Disgusting. How love between two consenting adults could be any worse than what these men have done in their own private lives is beyond me.

Never assume that publishing the dirt on enemies will halt support given them by persons who ignore fact in preference to myth that justifies their own prejudices.

It's a shame this information isn't widely known among WA state voters.

This is some good dirt, but publishing it in the Stranger is preaching to the choir, for the most part. I doubt a majority of The Stranger's readers would vote to ban domestic partnerships. If the information spreads, then I say "hooray."

I would note, though, that the ex-wife stuff (allegations of abuse, etc) is all 'alleged' - none of it was proven. It's seriously not cool if it happened, but, hey, we live in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty.

Not supporting these guys' views, just noting that we shouldn't assume that they're horrible people because they disagree with us.

They are horrible people for ruining people lives, Sprawwl. Not because they disagree, you jackass.

Republican + Spokane = Big Ol' Flaming Closet Case

Pigs 'n freaks.

Great piece folks.

This posting should be sent to newspapers all over the state.If even 3-4 run it the rest will pick it up if there is enuf interest generated.I'd love to see these bigots roasted,My Motto, If ya live by the sword,die by the sword.

Doesn't Ref #71 just allow the voters of the State of Washington to have a say if we will have legalized Gay Marriage in Washington State once and for all?

What is the problem of having the people of the State of Washington having a say in what laws they shall live under and how their tax dollars will be spent on important issues such as marriage?

Everyone should sign Ref #71 so that voters can vote on it and decide once and for all time about Gay Marriage in the Evergreen State.

Doesn't Ref #71 just allow the voters of the State of Washington to have a say if we will have legalized Gay Marriage in Washington State once and for all? What is the problem of having the people of the State of Washington having a say in what laws they shall live under and how their tax dollars will be spent on important issues such as marriage? Everyone should sign Ref #71 so that voters can vote on it and decide once and for all time about Gay Marriage in the Evergreen State.

This attack campaign of our own only makes you look smaller.

As to bringing up the mud involved in a divorce? Seriously, to all of you... Divorce just sucks and both people act like complete assholes to each other. Restraining orders are thrown around in a divorce for any number of reasons and quite frankly, just as whom you choose to marry is none of these people's business, what happens during a divorce is none of your business.

This attack campaign of our own only makes you look smaller.

As to bringing up the mud involved in a divorce? Seriously, to all of you... Divorce just sucks and both people act like complete assholes to each other. Restraining orders are thrown around in a divorce for any number of reasons and quite frankly, just as whom you choose to marry is none of these people's business, what happens during a divorce is none of your business.

@PaulinBallard: No one would be dredging up the dirty details of a divorce if these individuals weren't hellbent on pushing an agenda based around the so-called "sanctity of marriage" which very obviously DOESN'T EXIST.

And, if what happens during a divorce is non of our business, as you say, then what happens in the homes and lives of gay couples really shouldn't be either, should it?

True, PaulinBallard, it isn't any of our business. But they are making my marriage their business and the business of everyone in the state, so it only seems fair that their marriages are my business.

And TylTay - why not let everyone in the state decide? Because I don't see how it is other people's decision whether or not I have equal rights. Why don't we just vote on all civil rights issues, so that all minorities can be second-class citizens?

Teri,

Agreed.

But citing these issues only makes the person saying them look bad.

BTW, I whole heartedly support Gay Marriage.

I've also been through a divorce and have seen first hand how quickly and how ugly things get out of control.

Scribbles... Obviously anyone saying that (not you) is an absolute tool.

That alone would be a wake up call for a woman to say "This guy is a nut-case, I need to move on".

Paul, if you can't even take a "throwing stones" message away from this, you are one of thy enemies.

Lighten up there Francis...

It seems Dominic Holden is more interested in exposing just the negative aspects of the private lives of folks he disagrees with than actually seeing what Ref 71 would actually do if enough valid signatures are gathered.

Maybe it is just too much reefer or he is not getting enough good lovin at home, but the attitude of his article “Know Thy Enemy” is loaded with personal attacks and very little substance. It comes across more like old biddy gossip than actually using the power of his position at The Stranger to logically analyze the merits of both sides of the issue and conclude what would be best for the citizens of the State of Washington.

Ref 71 could end the gay marriage debate in Washington State once and for all by forcing a vote on Gay Marriage in Washington State in November 2009. The people of the Evergreen State should have the right to vote on this major issue. After all they are the ones that will ultimately will live under the result and pay the cost.

The heavily democrat dominated Washington State Congress and the Governor did not have the courage to face the voters directly on this most important issue. Their cowardly act precipitated Ref 71, which again will only place the issue before the voters in November, 2009.

Perhaps Dominic Holden should look into the private lives and write only the negative aspects of Washington State Democrats since they are the ones that really caused the problem. I heard a number have some serious glug glug issues…might explain their odd legislation and the 9 billion dollar budget deficit.

TylTay - Ref 71 doesn't do what you think it does. Domestic partnerships would still exist and it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.

Our supreme court said that the legislature could limit license to the marriage contract by whatever criteria it wants but it can't limit access to the qualities of the contract. Referendum 71 if it passed by disallowing some rights to citizens and their spouses gives an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court and again ask for equal rights. As long as everyone has the same rights via some civil license there is access to the court - its already decided 'separate but equal' is ok as far as this subject goes.

Again, agree or disagree with Referendum 71, it wouldn't set any 'gay marriage' precedence.

TylTay - Ref 71 doesn't do what you think it does. Domestic partnerships would still exist and it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.

Our supreme court said that the legislature could limit license to the marriage contract by whatever criteria it wants but it can't limit access to the qualities of the contract. Referendum 71 if it passed by disallowing some rights to citizens and their spouses gives an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court and again ask for equal rights. As long as everyone has the same rights via some civil license there is access to the court - its already decided 'separate but equal' is ok as far as this subject goes.

Again, agree or disagree with Referendum 71, it wouldn't set any 'gay marriage' precedence.

@TylTay: Does this mean everyone should get to vote on heterosexual marriages as well? Because last I checked, nobody in the US is legally allowed to have a true biblical marriage consisting of one man, a couple hundred women, several hundred concubines, and at least a few of his own daughters... seems to be how most of the "traditional" marriages in the bible are arranged.

Generally, I'm pretty good with first impressions and when I saw the illustrations of those four men above. My gut had this to say ...

"Hi, I'm The Beggar. I'm a gay fat mormon who hasn't come out of the closet yet and I have to supress my homosexuality by fighting what my church says I need to do. Gay is wrong!"

"Hi, I'm The Landlord and I let Gary park his boat in my garage anytime. We're old pals, we go way back. (cough, cough) Gay is wrong!"

"Hi, I'm The Fighter and I'm just an angry old fat guy, who, straight or gay, no one would want to have sex with. I stopped hanging out in the gay bars when the rejection just became too much. (swallow hard) Gay is wrong!"

"Hi, I'm The Lawmaker. Shhhhh, I'm just straight up gay but don't tell anyone. My wife caught me looking at gay porn, which prompted our divorce. I'm writing laws against gay marriage because I'm in denial about my own sexuality. But don't tell anyone. Gotta go, gotta surf for gay porn. Gay is wrong!"

Then, I read the article and holy crap. Did I peg these boneheads or what?

BRAVO! This needs to be a reoccurring article.
Please.

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's actually "thine enemy." If you say "I am a American," you sound stupid, and it sounds just as stupid to try to sound fancy with ye olde Englishe if you don't even know how to use it. Just sayin'.