Nov 13, 2012
commented on What Should Be the Next Big Goal for Washington Liberals?
Some of them do need priority. I think Washington should work on these items in this order.
Education, Single-payer health care, Transgender equality, strip corporations of personhood status.
For corporate personhood, I say copy either Montana's I-166 or Colorado's Amendment 65 or a mesh of the two from this election and get an initiative on the ballot for next year's election.
I also like the suggestions above from 7, 6, and especially 1.
Oct 29, 2012
commented on Marriage Equality Leads, Even After Adjusting for "Bradley Effect." Pollster Believes R-74 Will Likely Pass
@ 15/16 - I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about but there are huge holes in your arguments.
First, being gay is a sexual orientation and the APA has determined it is NOT a choice, so I think you need to double-check your history or reconnect with your friends and business associates to see if their lives is a so-called "lifestyle choice."
Second, the purpose of marriage is anything the two people who enter into it decide it to be. People who get married can choose to procreate if they want to in the same way, two people can procreate and not get married. People get married for a variety of reasons but to single out procreation as the main reason for why marriage should only be for heterosexual people is very weak.
Third, have you even read Referendum 74? The bill "preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement." That is a direct quote from the summary of the ballot measure so your whole argument that allow religious organizations to be sued or shut down and clergy to be arrested for not allowing gay couples to marry is completely moot.
Fourth, I'm not going to even waste my time about how insulting you are to compare gay people to nudists, pedophiles, and sadists. I'm sorry if this is insulting but if you don't have the capacity to distinguish between an immutable characteristic such as sexual orientation and people who enjoy choosing not to wear clothes, then I won't go to your level to explain it. We are talking about gay people and their lives, not somebody who think wearing underwear is to restrictive or somebody who molests children. Wake up!
Finally, you propose a legal alternative to marriage so that gay people can have their union recognize without changing marriage (even though marriage has been evolving for countless years) so I have a question for you. Would you be willing to give up your right to marry to settle for something less that isn't universally recognized as marriage, even though the law says it is equal to it? Think long and hard about your answer because not everyone wants to explain what a domestic partner is, especially during a time when your life partner could be dying in the hospital or other critical moments.
Jul 25, 2012
commented on New Poll Finds Hurdles Facing Every Single Statewide Ballot Measure Except Eyman's I-1185
I feel like this is deja vu with R-71 back in 2009. Equal Rights Washington (ERA) started this "decline to sign" thing before the signatures were certified. Then, they realized that it might become a problem because supporters might be confused and interpret the "decline to sign" as reject the referendum.
I don't know what ERA did to make sure R-71 was approved but they need to repeat it to get people educated and approve R-74. We only got a little over 100+ days before the election. I'm an outsider looking in and already told the few people I know to approve the referendum.