriage should not be federally recognized by law due to the fact that it conflicts with their religious beliefs, shouldn't this argument be completely ignored since it has no relevance at all to the issue of securing the same "civil" benefits as heterosexual married couples?
Homosexuals aren't asking for a private right to be married in the religious building of their choice (which *would* be special treatment). They are asking for the same federally protected civil rights that married heterosexual couples are given. See... if these same rights are given to atheist couples who marry civilly in a court house, then I'm afraid you must exclude *all* religious specific arguments concerning homosexual marriage.
I have yet to hear one valid scientific argument as to why homosexuals should be denied the same rights heterosexuals where their civil rights are concerned.
So from a purely legal stand-point, this is really a no-brainer. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from granting special treatment to a particular religion or religions. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranties the "civil" rights of a US citizen.
Homosexuals aren't asking for a private right to be married in the religious building of their choice (which *would* be special treatment). They are asking for the same federally protected civil rights that married heterosexual couples are given. See... if these same rights are given to atheist couples who marry civilly in a court house, then I'm afraid you must exclude *all* religious specific arguments concerning homosexual marriage.
I have yet to hear one valid scientific argument as to why homosexuals should be denied the same rights heterosexuals where their civil rights are concerned.
So from a purely legal stand-point, this is really a no-brainer. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from granting special treatment to a particular religion or religions. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranties the "civil" rights of a US citizen.
67
Xtian- Someone who espouses the Christian faith in a way I don't like. Esp. someone who realizes that in a democracy voting for a candidate whose personal and faith values you share is entirely your right. Curiously, replacing the Christ with an 'X' is construed by those who use this mysterious term as some sort of vague insult.No reason for it to be used or taken as an insult; "X" is a legitimate abbreviation for Christ in Greek. If ever I use it, it's more because, while I type faster than just about any living organism, I am still well-served to save time where I can. I have three jobs, after all.
As to the part that I've bolded, let me fold that into this:
Any law is going to negatively impact someone, somewhere. The Constitution provides boundaries on who can be impacted, and protects certain things like free expression or criminal civil rights. But we don't alter the burglary laws because a few percent of the population are negatively impacted by imprisonment. And we shouldn't change the marital laws because a few percent won't choose relationships that work within them.As usual, your understanding is so rudimentary that the fact you can string coherent sentences together and maintain gainful employment is, to be perfectly fair, pretty impressive. Free exercise of religion necessitates free exercise of irreligion; that is, subjective moral stances are necessarily self-regulated, though no community of people is obligated to except any one of us with open arms. The only exceptions to such moral self-determination are acts that directly, materially interfere with such rights on the part of others (which is why crimes against person are foundationally intolerable; in our particular culture, that extends to crimes against property because property is enumerated as an extension of person in our founding documents).
That is to say, we all will and should vote for those whose values most closely reflect our own; that doesn't mean that every facet of our culture is then to be found regulable by the entities, or that our moral liberties are ever to be subject to a popular vote.
68
Sick and fucking tired of bigots and selfish shitheads getting to testify before state and Federal legislatures just because they're "high profile" or "community leaders" which actually translates to them having nothing better to do than hoot and gibber full time about whatever idiocy they're obsessed with while most of us have to be at work.
Ken Hutcherson is not an "expert" on anything, nor is he accurately representative of a significant or important demographic, just because it's his "job" to be a Bible-thumping homophobe.
Ken Hutcherson is not an "expert" on anything, nor is he accurately representative of a significant or important demographic, just because it's his "job" to be a Bible-thumping homophobe.
69
@50: "Bigot- Someone who takes a principled stance on something"
White supremacists are very principled in their stance of concern about the future for White America.
You are very concerned about gay rights, in that they deserve separate and inequal rights.
Blues, you're a terrible human being.
White supremacists are very principled in their stance of concern about the future for White America.
You are very concerned about gay rights, in that they deserve separate and inequal rights.
Blues, you're a terrible human being.
70
@64: "seersucker is a Poe"
Hah, how could anyone see so many folksy anecdotes and not come to that conclusion?
Hah, how could anyone see so many folksy anecdotes and not come to that conclusion?
72
If Seattleblues and his fellow travelers realy ARE christians they are surely going to hell.
I think it was their Christ that said "Whatever you do to the least of my bretheren you do to me".
Doesn't look good for a hate-filled kook like Seattleblues...or the bigot Hutcherson for that matter.
PS...from Merriam-Webster online :
Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
...that about sums the prick up doesn't it.
I think it was their Christ that said "Whatever you do to the least of my bretheren you do to me".
Doesn't look good for a hate-filled kook like Seattleblues...or the bigot Hutcherson for that matter.
PS...from Merriam-Webster online :
Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
...that about sums the prick up doesn't it.
73
When we get to November, and the people of Washington State support marriage equality, then it will be the law of the land. Seattleblues' head will explode, and then he will ship his family off to Italy. I'll be sure to warn my friends who live there that he is on his way, and that they had better keep clear of his intolerance.
SB, this may come as a surprise, but Italy has LGBT people in that country too.
SB, this may come as a surprise, but Italy has LGBT people in that country too.
74
Since SB has admitted to violating the law, can the Stranger dump the IP log entries attached to his posting account and give them to the authorities? I doubt he's been smart enough to obscure his true location.
75
@ 38
No and neither are civil unions. Italy is quite conservative (compared to Northern Europe) when it comes to legal protections for LGBTs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights…
That said, there is a decent chance that the next Prime Minister will be gay (and ex-communist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichi_Vendo…
No and neither are civil unions. Italy is quite conservative (compared to Northern Europe) when it comes to legal protections for LGBTs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights…
That said, there is a decent chance that the next Prime Minister will be gay (and ex-communist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichi_Vendo…
76
Hilarious that SeattleBlues considers NOT providing his carpentry a form of punishment. As if his underpaid, uninsured, revolving-door of workers represents the cream of the crop!
And as if anyone would WANT to give money to someone who thinks so little of them. "Well, he says we're mentally deficient deviants, but he does such NICE work!"
I do commend you on your newfound transparency, though - much more honorable than taking money from homosexuals while denigrating them behind their back.
Please paint "I DON'T WORK FOR GAYS" on your vans, so all the straight folks know who they're dealing with as well.
And as if anyone would WANT to give money to someone who thinks so little of them. "Well, he says we're mentally deficient deviants, but he does such NICE work!"
I do commend you on your newfound transparency, though - much more honorable than taking money from homosexuals while denigrating them behind their back.
Please paint "I DON'T WORK FOR GAYS" on your vans, so all the straight folks know who they're dealing with as well.
77
Maybe SB will explain some day why convicted murderers who are imprisoned for life without possibility of parole have the legal right to marry, but gay people do not.
78
Now that @29 has exposed his malicious intent to discriminate against two tenants based on sexual orientation, I think the proprietors of slog have an ethical obligation to discern the identity of the poster and his intended targets. If he is in fact in a position to leave a trail of victims, they will probably need the evidence of intent in order to successfully prosecute.
79
SB does not exist, meat. he is another sociology grad student project, just like loveschild. there is no such thing as seattleblues, so don't waste any posts on him.
80
@79, I don't waste any posts attempting to engage him. At least not anymore. But the construct known as SB is consistent enough in its persona that if there's a chance some of what it says is true, the person behind these posts may be in a position to harm others, as was explicitly stated as an intention in @29. This crosses a boundary every bit as much as if SB had posted that he intends to rob someone. Most of the stuff here is traceable. This warrants a trace.
Unless SB has been created by someone who works at The Stranger, which is also entirely possible. If SB is a sociology grad student, let the student take note that writing about an intention to actively engage in illegal discrimination crosses a boundary. I'm serious: this shouldn't be brushed off like it's no big deal simply because SB is a troll.
Unless SB has been created by someone who works at The Stranger, which is also entirely possible. If SB is a sociology grad student, let the student take note that writing about an intention to actively engage in illegal discrimination crosses a boundary. I'm serious: this shouldn't be brushed off like it's no big deal simply because SB is a troll.
81
@47: So what you are saying is "screw government! I AM THE LAW!" I am very glad you don't hold any actual power, because you seem intent on forcing your personal morality and set of opinions on a country that really doesn't agree with you half as much as you pretend it does.
@55: Here is a law that will never negatively impact anyone:
@55: Here is a law that will never negatively impact anyone:
Civil Code of Outer Slobovia, §32.17.239(a): No citizen shall jump, leap, or otherwise cast himself into a pit, trench or hole containing live velociraptors. The punishment for any infringements of the preceding shall consist of being cast into a wading pool of capacity no greater than 100 gallons filled with lime-flavored gelatin.Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
82
We're enjoying the European cold snap with a day of skiing, so quickly-
@74 and 80
Your theatrical outrage would be more convincing if it were consistent.
I've read people here admitting they smoke pot and use other illicit drugs. Buying them necessarily means you're utilizing an illegal system of production, smuggling and distribution, in none of which violence isn't an option. So you scream and yell for the Stranger to go to law enforcement with these scoflaws who might be causing others harm, yes?
The Occupy Childrens Crusade often blocked streets and businesses, marched on a police station with torches, yelled at and abused police officers. They camped in public parks making a public health hazard for other park visitors and those city employees who had to clean up their filth. Many here incited others to join these illegally congrating and squatting thugs. So you exhorted the Stranger to do its duty and inform law enforcement of this as well, surely?
Truth is you're hypocrites happy to call out for punishment on purely ideological grounds. The thin veneer of concern for purely imaginary harms done by me is just veneer over your partisan pettiness.
The other truth? To whom I rent is my business. NOBODY has an inherent right to live in one of my rental units outside of whatever rental agreement is in place. When the lease is up, I can choose not to renew and it's not one living souls legitimate concern but mine. Likewise with whom I do business either as client or vendor are my business. Period. Who I decide is a good fit for my business as an employee? You guessed it. My business. Not yours. Not anyone elses. Not ever.
@74 and 80
Your theatrical outrage would be more convincing if it were consistent.
I've read people here admitting they smoke pot and use other illicit drugs. Buying them necessarily means you're utilizing an illegal system of production, smuggling and distribution, in none of which violence isn't an option. So you scream and yell for the Stranger to go to law enforcement with these scoflaws who might be causing others harm, yes?
The Occupy Childrens Crusade often blocked streets and businesses, marched on a police station with torches, yelled at and abused police officers. They camped in public parks making a public health hazard for other park visitors and those city employees who had to clean up their filth. Many here incited others to join these illegally congrating and squatting thugs. So you exhorted the Stranger to do its duty and inform law enforcement of this as well, surely?
Truth is you're hypocrites happy to call out for punishment on purely ideological grounds. The thin veneer of concern for purely imaginary harms done by me is just veneer over your partisan pettiness.
The other truth? To whom I rent is my business. NOBODY has an inherent right to live in one of my rental units outside of whatever rental agreement is in place. When the lease is up, I can choose not to renew and it's not one living souls legitimate concern but mine. Likewise with whom I do business either as client or vendor are my business. Period. Who I decide is a good fit for my business as an employee? You guessed it. My business. Not yours. Not anyone elses. Not ever.
83
@77
What the dickens does the one have to do with the other? If you know anything about the law, you know it's often inconsistent. Common Law is reactionary by it's nature. It fixes problems as they arise, which makes unfortunately for occasional uneven applications of the law. Which is kind of why we have courts.
And when did I ever mention convicted felons marrying at all?
What the dickens does the one have to do with the other? If you know anything about the law, you know it's often inconsistent. Common Law is reactionary by it's nature. It fixes problems as they arise, which makes unfortunately for occasional uneven applications of the law. Which is kind of why we have courts.
And when did I ever mention convicted felons marrying at all?
84
@82: My dad told me a story about a coworker of his who has some libertarian views. The coworker had made pretty much the same arguments you just did against anti-discrimination laws, pointing out that a business transaction should be between the parties involved. My dad agreed that we SHOULDN'T need those laws, but the sad truth is that we do. There are racists and anti-Semites and homophobes out there who will abuse others at every chance they get, and it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens, from each other if need be.
As far as your accusations of hypocrisy go, nobody here called for the Occupy protesters to be above the law. We supported their right to peaceably assemble in public areas and petition the government for a redress of grievances. We supported their right not to be subjected to unnecessary force. When we spoke out against the arrests, we spoke out against the arrests of people who were behaving in an orderly and civilized fashion, and we spoke out against the use of excessive police force against protesters who were not behaving violently. Many people committed breaches of the law knowing full well that they would be arrested with the intention of making their arrests a political statement. The very core of civil disobedience is that its practitioners submit to the consequences of lawbreaking.
If you worry that The Stranger or its readership is being selective in its reporting of breaches of the law, I suggest that you go ahead and report to the police whatever you believe has been overlooked or omitted.
You are the one calling for legal immunity based on your own personal dogmas. Don't try to hang that one on us.
@83: ...But then when the courts rectify the unevenness of the legal code, you get all huffy and complain that the rights of the people are being trampled. Also, "that's just the way things are" does not excuse injustice.
More...
As far as your accusations of hypocrisy go, nobody here called for the Occupy protesters to be above the law. We supported their right to peaceably assemble in public areas and petition the government for a redress of grievances. We supported their right not to be subjected to unnecessary force. When we spoke out against the arrests, we spoke out against the arrests of people who were behaving in an orderly and civilized fashion, and we spoke out against the use of excessive police force against protesters who were not behaving violently. Many people committed breaches of the law knowing full well that they would be arrested with the intention of making their arrests a political statement. The very core of civil disobedience is that its practitioners submit to the consequences of lawbreaking.
If you worry that The Stranger or its readership is being selective in its reporting of breaches of the law, I suggest that you go ahead and report to the police whatever you believe has been overlooked or omitted.
You are the one calling for legal immunity based on your own personal dogmas. Don't try to hang that one on us.
@83: ...But then when the courts rectify the unevenness of the legal code, you get all huffy and complain that the rights of the people are being trampled. Also, "that's just the way things are" does not excuse injustice.
86
@84: "My dad agreed that we SHOULDN'T need those laws, but the sad truth is that we do. There are racists and anti-Semites and homophobes out there who will abuse others at every chance they get, and it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens, from each other if need be."
I love Paultard States' Rights Dixiecrat breed Libertarians because they will post arguments about how we don't need the CRA and need to enforce Property rights over the human rights of minorities RIGHT NEXT to posts by active White Supremacists. "Like, why would the White Supremacists do anything bad to another person, that'd just be rude. And if they did, SO WHAT. FREEDOMS."
I love Paultard States' Rights Dixiecrat breed Libertarians because they will post arguments about how we don't need the CRA and need to enforce Property rights over the human rights of minorities RIGHT NEXT to posts by active White Supremacists. "Like, why would the White Supremacists do anything bad to another person, that'd just be rude. And if they did, SO WHAT. FREEDOMS."
87
@ 82, LOL. If the law says that it's their business if your decisions are based on one's sexual orientation or not, then your last paragraph is false.
Hate and discrimination is EVERYONE'S business, and stamping your foot like a child won't change that.
BTW, you still have to explain why gay sex is immoral. That's one thing you've NEVER been able to rationalize here.
Hate and discrimination is EVERYONE'S business, and stamping your foot like a child won't change that.
BTW, you still have to explain why gay sex is immoral. That's one thing you've NEVER been able to rationalize here.
88
@82: "Your theatrical outrage would be more convincing if it were consistent."
And your posts would be interesting if they had content somehow superior to masturbation for those too repressed to touch themselves.
And your posts would be interesting if they had content somehow superior to masturbation for those too repressed to touch themselves.
89
@82, Loving v Virginia, 1967, USSC held that marriage is a basic human right. What is the rational basis for the state to deny marriage equality. No spouting off about procreation--we all know same-sex couples with kids, and we all know straight couples without kids.
In 1954, Brown v Board of Education (Topeka, KS), USSC held that 'separate but equal' is inherently wrong and unconstitutional. No 'civil unions' half-measures.
Equal Protection clause, 14th Amendment. 'Full faith and credit' clause to the Constitution. 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' from the Declaration of Independence. All of these imply or state outright that what is good for one person under the law, is good for all. Why do you hate America?
In 1954, Brown v Board of Education (Topeka, KS), USSC held that 'separate but equal' is inherently wrong and unconstitutional. No 'civil unions' half-measures.
Equal Protection clause, 14th Amendment. 'Full faith and credit' clause to the Constitution. 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' from the Declaration of Independence. All of these imply or state outright that what is good for one person under the law, is good for all. Why do you hate America?
90
Since the best environment for raising children is in a one-man, one-woman home, I sure hope all of these Representatives speaking up will repeal divorce as it's clearly the greatest threat to childhood development. Also, single mothers need to be married off. Think of the children, people? Think of the children!
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
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (90) RSS