September 3, 2009
"Why Do You Hate Me?"
What happens when a faggot asks people who gave time and money to support anti-gay Referendum 71 the most basic question?
Mark Kaufman
Tools
* We have no idea what these people actually look like. We talked to them over the phone.
On August 31, the Washington Secretary of State's office announced that Christian extremists had gathered enough signatures to put Referendum 71 on the November ballot. Assuming a lawsuit doesn't stop it, R-71 allows the voting public to decide if the legislature was right in recently granting same-sex partners in this state the same rights as married couples. (An "approve" vote on the referendum will put the law into effect; a "reject" vote will nullify it.) Conservatives have long held that they don't have a problem with gay people—they just want to protect "marriage." But R-71 only applies to domestic partnerships. So why are those challenging this law fighting so hard to deny gay people equal rights? Since the state public disclosure commission recently ruled that the names of contributors to Referendum 71 must remain public, we called up four contributors to ask them. These were the first four people we called.
James McFadden
Stranger Personals
Contribution to R-71: $100
Does James McFadden, a retired pharmacist now living on Mercer Island, just hate gay people? "No, I don't feel that way," he says, pointing out that he thinks gays "should have all the rights that married people have." When told that's what this is about—the referendum is about domestic-partnership rights, not the word "marriage"—he goes on to say that if we were to grant gays equal rights, "gays would be back at the legislature pounding for the right to call it marriage. I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." Adding to the puzzle of McFadden's logic is his firm conviction that R-71 is a lost cause. "For one thing, Seattle is very pro-gay and very liberal." In fact, he thinks the entire movement is a bust: "Gay marriage is going to happen." Deciphering McFadden's logic is like solving a Rubik's Cube in the dark, but gay people clearly just creep him out. "A penis does not belong in someone's anus. I have seen people with perforated anuses, and they end up with a colostomy bag," he says.
Esther Mayoh
Contribution to R-71: Gathered petition signatures
An evangelical Christian in Olympia, Esther Mayoh circulated petitions at her home bible-study group and her church. Each petition included the exact text of the domestic-partnership bill, which R-71 puts up to a public vote. But Mayoh still doesn't know what it's about. "My main reason is that I don't want our state to, well, to put it bluntly, I don't want our state to legalize sodomy," she says. Asked about why same-sex couples should be denied, say, the right to share insurance coverage or use personal sick leave to care for an ill spouse, she says, "I haven't read that bill." Asked generally why they should be denied the same rights as married couples, she says, "It's a very difficult question. I don't know how to answer it." So do you hate me? "I don't hate you. I love you, and I'd like to help you to see what God really has planned for you. Once you see that and once you know that, then you will have true happiness. In fact, I have—I am sorry to say—I have a sister who is involved in that lifestyle," she says. "But deep down in her heart, she knows it is wrong." Mayoh also has a grown daughter who donated to R-71 and volunteers for the anti-gay faction watchdogging elections workers. "She was a gay person for a while," Mayoh says. "She knew it was wrong, and she suffered much because of what she was doing."
Carrie Vasko
Contribution to R-71: $200
Carrie Vasko, a homemaker in Sammamish, is extremely Christian. She supports R-71, she says, because "I do not believe that marriage—with its long history since the foundation of the world—is to be changed." So do you hate me? "I don't hate homosexuals. I am a person who respects people," she says. "That doesn't mean I agree with other people's actions. I am unhappy with pornography, unhappy with murder, unhappy with drug abuse." Without prompt or transition, her moralizing segues into hypothetical disease scenarios. "If a young person gets HIV early, that's 20 years off their life, and you have to ask if that is the way they want to spend their life." She can't explain how her train of thought goes from marriage to disease, except to say that gays would "still be sexually active outside of marriage." Would she ever go see a lesbian doctor? Vasko is uncomfortable with that idea: "Does her lesbianism cause her to act differently for the patients she cares for?" And she's uncomfortable with the idea of gay teachers in schools: "[School] is there to push math and science, not to push these personal agendas."
Paul Henry
Contribution to R-71: $200
Paul Henry, an 84-year-old Christian in Colville, believes gay
people are dirty, violent sodomites. Our crusade to achieve rights on
parity with marriage is "a direct challenge to the survivability of
society," he says. Why does he hate gay people so much? "I don't hate
'em. Actually, they are the ones overturning police cars. When Harvey
Milk was shot, the gay people in San Francisco just went crazy. They
smashed in store windows and turned over cars. They tried to light
fires," he says. "They are the ones doing the violence. They aren't
getting beat up. If you want to look at haters, [the gays] are the
haters, not the Christians." He adds, "All Referendum 71 is trying to
do is defend ourselves against their political attack. Society doesn't
need to give anything to them just because they demand it. It is not a
civil-rights issue; it is a health issue." So does he think gay people
are gross? "I would say even more than gross. I think they are major
incubators of a lot of the bacteria. It is common for homosexuals
to have hundreds of different sexual experiences with people—they
do fisting, they do water sports, and on and on. There are bacteria
that are called 'gay-related syndrome' or something, but it is not
healthy. And by using lots of antibiotics against them, the antibiotics
are no longer usable because they don't work." 
1
"Carrie Vasko, a homemaker in Sammamish, is extremely Christian. She supports R-71, she says, because..."
Dude if you SUPPORT R-71 doesn't that mean that you support the law as written?
Dude if you SUPPORT R-71 doesn't that mean that you support the law as written?
4
Also, can someone please tell the Olympia bitch that the WA anti-sodomy laws were repealed in the mid 70s. Holy shit, what a nightmare. Did these people realize you were going to put their names in The Stranger? Without changing their listed phone numbers?
How can these people hate ass-fucking and fisting so much when they have so much practice sticking their entire heads up their own asses? That's like direct ass to mouth- "self head fisting"
How can these people hate ass-fucking and fisting so much when they have so much practice sticking their entire heads up their own asses? That's like direct ass to mouth- "self head fisting"
5
I think the point was that she knew so little about what she was opposing that she didn't know whether to support or oppose R-71. Which could work out well for those favoring equal rights in Washington. :P
6
Of course, this was easy pickings... but seriously, how do you argue with people who make no sense (or don't even have an argument because they did not read what they signed -- and told other people to sign?)??
That kind of logic rivals the discussion over health care I had with some minions of Sean Salazar (running against Patty Murray in 2010!) -- "The government creates a 'problem' (ozone, uninsured people, etc.), then they make you pay to fix it! Once they control your birth and death, then they will have total control over you!"
Argh...
That kind of logic rivals the discussion over health care I had with some minions of Sean Salazar (running against Patty Murray in 2010!) -- "The government creates a 'problem' (ozone, uninsured people, etc.), then they make you pay to fix it! Once they control your birth and death, then they will have total control over you!"
Argh...
7
So, next time that whole "Rural Washington wants to secede" movement comes up, I'm thinking we should wholeheartedly encourage them?
8
APPROVE Referendum 71. Gay couples deserve the exact rights heterosexual couples have.
https://www.upwardstech.net/approverefer…
https://www.upwardstech.net/approverefer…
9
probably not a great idea to use these peoples names, but it was a great idea to interview them. to bad they had nothing compelling to say. this is a huge topic at the moment and there needs to be more dialog on the subject . I'm a heterosexual male and I've got a few questions about this. #1 who changes their name?
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
These might be silly questions i just want to be better informed before i vote
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
These might be silly questions i just want to be better informed before i vote
10
Oh my god, AIDS hasn't been called "gay-related" anything since like 1982 and the White Night riots were in 1979. Mr. Henry sounds like the kinda guy who thinks 8-track is newfangled.
11
@9: The purpose of this referendum is to revoke domestic partnership rights in Washington state.
Nothing on the November ballot will be dealing with the issue of marriage rights.
Nothing on the November ballot will be dealing with the issue of marriage rights.
12
@9, if you'd like to know more I strongly recommend you start here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Wa…. This referendum is not about same-sex marriage, but about providing equivalent benefits to domestics partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples aged 62+).
Not all married couples change their names, you know. :)
Not all married couples change their names, you know. :)
13
"[School] is there to push math and science, not to push these personal agendas."
Not to get off on another topic, but the same people who push this kind of shit are the same people trying to STOP schools from teaching science because they consider it antagonistic to their Jesus bedtime stories.
I'm glad you all did this, however. These bigots need to understand that this sort of behavior is recorded publicly, and if they can't stand behind it, they shouldn't be supporting it.
Not to get off on another topic, but the same people who push this kind of shit are the same people trying to STOP schools from teaching science because they consider it antagonistic to their Jesus bedtime stories.
I'm glad you all did this, however. These bigots need to understand that this sort of behavior is recorded publicly, and if they can't stand behind it, they shouldn't be supporting it.
16
@7 NO! That would just send two more Republican senators to Washington and create more electoral college votes from the new "East Washington" or whatever they call their new state. As it stands, Seattle liberals can overpower rural conservatives at the polls almost every time, just as it should be.
18
I really think what's telling is that these people live in bubbles - they are all a part of small, segregated communities and don't interact with a lot of people who are different from themselves. They'd probably have similar opinions about ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions.
They are just clueless.
They are just clueless.
19
'When Harvey Milk was shot, the gay people in San Francisco just went crazy. They smashed in store windows and turned over cars. They tried to light fires," he says. "They are the ones doing the violence. '
When Harvey Milk was SHOT.... the gay people.... are the ones DOING THE VIOLENCE.
WHAT???
When Harvey Milk was SHOT.... the gay people.... are the ones DOING THE VIOLENCE.
WHAT???
20
So what you're saying is that they hate gay people because they have bizarre, ignorant beliefs that they've never had challenged, and according to those beliefs, gays are a threat to decency and a functional society.
Nothing surprising there. People will believe just about anything if they want it to be true or they're afraid it might be.
Nothing surprising there. People will believe just about anything if they want it to be true or they're afraid it might be.
21
@19
No doubt while it was "the gays" "doing the violence" after Milk was shot, it was a lone crazy who shot him, not some sort of representative of anti-gay lunacy.
"The gays" are violent, but Milk's killer was simply no true Scotsman, if you will.
No doubt while it was "the gays" "doing the violence" after Milk was shot, it was a lone crazy who shot him, not some sort of representative of anti-gay lunacy.
"The gays" are violent, but Milk's killer was simply no true Scotsman, if you will.
22
These donors to I-71 make it clear that no matter what the specifics, they will always vote against gay people because they don't like homosexuality. Nothing will ever change their minds, unless someone gay befriends them. That is why it is paramount that gay people come out and refrain from demonizing these ignorant souls. They are scared enough as it is.
25
How the hell is an 84 year old so well versed in fisting and watersports?? Hell, I had to explain to my 25 year old brother and his straight friends what watersports was just a few weeks ago... which leads me to want to conlcude that Mr. Henry is either a closet case, extremely kinky, or both.
26
@18: I think you're right about the bubble theory. Yesterday my husband was having breakfast at a Denny's a few miles south of Spokane and overheard a conversation between three old coots at the counter. They were talking about how Obama is a Muslim and wants to "Muslimize" the country. For real. All three of them not only agreed on the premise that our president is a Muslim, but they were debating his methods to convert the rest of us.
That's a bubble, all right.
That's a bubble, all right.
29
I'm impressed that Paul Henry, being 84, from Colville and conservative, is never the less familiar with fisting and waters sports. Maybe because his wife won't consent to those activities, he thinks they're exclusively for gays.
30
i'm impressed that 84 year-old paul henry knew what watersports are... i had to look it up myself, and i'm an apparent agenda-pushing, antibiotic-weakening, unhygienic sodomite. if you're still curious, start here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
(link to urban dictionary... just in case it gets cut off for being too long: http://tinyurl.com/jdhmu )
(link to urban dictionary... just in case it gets cut off for being too long: http://tinyurl.com/jdhmu )
31
Why does an 84-year-old know about fisting and water sports? My own mother didn't know what a lesbian was until she was past 40.
32
@22: Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better.
There's only so much progress you can possibly make by calling someone and asking them some questions about their decisions. The longer, slower story of gradually showing somebody that being gay is something different from their pre-conceived notion doesn't make for good news. But it's vital nonetheless.
There's only so much progress you can possibly make by calling someone and asking them some questions about their decisions. The longer, slower story of gradually showing somebody that being gay is something different from their pre-conceived notion doesn't make for good news. But it's vital nonetheless.
33
@9
Some others have brought it to your attention already that this is not a marriage issue, however, perhaps you need answers to your questions:
#1 who changes their name?
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
More...
Some others have brought it to your attention already that this is not a marriage issue, however, perhaps you need answers to your questions:
#1 who changes their name?
- Umm, does it matter? I have known men to change their name to match their wives, or women who don't change their name @ all
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
- Really? You're worried about how to represent this on a family tree? Because not all male to female marriages involve having children you know, so how does that look on a family tree? I imagine it would look much like that. Unless of course the couple decides to adopt or find a surrogate or sperm donor ... then it would look like any other family tree.
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
- Ummm, if the debate was all about just the religious side of marriage than their really wouldn't be a debate, as there are MANY churches that are willing to and already do perform religious ceremonies for same sex couples. But since the debate is obviously about the benefits bestowed to a couple upon entering into a legal contract with each other and the state (ie marriage) I imagine that contract (or that paper that you are referring to) would look just the same as it does now for opposite sex couples.
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
- What is this "regular" marriage that you speak of and where does it actually exist?
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
- Probably. As heterosexuals get all the benefits. It is the homosexuals that get denied.
34
@22: Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better.
There's only so much progress you can possibly make by calling someone and asking them some questions about their decisions. The longer, slower story of gradually showing somebody that being gay is something different from their pre-conceived notion doesn't make for good news. But it's vital nonetheless.
There's only so much progress you can possibly make by calling someone and asking them some questions about their decisions. The longer, slower story of gradually showing somebody that being gay is something different from their pre-conceived notion doesn't make for good news. But it's vital nonetheless.
36
@7 Mercer Island and Sammamish are both in King County. Even Olympia wouldn't be part of the seceding East WA group.
37
It makes me crazy when people argue against domestic partnerships by blathering on about Teh Buttsecks or sodomy. Uh...nothing in the world prevents heterosexual partners from engaging in Teh Buttsecks, either. Or fisting. Or watersports. Or even on-and-on.
38
@26 Bullshit.
There is no Denny's "a few miles south of Spokane." Unless you're talking about Pullman, which is more than a few miles.
There is no Denny's "a few miles south of Spokane." Unless you're talking about Pullman, which is more than a few miles.
40
wow, i knew there were people out there who were grossly uninformed, but my naive ass didn't realize they were actually holding office. wow.
@9
#1 who changes their name?
neither, both, or whichever wishes to. same as it is for straight marriages.
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
Mom - Dad
Son - Son's Hubby
Child they adopted
same as it would for a family tree with a straight marriage, or a family tree in which the straight couple never married
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
the same way they look when straight couples marry outside of the church. Name, DOB, etc...
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
this particular bill isn't about marriage, its about domestic partnership. but even if it were about marriage, if it were the same thing it wouldn't make a difference to anyone except maybe the church, and the church is not forced to accept it. thats why the church and state are separated.... conversely the state does not have to accept the church's mandate that gay marriage is not ok.
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
this is a legal alternative to conventional marriage, and currently heterosexual couples ARE eligible for domestic partnership rights. before my husband and i were married, i was covered on his insurance as his domestic partner.
hope that helps!
@9
#1 who changes their name?
neither, both, or whichever wishes to. same as it is for straight marriages.
#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
Mom - Dad
Son - Son's Hubby
Child they adopted
same as it would for a family tree with a straight marriage, or a family tree in which the straight couple never married
#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
the same way they look when straight couples marry outside of the church. Name, DOB, etc...
#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
this particular bill isn't about marriage, its about domestic partnership. but even if it were about marriage, if it were the same thing it wouldn't make a difference to anyone except maybe the church, and the church is not forced to accept it. thats why the church and state are separated.... conversely the state does not have to accept the church's mandate that gay marriage is not ok.
#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
this is a legal alternative to conventional marriage, and currently heterosexual couples ARE eligible for domestic partnership rights. before my husband and i were married, i was covered on his insurance as his domestic partner.
hope that helps!
41
"When Harvey Milk was shot, the gay people in San Francisco just went crazy. They smashed in store windows and turned over cars. They are the ones doing the violence. They aren't getting beat up."
The stupidity encapsulated in this quote is the most depressing thing I've read all day. He's so disconnected from reality, he's not even wrong.
The stupidity encapsulated in this quote is the most depressing thing I've read all day. He's so disconnected from reality, he's not even wrong.
42
Isn't the term "haters" a relatively new term introduced to the impressionable middle class white folk via our hip african american urban friends? why is this being spoken by 84 year old men from Eastern Washington? Am i completely wrong here? I sure hope so. keep it cool dadio...
43
I would like to ask if they believe that the same sex couples are capable of falling in love with each other. If not, then what motivation besides love do these people wish to get married? Do they think gay people are incapable of feeling love as they do? If they don't think we do have real human feelings toward members of our own gender, then what do they thing homosexuality is?
44
Oh for Chrissakes, these people should get a life and learn whatever it is they are apposing.
Geez...
I say publish their names and let them all get the wrath of their stupidity.
If it can be done legally, I'd say, find their addresses and such too.
Geez...
I say publish their names and let them all get the wrath of their stupidity.
If it can be done legally, I'd say, find their addresses and such too.
47
@42
'haters' was a commonly used "urban" term, derived from 'player-hater' but as is the life of slang I don't think I've heard it used since The Chappelle Show went off the air. To the amusement of many it was officially killed by George W to the in one of his mangled-language speeches in reference to teh terrorists, 'why do they hate us?'.
now it's being used mainly by right-wing fanatics who have no concept of the term 'orwellian' to describe people that want equal rights
'haters' was a commonly used "urban" term, derived from 'player-hater' but as is the life of slang I don't think I've heard it used since The Chappelle Show went off the air. To the amusement of many it was officially killed by George W to the in one of his mangled-language speeches in reference to teh terrorists, 'why do they hate us?'.
now it's being used mainly by right-wing fanatics who have no concept of the term 'orwellian' to describe people that want equal rights
49
John John..thank you for at least asking questions.
I will try to answer them the best I know how
1.)just as in a straight union...either partner can choose to change their name, or both can decide to keep their own names. It is not required that either changes their name.
2.)The only difference on the family tree would be that it would be two men or two women in the succession.Not that different at all...
some gays adopt, and some gays have natural children so this too would reflect the same way YOUR family tree would
3.)There are MANY MANY churches that do accept gays and DO perform gay marriages willingly. Most gay people do not want nor are they asking for any church to perform a wedding they do not believe in. We just want the right to get married in a church that does not mind.and also many marriages are performed without church involvement at all. church is not the issue. The right to be with the one we love is.
4.)this particular bill does NOT allow gay marriage but rather a domestic partnership, which does not afford gays all the same rights as straight married people but DOES afford us many of the rights we seek. like tax status, social security benefits. and the right to visit our loved one in the hospital if they ever get sick. Currently hospitals deny many of is in to see our sick or injured partners, and they are left alone in their hospital rooms alone.
5.)most laws or bills that provide gays with domestic partnerships DO also afford those same rights to non married straight people. So voting this down will take away straight peoples rights who do not wish to get married but want to be in a civil union to be afforded some extended benefits.
Most straight people assume that domestic partnership is only for gays and is a "special right we are asking for. this is false. the same rules would apply to straights.
and please remember any gay union be it a marriage or otherwise would not affect YOUR relationship in any way..
we just want equal laws....not special ones.
i hope I helped a little bit.
thanks again for asking!
More...
John John..thank you for at least asking questions.
I will try to answer them the best I know how
1.)just as in a straight union...either partner can choose to change their name, or both can decide to keep their own names. It is not required that either changes their name.
2.)The only difference on the family tree would be that it would be two men or two women in the succession.Not that different at all...
some gays adopt, and some gays have natural children so this too would reflect the same way YOUR family tree would
3.)There are MANY MANY churches that do accept gays and DO perform gay marriages willingly. Most gay people do not want nor are they asking for any church to perform a wedding they do not believe in. We just want the right to get married in a church that does not mind.and also many marriages are performed without church involvement at all. church is not the issue. The right to be with the one we love is.
4.)this particular bill does NOT allow gay marriage but rather a domestic partnership, which does not afford gays all the same rights as straight married people but DOES afford us many of the rights we seek. like tax status, social security benefits. and the right to visit our loved one in the hospital if they ever get sick. Currently hospitals deny many of is in to see our sick or injured partners, and they are left alone in their hospital rooms alone.
5.)most laws or bills that provide gays with domestic partnerships DO also afford those same rights to non married straight people. So voting this down will take away straight peoples rights who do not wish to get married but want to be in a civil union to be afforded some extended benefits.
Most straight people assume that domestic partnership is only for gays and is a "special right we are asking for. this is false. the same rules would apply to straights.
and please remember any gay union be it a marriage or otherwise would not affect YOUR relationship in any way..
we just want equal laws....not special ones.
i hope I helped a little bit.
thanks again for asking!
50
All the problem comes out of the conservative churches and the Bible. And people whose brains are so open to anything bad. Driven by churches who terrorize with "hell" if you don't do what you are told, and their insurance policy of heaven if you sell your soul to the church, even if they they support evil against a minority group
I thought Jesus Life was a message of God's love for ALL people. Just as they are. Jesus never said anything against gays.
Being in politics, I've discovered that people have the wierdest combination of ideas. Just what they picked up in bits and pieces, and melded together in some sort of strange harmony that looks so unlikely.
But re gay people, there is a common thread among conservative religions, that gay is bad. And of course gay marriage represents the ultimate example of acceptance of gay people as part of God's creation.
And the christian conservatives can't stand that idea. They may quote Leviticus, while forgetting that 99.99% of the world's people deserve to die because of that biblical reference. Brilliant.
And their church leaders gain power and money and their ego trip by always having some group to hate, to blind the eye and harden the heart. Of course they talk about the utter lie called Christian Love - we love you if you do as we say, and hate you if you don't do as we say
I'm going to leave my very progressive temple, because while they say the words, they don't take action to help cure this problem .
As someone once said, if you don't become part of the solution, you are in some way part of the problem. Suck it up, and please get to work. IF I didn't live on the other side of he country, and have a wife and family, I'd be there.
We need every last gay person and friend of Gays to go door to door to insure this referendum fails at the vote.
Failure is not an option, as they aid when the Apollo 13(?) spacecraft was crippled on the way to the moon.
And those brave astronauts did come home safely. And so can the referendum fail. So justice and equality will prevail for our gay citizens
More...
I thought Jesus Life was a message of God's love for ALL people. Just as they are. Jesus never said anything against gays.
Being in politics, I've discovered that people have the wierdest combination of ideas. Just what they picked up in bits and pieces, and melded together in some sort of strange harmony that looks so unlikely.
But re gay people, there is a common thread among conservative religions, that gay is bad. And of course gay marriage represents the ultimate example of acceptance of gay people as part of God's creation.
And the christian conservatives can't stand that idea. They may quote Leviticus, while forgetting that 99.99% of the world's people deserve to die because of that biblical reference. Brilliant.
And their church leaders gain power and money and their ego trip by always having some group to hate, to blind the eye and harden the heart. Of course they talk about the utter lie called Christian Love - we love you if you do as we say, and hate you if you don't do as we say
I'm going to leave my very progressive temple, because while they say the words, they don't take action to help cure this problem .
As someone once said, if you don't become part of the solution, you are in some way part of the problem. Suck it up, and please get to work. IF I didn't live on the other side of he country, and have a wife and family, I'd be there.
We need every last gay person and friend of Gays to go door to door to insure this referendum fails at the vote.
Failure is not an option, as they aid when the Apollo 13(?) spacecraft was crippled on the way to the moon.
And those brave astronauts did come home safely. And so can the referendum fail. So justice and equality will prevail for our gay citizens
52
So if you go to www.approvereferendum71.org, click the tab at the top marked "Handouts," and scroll down about 3/4 of the page to where it says "Download Referendum 71 Ballot Title and Summary," you come to this:
"Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, EXCEPT THAT A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP IS NOT A MARRIAGE. Should this bill be: Approved ___ Rejected ___"
(capitals mine, added to make this point extra clear)
"Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, EXCEPT THAT A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP IS NOT A MARRIAGE. Should this bill be: Approved ___ Rejected ___"
(capitals mine, added to make this point extra clear)
53
So what I learned from this exercise is that people in Washington are total moronic heterosexists that will sign anything against GLBT folks even if they don't understand it.
Can we just remove all of the GLBT people and cut the state loose to drift in the Pacific?
Can we just remove all of the GLBT people and cut the state loose to drift in the Pacific?
54
@9 - sorry if this is piling on. This referendum is not about marriage. (See my previous post #52) But, since it's unclear sometimes whether you are asking about domestic partnership in Washington or about someday in the future when gay people CAN get married in Washington, I will try to deal with both scenarios:
#1. Nobody *has* to change their name when they get married, and anyone can change their name without getting married, if they want to. So, as with straight people, it would be up to each couple. Sometimes people in a long-term relationship (gay or straight) change their names without getting married to show their commitment even though it has no legal ramifications.
#2. I don't know anything about family tree protocol, but I'd guess it would look like any other union on a family tree: "X married Y, had children ABC." Surely regular family trees acknowledge adopted children.
If you actually are asking about domestic partnerships on this one, then I'd guess that each family making the tree could decide how or whether to acknowledge the union.
#3. These hypothetical future marriages would be civil marriages, the kind anybody can have performed at a court house.
#4. If you're asking about actual marriage, whenever it becomes legal, the answer would be "the same." If you're asking about domestic partnerships, see my post at #52. What it looks like now is, you get a certificate, and a card to carry in your wallet like a driver's license. At the moment, because of the law passed 2 years ago, we get some of the rights of married people.
#5. For gay people, domestic partnership is not an alternative to conventional marriage -- it's a substitute for it. (For straight people over the age of 62, it already is an alternative.) If and when a law gets passed giving gay people full marriage equality, then that would be the time to wonder about whether to keep domestic partnerships as an alternative to conventional marriage.
More...
#1. Nobody *has* to change their name when they get married, and anyone can change their name without getting married, if they want to. So, as with straight people, it would be up to each couple. Sometimes people in a long-term relationship (gay or straight) change their names without getting married to show their commitment even though it has no legal ramifications.
#2. I don't know anything about family tree protocol, but I'd guess it would look like any other union on a family tree: "X married Y, had children ABC." Surely regular family trees acknowledge adopted children.
If you actually are asking about domestic partnerships on this one, then I'd guess that each family making the tree could decide how or whether to acknowledge the union.
#3. These hypothetical future marriages would be civil marriages, the kind anybody can have performed at a court house.
#4. If you're asking about actual marriage, whenever it becomes legal, the answer would be "the same." If you're asking about domestic partnerships, see my post at #52. What it looks like now is, you get a certificate, and a card to carry in your wallet like a driver's license. At the moment, because of the law passed 2 years ago, we get some of the rights of married people.
#5. For gay people, domestic partnership is not an alternative to conventional marriage -- it's a substitute for it. (For straight people over the age of 62, it already is an alternative.) If and when a law gets passed giving gay people full marriage equality, then that would be the time to wonder about whether to keep domestic partnerships as an alternative to conventional marriage.
56
Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know that government-sanctioned marriage has existed since the foundation of the world! Well, if that's the case, we better keep the gays from having it. Perhaps we should just quarantine them so they don't spread their bacteria anymore with their assfuckery, pissplay and fisting. I hear Abu Ghraib has some space available.
57
I think the best way to win the fight in Washington state is to recruit scores of people to inte3rview ALL the donors to the Anti Gay ballot initiative and opublicize ALL their answers. It will make voting NO on the initiative into an embarassment for most people who will not want to join the ranks of thsoe 3 loonies you interviewed.
58
This, my friends, demonstrates well what 100 IQ (that's average) is, and why Jefferson figured we might not want folks so blessed to actually vote.
Apparently contemporary marketing techniques are very effective on them.
Apparently contemporary marketing techniques are very effective on them.
59
@ 42 lol.
I was struck by this little diddy:
"There are bacteria that are called 'gay-related syndrome' or something, but it is not healthy. And by using lots of antibiotics against them, the antibiotics are no longer usable because they don't work."
Um yeah. Okay sure. Bacteria that are called 'gay-related syndrome' are not healthy. Thanks for the heads up.
I was struck by this little diddy:
"There are bacteria that are called 'gay-related syndrome' or something, but it is not healthy. And by using lots of antibiotics against them, the antibiotics are no longer usable because they don't work."
Um yeah. Okay sure. Bacteria that are called 'gay-related syndrome' are not healthy. Thanks for the heads up.
61
@ 53 "Can we just remove all of the GLBT people and cut the state loose to drift in the Pacific?"
Yeah and send me, my boyfriend, and thousands of straight allies in the GLBT movement away? Smart choice sherlock. I say pack all the fundies on an aircraft carrier and send them to Hawaii instead. Aloha, mutherfuckers!
"what I learned from this exercise is that people in Washington are total moronic heterosexists that will sign anything against GLBT folks"
And you think people in Cali, Illinois, or anywhere else for that matter are any different? It boils down to rural wisdom (usually invoking the bible) vs. urban intellect (usually invoking human rights). Its a battle and progress is being made, slowly but surely.
Yeah and send me, my boyfriend, and thousands of straight allies in the GLBT movement away? Smart choice sherlock. I say pack all the fundies on an aircraft carrier and send them to Hawaii instead. Aloha, mutherfuckers!
"what I learned from this exercise is that people in Washington are total moronic heterosexists that will sign anything against GLBT folks"
And you think people in Cali, Illinois, or anywhere else for that matter are any different? It boils down to rural wisdom (usually invoking the bible) vs. urban intellect (usually invoking human rights). Its a battle and progress is being made, slowly but surely.
62
There's a common thread with these people and the anti-gay forces in general. They are ignorant and totally focused on gay sex acts. Logic or fear. Hmmmmm....
63
@61 Hear, Hear! I guess what we need to do is build Berlin-style walls around the urban zones and keep out the rural bible-pounders.
And also, 61, thank you and your fellow str8 supporters for all your love and help.
And also, 61, thank you and your fellow str8 supporters for all your love and help.
64
This was a fascinating and potentially useful survey. The examples given here show that the folks opposed to equal rights are motivated by fear. To a large extent the "coming out" of the gay movement since Stonewall has led to greater transparency that has, in turn, reduced a great deal of the fear of gays that had held strong for so long in this country. The reduced fear has led, in turn, to reforms. The folks in the example show strong evidence of ongoing ignorance, not only to what it means to be gay, but of medical reality, and of the legal structure they live within. The heavy use of emotion to guide their decision making probably shows what I will call a "right brain bias" (folks with a "left brain bias" make decisions based on the rational linking of words and complex thought patterns using words). With a right brain bias the most effective education is not throwing logical explanations, but rather is to show pictures of obviously healthy gay folks (ever notice how most Republican political advertising is just a family picture with a few words? They know who they are aiming at.) A mailing with a picture of a happy healthy gay family posed with an american flag and the words "save our family, vote NO on R-71" just might work.
66
Just in case others are confused, as I was by the way this article was written, "R-71 is weirdly backwards" as my daughter just explained to me, "it's now a referendum to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. voting "approve" is the pro-gay thing. Everyone is trying to clear that up as soon as possible" "it's confusing since the people who put it on the ballot want to reject it."
So vote YES on R-71!
So vote YES on R-71!
67
Wow, these people know so much about fisting, and water-sports, and one's penis is another's anus! Truly, these people cannot be "saved" - to go with the theme. This is why it's futile talking to them. Logic, rational thinking, deductive reasoning are such foreigners.
68
Dominic, thank you, thank you, thank you for this article and showing us the importance of the dialogue. Hopefully, WhoSigned.org will be able to be allowed access to the names of signers of Ref 71 today and in a few weeks KnowThyNeighbor.org will have databased and provided the public with a fully searchable database of names. Our tactic is longterm and I look forward to knowing that we will have helped the conversation that you showed can be had but on a personal level with signers that LGBT and allies know. This personal connection will produce activists in our community and with our friends in important ways. Thank you again
69
Well, now I'm all the more pissed off... These fucking crazy people are dictating law in Washington and the fucking Democrats, the fucking "advocates" at Equal Rights Washington, and Washington Families Standing Together couldn't stop them? Jesus help us!
70
It's amusing that you reached someone from Colville, as my parents are from Colville. (We used to live near Spokane when me and my siblings were younger, so...PTL, i didn't grow up in Colville.) My mom has taken it upon herself to personally visit as many people as she can who donated to this massive turd and just talk to them. Nicely, respectfully, etc. I'll make sure she sees this.
A lot of crazy anti-queer folks are indeed that filled with hatred that that's how they're going to roll. A lot of people are just poorly informed.
A lot of crazy anti-queer folks are indeed that filled with hatred that that's how they're going to roll. A lot of people are just poorly informed.
71
Let's think carefully about the statement "I don't hate you, I love you."
While I personally support gay marriage (well actually, I oppose making "marriage" a legal institution at all, but that's a different story) I think that it's time that we gave credit to that segment of the Conservative Christian Community that differentiates between homosexuals, from their point of view, deserve full respect as human beings, and homosexuality, which they view as condemnable.
Conservative Christians, at least ones who respect Christ's teachings, don't hate gays, but they oppose homosexuality. It's very easy to ignore the essential difference between these stances. You don't have to hate a person to think what they do is wrong.
While I personally support gay marriage (well actually, I oppose making "marriage" a legal institution at all, but that's a different story) I think that it's time that we gave credit to that segment of the Conservative Christian Community that differentiates between homosexuals, from their point of view, deserve full respect as human beings, and homosexuality, which they view as condemnable.
Conservative Christians, at least ones who respect Christ's teachings, don't hate gays, but they oppose homosexuality. It's very easy to ignore the essential difference between these stances. You don't have to hate a person to think what they do is wrong.
72
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT... WHEN HARVEY MILK AND MAYOR MOSCONE WERE ASSASSINATED ON NOVEMBER 27,1978...
THERE WERE NO RIOTS. THE RIOTS, KNOW AS THE WHITE NIGHT RIOT CAME ON MAY 21,1979 WHEN THE INFAMOUS "TWINKIE"DEFENSE VERDICT CAME IN... AND DAN WHITE WAS SENTENCED TO ONLY 7 YEARS AND MANSLAUGHTER.
I RECOMMEND A WELL KNOWN WEB-SITE THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE EVOLUTION OF THE CASTRO AND THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK DURING THE 1970'S... AND IT'S RECORDED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE, AND THE IMAGES ARE NOT REREATIONS LIKE THE "MILK" MOVIE.
REAL HISTORY LESSONS... ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS SOURCE.
THERE WERE NO RIOTS. THE RIOTS, KNOW AS THE WHITE NIGHT RIOT CAME ON MAY 21,1979 WHEN THE INFAMOUS "TWINKIE"DEFENSE VERDICT CAME IN... AND DAN WHITE WAS SENTENCED TO ONLY 7 YEARS AND MANSLAUGHTER.
I RECOMMEND A WELL KNOWN WEB-SITE THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE EVOLUTION OF THE CASTRO AND THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK DURING THE 1970'S... AND IT'S RECORDED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE, AND THE IMAGES ARE NOT REREATIONS LIKE THE "MILK" MOVIE.
REAL HISTORY LESSONS... ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS SOURCE.
74
@71 - "I think that it's time that we gave credit to that segment of the Conservative Christian Community that differentiates between homosexuals, from their point of view, deserve full respect as human beings, and homosexuality, which they view as condemnable." and "You don't have to hate a person to think what they do is wrong."
Coupla things:
1.) Gay isn't what people DO, it is what/who they ARE. The inability of Conservative Christians to understand this basic concept leads to all kinds of ridiculous semantic arguments about the "gay lifestyle" or the "gay agenda." Gay people live VARIOUS "lifestyles" and have myriad "agendas." Because gay is what or who they ARE, not what they DO. It's like saying, "I don't hate you for being Polish, I just hate Polish food, values, language, clothing, traditions, family dynamics, and every other individual aspect of your culture."
2.) And nobody is trying to take away a Christians right to DISAPPROVE of gayness. They can preach against it, they can speak out against it, teach their children it is awful and ugly, etc. But these people want to LEGISLATE THEIR DISAPPROVAL, marginalizing a population of people because of who they are, and applying it to everyone in this state. THAT is why people are so mad. There's a huge difference between "I believe and want to express to you that the way you live is wrong" and "I believe the way you live is wrong AND want to make a law that forbids you to live the way you do."
Coupla things:
1.) Gay isn't what people DO, it is what/who they ARE. The inability of Conservative Christians to understand this basic concept leads to all kinds of ridiculous semantic arguments about the "gay lifestyle" or the "gay agenda." Gay people live VARIOUS "lifestyles" and have myriad "agendas." Because gay is what or who they ARE, not what they DO. It's like saying, "I don't hate you for being Polish, I just hate Polish food, values, language, clothing, traditions, family dynamics, and every other individual aspect of your culture."
2.) And nobody is trying to take away a Christians right to DISAPPROVE of gayness. They can preach against it, they can speak out against it, teach their children it is awful and ugly, etc. But these people want to LEGISLATE THEIR DISAPPROVAL, marginalizing a population of people because of who they are, and applying it to everyone in this state. THAT is why people are so mad. There's a huge difference between "I believe and want to express to you that the way you live is wrong" and "I believe the way you live is wrong AND want to make a law that forbids you to live the way you do."
75
I find that gay couples look great on family trees. If you're into that sort of thing. Family trees. Shrug. I guess it takes all kinds.
77
Jerry @ 72 - This is completely off topic, but I wanted to say, on your website, I was really moved by the photo of the Headstone of the "Gay Vietnam Vet," halfway down the page.
It reads: "When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."
That touched me. It sums up the entire battle for same-sex equality (and our frustration). How the hell did society's priorities get so fucked up, I often wonder.
I had never seen that before, but I'm glad you shared it. I will definitely remember it.
It reads: "When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."
That touched me. It sums up the entire battle for same-sex equality (and our frustration). How the hell did society's priorities get so fucked up, I often wonder.
I had never seen that before, but I'm glad you shared it. I will definitely remember it.
78
Hi there--
Were they actually the first 4 people you called? Geographically disparate, alphabetically disparate, and just coincidentally all totally ignorant-- what a nice foundation for a sensational column.
Vote YES on R-71, but don't be an ignoramus about it.
Were they actually the first 4 people you called? Geographically disparate, alphabetically disparate, and just coincidentally all totally ignorant-- what a nice foundation for a sensational column.
Vote YES on R-71, but don't be an ignoramus about it.
79
in order to vote we must educate ourselves about the platforms and ramifications. to skip this part would mean that the very thing that we are trying to change has no foundation. there is always a foundation. the institution of marriage may have been originally designed for a man and women. but the assumed rights and/or priviledges span beyond such limitations.
80
This is a perfect example of why voter initiatives are out of control insane. Can we please stop doing them now and move on with being able to function as a state?
81
@ 78) I went down the list of contributors, starting with those who gave the most money to R-71. These were the first four to answer the phone. Call the article sensational if you like, but don't blame me for it--I just wrote down what they said.
84
I think a follow-up question should have been: "Would you vote for a referendum which would make homosexuality illegal?" I have a feeling they would all have said 'yes' because at the basis of their statements is a belief that homosexuality is wrong.
These respondents' logic (or lack thereof) is both hilarious and yet very scary.
And to the woman who said "I do not believe that marriage—with its long history since the foundation of the world—is to be change", she should check her bible. How many wives did the old testament patriarchs have? Moses? David? Solomon? Jacob? etc. They all had multiple wives (and concubines).
And to the guy who says gays are very dirty and violent, and knows about fisting and watersports--I wonder what kind of movies he has been watching.
These respondents' logic (or lack thereof) is both hilarious and yet very scary.
And to the woman who said "I do not believe that marriage—with its long history since the foundation of the world—is to be change", she should check her bible. How many wives did the old testament patriarchs have? Moses? David? Solomon? Jacob? etc. They all had multiple wives (and concubines).
And to the guy who says gays are very dirty and violent, and knows about fisting and watersports--I wonder what kind of movies he has been watching.
85
@38: Verily I say unto you that off Highway 27 in Veradale - which is south of Spokane - there is a Denny's. That would be the Pines exit off I-90. Come to Spokane and I'll let you buy me a Grand Slam there, you arrogant shithead.
86
Being a transplant from Germany, it never ceases to AMAZE me how far too many people in this country partake in the senseless babble of . . . "us vs. them." Case in point: in this article, it's obvious that the four people interviewed had, in fact, not carefully read the intention of the referendum, i.e., granting same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. Evidently, many voters will vote for the referendum under the illusion that whatever comes onto the ballot must underscore the determination to "do away with whatever the general public deems 'unhealthy.'"
This seems to be a perfect example of the naivite, if not downright stupidity we've seen at the August town-hall meetings, where seemingly staged participants came up with the "craziest" objections to Obama's Health-Care Reform "Public Option."
It's truly scary when I witness such a high degree of blatant ignorance, be it in regard to our ailing health system, our (obviously) failing educational system, etc., etc., and still hear these same ignoramouses claim "we're the greatest nation on earth . . ."
This pattern of large scale self-aggrandizement within a country that is perceived by many abroad as a "great nation" is troubling, to say the least.
"CHANCE?" Not only "yes, we can . . ." but, "yes, we MUST!"
This seems to be a perfect example of the naivite, if not downright stupidity we've seen at the August town-hall meetings, where seemingly staged participants came up with the "craziest" objections to Obama's Health-Care Reform "Public Option."
It's truly scary when I witness such a high degree of blatant ignorance, be it in regard to our ailing health system, our (obviously) failing educational system, etc., etc., and still hear these same ignoramouses claim "we're the greatest nation on earth . . ."
This pattern of large scale self-aggrandizement within a country that is perceived by many abroad as a "great nation" is troubling, to say the least.
"CHANCE?" Not only "yes, we can . . ." but, "yes, we MUST!"
87
this was poorly written with obvious bias, and although it is apparent that those interviewed were obviously ignorant of most of the gay marriage argument, this article did nothing for the argument and simply put down the interviewees which is despicable.
88
Um, Ackbar @87, I think the interviewees successfully put themselves down. If you want to do something about it, educate them.
And, incidentally, this has little to do with gay marriage.
And, incidentally, this has little to do with gay marriage.
89
Thank you #33.
@9: Who cares if someone changes their last name or not? In any marriage/union? Other than the two people involved, WHO CARES?
How would it look on a family tree? Like two names with a line drawn between them, silly.
Since churches won't perform the unions, how will they look on paper? Probably a lot like my courthouse-issued marriage license. A legal document with some printed words and some lines and some signatures. No churches necessary. And again, who CARES what the flipping piece of paper looks like?
Such silly, silly questions. Were you asking them hypothetically? It's almost moving how polite and naive you come across, though, 9.
@9: Who cares if someone changes their last name or not? In any marriage/union? Other than the two people involved, WHO CARES?
How would it look on a family tree? Like two names with a line drawn between them, silly.
Since churches won't perform the unions, how will they look on paper? Probably a lot like my courthouse-issued marriage license. A legal document with some printed words and some lines and some signatures. No churches necessary. And again, who CARES what the flipping piece of paper looks like?
Such silly, silly questions. Were you asking them hypothetically? It's almost moving how polite and naive you come across, though, 9.
90
What we should really have is a "two-tiered" system. The first tier would be a civil union for everyone. This would address legal rights and responsibilities. The second tier would be "marriage", where the union would be blessed by a church or some other non-governmental organization. If a conservative church didn't want to marry a same-sex couple, government wouldn't be able to force it to do so. However, if a liberal church wanted to marry a same-sex couple, religious people wouldn't be able to use government to prevent that church from doing so.
The problem is that conservative religious people wouldn't support this because they wouldn't want liberal churches to be free to bless a same-sex union.
The problem is that conservative religious people wouldn't support this because they wouldn't want liberal churches to be free to bless a same-sex union.
93
Looks like there is a lot of confused sexuality on the part of the anti-gay folks. How about a campaign to educate the elderly on how gay and straight people have sex? That could clear it up.
94
A more accurate link on reddit is "..here's a list of hand crafted/edited, carefully selected responses with any that are well thought out carefully pruned for content or completely dropped in order to complete one sided presentation of responses"
but,to go along with groupthink....OH MY GOD..that's just terrible how unreasonable ALL "those" peope are!!
meh...
but,to go along with groupthink....OH MY GOD..that's just terrible how unreasonable ALL "those" peope are!!
meh...
96
Gays deserve EVERYTHING that straights have. EVERYTHING, including the right to marry. Eventually, when all of these dinosaurs are dead and gone, they'll get it. The human race moves like a snail. Slowly.
97
This has nothing to do with the article directly, but when I moved into my condo in the U-district 10 years ago, the geezer that died had left a bunch of AMWAY products under the sink.
There was a disinfectant spray, and under the uses section, proclaimed in bold: "Will kill 100% of AIDS on surfaces." I had a chuckle about that.
The peeps that support I-71 probably buy that spray.
There was a disinfectant spray, and under the uses section, proclaimed in bold: "Will kill 100% of AIDS on surfaces." I had a chuckle about that.
The peeps that support I-71 probably buy that spray.
101
DEMS take note if you want to sell the American People anything, and I mean ANYTHING. From Apples to Zymurgy, Just Scare the Shit out of the White Upper Middle class Women. You'll get whatever you want sold. Just watch the alarm adds on MSNBC, or the number of trigger happy, violence prone police on the streets on America.
102
Number 4 - "How can these people hate ass-fucking and fisting so much when they have so much practice sticking their entire heads up their own asses? That's like direct ass to mouth- "self head fisting"
Quite possibly one of the most visually disturbing, yet brilliantly funny comments yet.
Quite possibly one of the most visually disturbing, yet brilliantly funny comments yet.
103
First, a non-random sample of four is too small, biased, and makes the results suspect. Makes a good article though! Second, many are offended when all gays are classified as "perverts" or "diseased." Why then are Christians and Eastern Washingtonians lumped together? This just closes constructive dialog. Lastly, in a free society, the right to associate with who one choses is guaranteed. Its an infringement of this guarantee if there are some associations that are encouraged while others are discouraged. On the other hand, society doesn't want some associations, but who choses? Voters do! I think domestic partnerships improve society so that's how I'm voting.
104
No time to read all of what is written in the comments but I am a heterosexual conservative republican christian and I fully support same sex marriage and all the rights that are associated with marriage being extended to same sex couples. I do not approve of the government interfering in the lives of people, not allowing people to marry and have rights is interference. While I believe that "separation of church and state" is often taken too far I do not believe that we should base marriage laws on any religion, marriage is a legal institution first and a religious one second anyway, it is the government that issues marriage licenses and atheists can marry...
I am also a microbiologist and while HIV/AIDS patients can potentially contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria they are also more likely to die and take those bugs with them. I am more concerned about the ignorant people who insist on being given an antibiotic even though they have a viral infection, there are way more of those than HIV+ people! Also I have never heard of "gay-related syndrome" and I am getting close to completing my doctorate in microbiology, I must have forgotten to take "Made Up Diseases 101", oops!
I am also a microbiologist and while HIV/AIDS patients can potentially contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria they are also more likely to die and take those bugs with them. I am more concerned about the ignorant people who insist on being given an antibiotic even though they have a viral infection, there are way more of those than HIV+ people! Also I have never heard of "gay-related syndrome" and I am getting close to completing my doctorate in microbiology, I must have forgotten to take "Made Up Diseases 101", oops!
105
Spanish speakers, Muslims, Gays- it's bizarrely remarkable and creepy how dumbass diatribes against these 3 "groups" always sound the same: stunningly ignorant and fearful.
106
#63 Just because people live in a rural area doesn't automatically make them conservative/anti-gay rights. NPR reported last week on a survey done throughout Washington which found that across all political categories, ages, genders, rural/urban areas well over 50% of people support expanded gay rights. Obviously it would be best if 100% of people supported gay rights but across all those groups the support for gay rights is increasing so at least as a state we're on the right path. My family is from Eastern Washington and they all support full and equal access to civil rights/marriage for GLBT folks.
107
"First, a non-random sample of four is too small, biased, and makes the results suspect."
This makes no sense at all. This wasn't a poll, this was four answers to a question. The two are about as closely related as a first-person essay about a day during the snowstorms last year and a city-wide poll of how well the city government stepped up.
The selection wasn't random at all. As the author mentioned in commnents (would have been better if he'd said it in the body) he got the list of donors and started calling people on the list, starting with the top donors (that is, those most likely to be heavily invested in the outcome). These were the first four who answered. Depending on the time of day of the call, it may not be surprising that those who answered were those not working during the day and thus more likely to be retired.
Either way, he was already drawing from a pool of those who signed or otherwise supported the petition, and the goal of the article was to see what they said in response to the title question. This being his goal, his methodology was probably fine.
If you'd like to perform an actual study of the concerns of those who supported the petition and map it to their donation size (especially correlated with their household income), then I would be interested to see the results. But I suggest that you work on your methodology if you think that the methodology used to write this article had a prayer of getting a statistically significant sample to show signers' concerns.
This makes no sense at all. This wasn't a poll, this was four answers to a question. The two are about as closely related as a first-person essay about a day during the snowstorms last year and a city-wide poll of how well the city government stepped up.
The selection wasn't random at all. As the author mentioned in commnents (would have been better if he'd said it in the body) he got the list of donors and started calling people on the list, starting with the top donors (that is, those most likely to be heavily invested in the outcome). These were the first four who answered. Depending on the time of day of the call, it may not be surprising that those who answered were those not working during the day and thus more likely to be retired.
Either way, he was already drawing from a pool of those who signed or otherwise supported the petition, and the goal of the article was to see what they said in response to the title question. This being his goal, his methodology was probably fine.
If you'd like to perform an actual study of the concerns of those who supported the petition and map it to their donation size (especially correlated with their household income), then I would be interested to see the results. But I suggest that you work on your methodology if you think that the methodology used to write this article had a prayer of getting a statistically significant sample to show signers' concerns.
108
Hi... I am #72, Ironically... that is also my age. I must of had a senior moment, as noted by #91. I left off the web-site that I was recommending. It's
www.thecastro.net and my pages are
thecastro.net/street/memoriespage/pritik… there is a link on my first page to my blog. I must confess, I was impressed as to how many hits I have had from "the stranger" and of course one of my favorite lines from Tennessee Williams "STREET CAR NAMED DESIRE"... is" I always depended on the kindness of Strangers"
www.thecastro.net and my pages are
thecastro.net/street/memoriespage/pritik… there is a link on my first page to my blog. I must confess, I was impressed as to how many hits I have had from "the stranger" and of course one of my favorite lines from Tennessee Williams "STREET CAR NAMED DESIRE"... is" I always depended on the kindness of Strangers"
109
I'd just like to personally apologize as a resident of Arlington for unleashing Larry Stickney on you all.
And just reassure you that not everyone in rural Washington, in places like Arlington, is so narrow minded, hateful, and/or plain stupid.
And just reassure you that not everyone in rural Washington, in places like Arlington, is so narrow minded, hateful, and/or plain stupid.
110
"This is no way to start a dialog between people..." so states the comment. My response is WHAT dialog are you referring to? These bigots that fund discrimination have no interest in a dialog, they've ALREADY taken action WITHOUT any dialog. Do try to keep up.
111
although the names and phone numbers are obviously for public record, we don't need to make a mockery of these americans to make a point.
and the solution is simple. don't print the names. you can keep the funny pictures but leave off the names. it doesn't help us and it has nothing to do with journalism.
i believe in freedom of speech but i also believe in taste and decency. dominic, you owe us an apology. also, admit that you are not a journalist.
and the solution is simple. don't print the names. you can keep the funny pictures but leave off the names. it doesn't help us and it has nothing to do with journalism.
i believe in freedom of speech but i also believe in taste and decency. dominic, you owe us an apology. also, admit that you are not a journalist.
112
I'd like for there to be a MUCH larger sample -- not that the answers would vary much, I suspect -- and for the questions to be standardized (and a little less snarky, perhaps), if only to fix into print the stupidity of the individuals. Accountability tends to make people think harder about what they've done, and even dim-witted persons will find that there is no logic behind homophobia, if they really think it through.
113
50,
just like so many others, mindlessly blabbering on about things of which you have no knowledge, just your biased notions support you and your kind...
stick to what you know doc...it clear you know nothing about the God of the Bible.
as for the fags and equal fag rights...i dont care, i get a laugh reading some of this tripe. But you ?...your Blabberings ?...
you're a fricking idiot. If you'd like to post comments about God, you should try reading the Bible first, then maybe you wouldn't appear as such a fool. So easily you see that God is a God of Love...but so easily you blind yourself to the fact that God is also a God that hates with a perfect hatred...and i seriously doubt that your educated mind has the ability to comprehend that.
just like so many others, mindlessly blabbering on about things of which you have no knowledge, just your biased notions support you and your kind...
stick to what you know doc...it clear you know nothing about the God of the Bible.
as for the fags and equal fag rights...i dont care, i get a laugh reading some of this tripe. But you ?...your Blabberings ?...
you're a fricking idiot. If you'd like to post comments about God, you should try reading the Bible first, then maybe you wouldn't appear as such a fool. So easily you see that God is a God of Love...but so easily you blind yourself to the fact that God is also a God that hates with a perfect hatred...and i seriously doubt that your educated mind has the ability to comprehend that.
115
Worried about sodomy? Dude, I've had like 5 straight boyfriends (I'm a girl) ask if they could put it up my butt. Just sayin.
116
I do not understand why LIBERAL idiots insist that we need to "start a dialogue" and making friends with people who want to kill us. Did MLK insist that black people hug the KKK before we got civil rights? Do we require women to hold hands with their rapists before we charge a rapist with rape? These idiots who insist we make nice with people who hate us are dangerous and should be ignored for our own safety. Sadly, this ideology has been the reinforced by mainstream lgbt groups for a long, long time. Fuck them. It's a new day.
117
Was anyone else unaware that we were "major incubators of a lot of bacteria" including the "gay-related syndrom" ??? That really should have been in the manual!! Apparently being gay makes us significantly smarter than these ignorant bigots!
118
My only problem with this feature was that it was too short. The brief profiles were informative and fascinating. Can this please be a reoccurring feature?
119
#103/SumGuy: "Second, many are offended when all gays are classified as "perverts" or "diseased." Why then are Christians and Eastern Washingtonians lumped together? This just closes constructive dialog."
Back in 2004, in an editorial on the hostage crisis in Beslan, Abdelrahman al-Rashid, a Saudi who is (or was at the time) the managing director of the satellite channel al-Arabiya, wrote: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
One could make almost the same parallel with Christians and same-sex marrige: It is a certain fact that not all Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage, but it is equally certain that almost all (or at least most) same-sex marriage opponents are Christian (and Mormon and Muslim.)
People should indeed bear in mind that some Christians truly follow the teachings of Christ, accepting gays & lesbians instead of condemning them, fighting for same-sex marriage instead of opposing it. Unfortunately, far too many Christians are not that way. And they are the ones who lead people to mistakenly condemn all Christians.
#103/SumGuy: "Lastly, in a free society, the right to associate with who one choses is guaranteed. Its an infringement of this guarantee if there are some associations that are encouraged while others are discouraged. On the other hand, society doesn't want some associations, but who choses? Voters do! I think domestic partnerships improve society so that's how I'm voting."
I'm glad you're voting in favor of domestic partnerships but this matter shouldn't even be up for a vote. Just because this is a democracy, doesn't mean that everything that comes up for a vote is constitutional. It's as unconstitutional for voters to vote on whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as different-sex couples as it would be for voters to vote on whether different-race couples should have the same rights as same-race couples.
More...
Back in 2004, in an editorial on the hostage crisis in Beslan, Abdelrahman al-Rashid, a Saudi who is (or was at the time) the managing director of the satellite channel al-Arabiya, wrote: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."
One could make almost the same parallel with Christians and same-sex marrige: It is a certain fact that not all Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage, but it is equally certain that almost all (or at least most) same-sex marriage opponents are Christian (and Mormon and Muslim.)
People should indeed bear in mind that some Christians truly follow the teachings of Christ, accepting gays & lesbians instead of condemning them, fighting for same-sex marriage instead of opposing it. Unfortunately, far too many Christians are not that way. And they are the ones who lead people to mistakenly condemn all Christians.
#103/SumGuy: "Lastly, in a free society, the right to associate with who one choses is guaranteed. Its an infringement of this guarantee if there are some associations that are encouraged while others are discouraged. On the other hand, society doesn't want some associations, but who choses? Voters do! I think domestic partnerships improve society so that's how I'm voting."
I'm glad you're voting in favor of domestic partnerships but this matter shouldn't even be up for a vote. Just because this is a democracy, doesn't mean that everything that comes up for a vote is constitutional. It's as unconstitutional for voters to vote on whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as different-sex couples as it would be for voters to vote on whether different-race couples should have the same rights as same-race couples.
120
@ 107 What I don't understand is how you making my point adds to this discussion, but "Makes no sense." Great article. Student T test sample size (30) = great/useful article.
@116 - dialogue is anathema to extremist. More dialog and making nice isolates them and leads to progress.
@119 - I think most religions at their core are not overly supportive of same sex marriage because it interfers with the ancient and time-tested, super-ordinate goal of producing lots of kids to provide soldiers. As the world matures and having more people becomes a problem, and real wars become more and more un-thinkable, the religions of the next century will have to either adopt, become extinct, or become irrelevant.
What's funny is: ask any religious person if he/she is part of God's plan and they'll tend to say yes. Ask them if they know God's plan. They'll say no (any other answer would be contrary to the "Word"). Then how do you know domestic partnership isn't part of the plan? You don't. So shouldn't you shut up? You might mess up God's plan!
@116 - dialogue is anathema to extremist. More dialog and making nice isolates them and leads to progress.
@119 - I think most religions at their core are not overly supportive of same sex marriage because it interfers with the ancient and time-tested, super-ordinate goal of producing lots of kids to provide soldiers. As the world matures and having more people becomes a problem, and real wars become more and more un-thinkable, the religions of the next century will have to either adopt, become extinct, or become irrelevant.
What's funny is: ask any religious person if he/she is part of God's plan and they'll tend to say yes. Ask them if they know God's plan. They'll say no (any other answer would be contrary to the "Word"). Then how do you know domestic partnership isn't part of the plan? You don't. So shouldn't you shut up? You might mess up God's plan!
121
I was tricked into signing I-71 AT Gay Pride by a dude in short-shorts. I'm never signing a petition again...
122
#9, to answer your questions specifically:
1)No one has to change their name when they get married today. Women choose to do so or not. I currently have 2 female friends who have chosen to not take their husbands names, so there you go.
2)The same as any other newly formed branch, with the new spouse added next to the kin-spouse and the decendents listed underneath.
3)We have separation of church and state in America. Although churches perform marriage ceremonies in their tradition for their recognition purposes, technically, the license itself is issued by the state and a marriage can be conducted by a judge or justice of the peace. See Las Vegas for more information.
4)This question is really a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't know what a 'regular' marriage is. Two people want to bind themselves to each other until death for financial and legal purposes. Really, that's all the state issues insomuchas a license, so that's my definition of marriage, regardless of the sexes of the individuals entering into this legally binding agreement.
5)This is a bit complicated. For the most part, 'civil unions' are available to everyone (recognizing the variances from state to state), and 'marriage' is available to hetero-only (again, recognizing variances from state to state). For the most part, civil unions do not carry the same rights as marriages. Hopefully, someone else in Washington will chime in and specifically outline what is currently in law.
Keep asking questions. Keep your heart and mind open. Your questions were certainly more valid and thoughtful than the people interviewed for this article.
1)No one has to change their name when they get married today. Women choose to do so or not. I currently have 2 female friends who have chosen to not take their husbands names, so there you go.
2)The same as any other newly formed branch, with the new spouse added next to the kin-spouse and the decendents listed underneath.
3)We have separation of church and state in America. Although churches perform marriage ceremonies in their tradition for their recognition purposes, technically, the license itself is issued by the state and a marriage can be conducted by a judge or justice of the peace. See Las Vegas for more information.
4)This question is really a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't know what a 'regular' marriage is. Two people want to bind themselves to each other until death for financial and legal purposes. Really, that's all the state issues insomuchas a license, so that's my definition of marriage, regardless of the sexes of the individuals entering into this legally binding agreement.
5)This is a bit complicated. For the most part, 'civil unions' are available to everyone (recognizing the variances from state to state), and 'marriage' is available to hetero-only (again, recognizing variances from state to state). For the most part, civil unions do not carry the same rights as marriages. Hopefully, someone else in Washington will chime in and specifically outline what is currently in law.
Keep asking questions. Keep your heart and mind open. Your questions were certainly more valid and thoughtful than the people interviewed for this article.
125
What a vision of Christ these people are. And they wonder why people are running from religion in DROVES! I'd rather have sex in a bathroom stall with the honorable Republican Senator Larry Craig 500 times than spend eternity in heaven with these confused idiots and their ilk. Thank God they're old. It's not their generation we have to worry about, and young people are getting it more and more that gay people are as everyday a part of this planet as anyone else.
126
hum, i like how easy it is to say that these peopel are dumb and look ridiculous, but wasnt that the point? Notice none of them say they hatted gay people personally, even though the entire article was directed that they did. These are people living in small comunnities who have not had the exsposure to the same liberal lifestyles that we lead here in seattle. The fact remains that the majority of the state's population remains in 1 county regardless of the land mass . . . and besides these are not the people pushing through laws, they are not the heavy contributors. Lets work on having Disneys embrace gay couples. Lets push for more gay awarness from corporations and remeber that these people are entitled to their own thoughts and opions.
128
126: I don't know if it's so easy to say it's as harmless as being "entitled to a thought/opinion" when it's a serious civil rights issue
129
I think that some urban Seattleites come across as just as self-righteous as the people interviewed for this article. "Who would ask such silly questions? Who CARES?" many people responded to #9. Um, obviously the guy that asked the questions! He was respectful and cogent-you don't have to put him down.
And as far as people crying for the disenfranchisement of anyone: the first amendment quite eloquently protects your right to be stupid. If you want to change someone's mind, intelligently persuade, don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "down with the gay haters!" Isn't that as simplistic as "down with the gays!"?
Thirdly, being "gay" isn't ONLY what you are or what you do, it's both. There is a difference between orientation and behavior. You could be bisexual, for instance, and never act on one preference or the other. So ignoring the role of behavior in sexuality is just as narrow-minded as ignoring the role of orientation.
And as far as people crying for the disenfranchisement of anyone: the first amendment quite eloquently protects your right to be stupid. If you want to change someone's mind, intelligently persuade, don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "down with the gay haters!" Isn't that as simplistic as "down with the gays!"?
Thirdly, being "gay" isn't ONLY what you are or what you do, it's both. There is a difference between orientation and behavior. You could be bisexual, for instance, and never act on one preference or the other. So ignoring the role of behavior in sexuality is just as narrow-minded as ignoring the role of orientation.
130
The very fact that this law is so controversial is reason enough to let the public vote on it. If the law is confirmed by the public, the voter backlash against the legislators who passed it will be muted. If not, then gays have more work to do to win over the public.
132
I would like to point out that Christianity doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity, though I admit the dumb ones scream loudest. My argument for the people who tell me that I cannot be a person of faith and support gay marriage is that the Bible also tells us not to eat pork, and I don't know about the rest of you, but I looove bacon. Those rules were there because they were intended to help stop the spread of disease (parasites in uncooked pork,food poisoning from bad shellfish,kicking out the occasional leper) and population growth (guys only fucking girls). Now that we have ovens, refrigerators, and a population problem, I doubt if God would mind if we have a little fun. Besides, who could read 'The Song of Songs' without realizing that God's ok with a little kink?
So show a little love for the liberal Christians, ok?
End rant.
So show a little love for the liberal Christians, ok?
End rant.
133
*Sigh* It is hard to read these--the whole "battle of wits with the unarmed person" comes to mind. I think the brain just gets very slushy when you only think what you are told to think for too many long years.
CRIES.
CRIES.
134
"The very fact that this law is so controversial is reason enough to let the public vote on it."
No. By that standard, we would have voted on ending slavery, giving women the vote, and miscengenation laws.
No. By that standard, we would have voted on ending slavery, giving women the vote, and miscengenation laws.
135
There is a WHOLE lotta stupid going on in that article. All the more reason to make it illegal for the public to be able to vote on human rights issues.
James McFadden's logic says it all: I don't hate gays. I want gays to have equal rights. But if I let them have equal rights, then they'll want the right to get married. Therefore, I have to vote against equal rights for gays.
Simply brilliant!
PS: James... you're a hypocrite and a homophobe. Just thought I'd let you know.
James McFadden's logic says it all: I don't hate gays. I want gays to have equal rights. But if I let them have equal rights, then they'll want the right to get married. Therefore, I have to vote against equal rights for gays.
Simply brilliant!
PS: James... you're a hypocrite and a homophobe. Just thought I'd let you know.
136
Just want to say thanks, Dominic, for putting together a brief glimpse into real people who support this kind of legislation.
No, I don't see it as scientific or representative, but it was very interesting to read these kinds of opinions presented in a format that isn't anonymous or full of back-and-forth flaming between faceless commentators. It's not the least biased paper, but they got quoted, and relatively extensively, more than any one article ever would.
It's *interesting* because having somebody record their comments and present them this way is a long, long way from the dysfunctional illiterate hate spewing that often goes on on a lot of websites. The contrast between the utter INSANITY they advocate and the format is kind of striking. Sobering.
That said, I'm very, very angry. I still can't believe that in these people's hands, we put the power to alter the course of others' lives.
No, I don't see it as scientific or representative, but it was very interesting to read these kinds of opinions presented in a format that isn't anonymous or full of back-and-forth flaming between faceless commentators. It's not the least biased paper, but they got quoted, and relatively extensively, more than any one article ever would.
It's *interesting* because having somebody record their comments and present them this way is a long, long way from the dysfunctional illiterate hate spewing that often goes on on a lot of websites. The contrast between the utter INSANITY they advocate and the format is kind of striking. Sobering.
That said, I'm very, very angry. I still can't believe that in these people's hands, we put the power to alter the course of others' lives.
137
Oh, and you know, I'm willing to bet that at least a few seniors would prefer to be called and asked for their opinions -- or "confronted" or "harassed", I guess -- rather than just passed over automatically because of their age.
I mean, we could *also* count on seniors just coming out and presenting themselves on issues that matter to them, but considering a lot of seniors don't get to get out, may not be informed of particular opportunities, etc., being queried in the privacy of their own home is probably actually a really good way of finding seniors and getting their thoughts.
I mean, we could *also* count on seniors just coming out and presenting themselves on issues that matter to them, but considering a lot of seniors don't get to get out, may not be informed of particular opportunities, etc., being queried in the privacy of their own home is probably actually a really good way of finding seniors and getting their thoughts.
139
"How the hell is an 84 year old so well versed in fisting and watersports?? Hell, I had to explain to my 25 year old brother and his straight friends what watersports was just a few weeks ago... which leads me to want to conlcude that Mr. Henry is either a closet case, extremely kinky, or both."
LOL !! Wondering the same thing. I was forty years of age before I heard of 'em and I am gay myself. LOL
LOL !! Wondering the same thing. I was forty years of age before I heard of 'em and I am gay myself. LOL
140
Just becausefour people think like this doesn't dictate what they don't like or the reason that they don't like it. There's nodoubt in my mind that there were serveral more interviews and these werethe most extreme responses, that or they were speciafically targeted to respond like this. I'm gay and sixteen and for being a kid with no life experience I can clearly see how completely one-sided this article is. It's choosing the most stereotypical people that would have anti-gay opinions and finding the most disagreeable things to post. My guess is that if you went and picked a random guy or gal off the street you'd get a completly different answers. Most liekly I'm the nuetral because they really don't care and honestly I don't balme them it has nothin to do with them so why get involved?
141
Sadly, this is pretty much the perfect example of how stupid voters are .... it wouldn't surprise me if R-71 passes just because of how stupid voters are.
143
"I do not believe that marriage—with its long history since the foundation of the world—is to be changed."
Earth ca. 4.5 X10^9 yr
Homo sapiens sapiens ca. 2.0 X 10^5 yr
Biiiiiiiiiggggggg difference.
Earth ca. 4.5 X10^9 yr
Homo sapiens sapiens ca. 2.0 X 10^5 yr
Biiiiiiiiiggggggg difference.
Also by Dominic Holden
May 21, 2013
1 comment »
This Year's Election in a Nutshell
Now We Know Everyone Who's Running for Office
1 comment »
RSS
Twitter
Comments (143) RSS