Oh man, I'm going to work my ass off to make sure Rob McKenna doesn't get the job...

This is total B.S.

Republicans want to redefine government as an arm of religion.

what a slimy little rat he is!

@6 It's not about whether it's actually "redefining" it or not, it's about how the particular language is now associated with one specific side of the argument. You could say that the healthcare overhaul is actually "obamacare" in that yes, he did push it and owns it as his legislation -- but the phrase obamacare is almost exclusively used, negatively, by the opposition, and would never be considered a neutral way to describe it.

To have a neutral vote on the issue you have to use language that is neutral to the argument at hand.

"If the word "redefine" is really somehow so prejudicial to the cause then mayhaps said cause isn't as strong as you think."

Let's do a little thought experiment, if you're capable. Let's say a Democratic AG decided to, instead of putting the name "Rick Santorum" on the ballot, decided to put "Rick a frothy mix of semen and fecal matter" as his name.

You'd be fine with that, right? Santorum DOES mean "A frothy mix of semen and fecal matter", so if using the accepted definition of the word "Santorum" is so prejudicial to the cause, mayhaps blobbity blah.

Let's just be clear about this "redefining marriage" claim.

Do a Google search on this sentence:
"Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897."
His 5th concurrent wife. A practice known as "polygamy". Or, as used by the Mormons at that time, "marriage".

At one time "marriage" also meant "between a man and a woman of the same race". Wikipedia has an entry on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misceg…

So, at one time in America, Miles Romney could MARRY five women as long as they were white.

So marriage has been constantly "redefined" throughout history. If you want to look at it that way.

And it always will be. Because at its core, marriage is about the control and transfer of property and wealth between generations.

The same arguments against "gay marriage" were used against "interracial marriage" in the past. And they were lies back then just like today. As can be seen by the number of healthy interracial marriages here, now.

Is it worth pointing out that this slimy little twerp McKenna -- a generally ineffectual little twerp at that -- is crushing Jay Who? (D) in the governor's race polls?

Washington Republicans hand the election to the Democrats by nominating a non-entity, and the Democrats, once again, fuck it up.

I mean, sure, I want to flame McKenna too, but the blame ultimately rests with our inept state Democrats who somehow, every fucking time, find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Spoiler alert: the ineffectual little twerp will win.

@12: The problem here is that McKenna, as an elected state official has a great deal more name-recognition than does Inslee, who isn't all that well-known to voters outside of the Congressional District he currently represents.

Put a couple debates behind them, when voters have had a chance to compare them on issues, and I would be very much surprised if we don't see their polling numbers change dramatically.

@13 it had better or else the next four years will be the House telling McKenna off and vice versa daily, with not much else.

@ 12 Inept? We held the Governorship for 30 years, and can any Dem do better than Inslee right now. McKenna comes off as very likeable.

"Sorry, redefine is an absolutely neutral and accurate word here"

Sorry, the fact that you think it is "an absolutely neutral and accurate word" is still just your opinion, no matter how many times you inanely repeat it. The fact that you have a neckbeard and really, really want to believe it doesn't make it any more true. Do you understand that at all?

The article pretty clearly makes the case that it is not neutral language. And only by your own neckbeard logic is it anything close to accurate.

If you can't make your point without appealing to your own authority, mayhap you don't fucking have one.

When I want to know what Rob McKenna thinks...I always go right to the source...the "spokesman for the Washington State Democrats".

But please, keep cheering for Obama, whose High Speed Rail program would take thousands of dollars away from Boeing workers.

When it comes to redefining marriage, it's the anti-equality fuckers who are redefining marriage, or trying to!

Their imaginary definition of "traditional marriage" is imaginary. Marriage, in the civilized Western world, has been all about love and helpmeets for at least a century and a half. The actual legal institution of marriage defines a next-of-kin relationship of two unrelated individuals, an equal economic partnership of co-heads-of-household. It has nothing to do with property, sex, child-rearing, or much else.

Only by redefining marriage to have something to do with children and procreation and populating the Earth do the knuckle-draggers have any justification for their opposition.

The fact is, people have sex and babies outside of marriage, ALL THE TIME. And people have marriage WITHOUT CHILDREN, quite frequently. And people get married WITHOUT SEX by mutual consent (usually old people pooling their social security and other benefits so they can live more comfortably). And you know what? All of this is legal. If marriage without children (or sex) is legal, or if bearing children out of wedlock is legal, then marriage legally is "merely" a commitment to a voluntary joining based on mutual affinity.

These claims that marriage equality "redefines marriage" is bunkum. It needs rebutting anywhere and everywhere the argument is raised. And the people raising these arguments need to be called out as doing exactly what they're claiming others are doing -- redefining marriage!

Ok, reader01 let's go back to the word 'redefine'. What marriage equality does is amend or expand the parties involved in the state approved contract between two people. Just as any amendment to the constitution doesn't redefine it as a document, it merely adds to it or amends it if you will. So it boils down to this, 'gay marriage' simply adds to our legal framework. If a slight modification is your biggest worry, I hate to tell you this but you are changing every day.
But let's be fully honest, as a married man, this law will not redefine my marriage nor will it affect it. The only outcome is there will be more weddings that'll I have to attend.

Also SROTU, trains are not planes. That's like a fork factory fearing a spoon factory.

How about Washington Dems spend more time getting Jay "Dropping the Ball" Inslee elected, and less time worrying about McKenna. Inslee should have his name in the paper every fucking day for something. Either that or get Dow in there.

@16

Oh, you guys count Gregoire. OK, fine, yeah, if you count Gregoire, then you come up with 30 years. 32 years even. But that's a stretch if you ask me.

Jay whats-his-name Inslee is the Darcy Burner candidate. Oh man, this is supposedly a D state, why are the candidates such horrible nobodies?

Jay Inslee is the best democrat from Washington in the house right now. Hopefully he'll get his name out, get his positions out and take over the race. For all of you ragging on him, tell me exactly who the fuck we should nominate instead.

@ 26 yeah we count her, Democrat does not have to mean liberal.

Also the Dems have a good chance of winning the AG's office this year, maybe even the Secretary of State's office, so its not like Democrats in this state can't win. It may just be a bad year for the Governor's race.

@28

Jay Inslee is a nincompoop.

McKenna forgot to add "socialism."

So what's the next step? I think that someone has to file suit.

@31: Thank you for your contribution FSM.

Marriage equality doesn't redefine the word marriage, it redefines the parties able to enter into one. In the case of WA law, they didn't change "marriage" one bit; if they had, it would affect millions of existing marriages. It doesn't. It merely expands the pool of players who can enter into that contract. The word "marriage" means the exact same thing it has up to this point: a recognition under civil law that two people have bound their lives together, sometimes for love, or financial gain, or maybe both, in a contract that requires lawyers to break.