Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

And Vaughn Walker's decision re prop 8 is upheld! Suck on that haters.

oh darn...edit that: the decision itself wasn't upheld, just his right to have made it.

@2, 3 still: hoo-fucking-ray! It wasn't much in doubt, but it was such a churlish move for those loser assholes to reward his coming out after retirement (psst, Anderson Cooper, you don't have to wait!) by filing the challenge.

In his ruling, Ware cited previous cases dealing with women and minority judges in concluding that his predecessor had acted appropriately.
"The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification," he wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/…

@1 for the historical win.

So, his position is exactly the same as Obama's.

Why is Steve Scher employed?

@7 I was kind of hoping Ron Sims was coming back to take Steve's place, but it's just a faint hope.

To be fair, Gregoire has never explicitly endorsed full marriage equality either. Many have assumed that she would have signed it if it had ever made it through the legislature, but she has never said so publicly.

McKenna is a slime, but his position on marriage equality is actually directly in line with most democratic politicians, and far to the left of most republicans.

He's wrong, but I can't imagine a single republican candidate in this state endorsing full marriage equality.

What McKenna means is "I am for civil rights for gay people when I'm talking to people who are in favor of civil rights for gay people and against them when I'm talking to people who are against them".

@6 But.. but... but.. I'm sure he'll support it if we elect him again, I'm positive! His courageous record on human and civil rights tells me so.

What is this mythical marriage equality?

So far as I know, gay men aren't prohibited from marrying a woman. Nor am I. Lesbians aren't prohibited from marrying men, and nor are normal women. Marital law treats no-one differently therefore on account of their sexual choices.

Et voila, marriage equality.

If societally we grant homosexuals or lesbians the rights of marriage without the name as a courtesy, that's one thing. But we owe no one special accomodation because of choices they made.

What a gem! He seems so wholesome and sweet while calling my life an abomination.

@12

You're a fool

His position is identical to the current governor's and
Obama's. Everyone here voted for them. What's the problem?

@16

Religious choices are specifically mentioned in the Constitution among other explicit freedoms of expression. Last I checked my copy homosexuality wasn't.

The law doesn't look at why we marry. Love, companionship, parental arrangements, or any other reason a man and woman choose to enter the marital state are their business in the eyes of the law.

However, we encourage heterosexual marriage as a key social institution for raising kids and passing our social system to the next generation. Not everyone marries for this reason, of course. But contrary to what the 'homosexual as preferred citizen' movement keeps parroting, this doesn't invalidate the utility of encouraging that reason.

@17 Here's hoping your son grows up to be a man of conscience who calls you out for the bigot you are, SB. Gay parents in same-sex relationships pass on our social system just fine. Homosexuals aren't looking for preferred status, you fucking moron. Being able to marry the gender you are GENETEICALLY DISPOSED to being sexual attracted to is currently only a right given to heterosexuals. It's unfair, inhumane, and it will change. And chances are good your son will see and know that, and denounce you for your hateful views. FSM willing Slog is still around on that day, I hope you log on and tell us about it.

fnarf, as usual, hits the nail on the head. thank you, honeybun.

@18

My son IS being raised to become a man of conscience, and I hope he calls anyone out who acts in an anti-social manner.

For instance, assuming ones' sexual choices impose obligations on others...

Thank heaven he'll have no occasion to call me out on bigotry though. While, alas, my character is replete with vices, bigotry isn't one of them.

@20, if you think a man who loves women should be allowed to marry the person of his choice while a man who loves men shouldn't, then I'm afraid you're a bigot.

@18

My personal religion recognizes homosexuality as a freedom for all. Are you persecuting my way of life with your own?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

oops. I meant #20

Also, seattleblues, why on earth do you believe the government should be involved in social engineering by giving privileges to marriage contracts between certain individuals over other individuals? Are you some kind of leftist?

Svensken

'Religion' actually has a legal definition, for purposes of interpreting laws around them. Look it up in Blacks if you're curious.

One person sitting in a Capital Hill apartment feeling put upon for their personal choices doesn't make a religion.

The courts require of laws that they aren't discrimatory in intent, action or application. Our marriage laws apply the same to heterosexuals or homosexuals, men or women, people of ardent faith or even more ardent atheism, or any race. Ergo, perfectly equitable, and perfectly legal.

If you disagree, bring suit against the Secretary of State in Washington, or wherever you live for discrimination. Then accept the consequences of the decision.

Oh, forgot. Accepting the consequences of choices, behavior or actions isn't something gay people do all that well, is it?

@24

Read your Holmes or Blackstone. At it's heart, law IS the expression of the dominant mores of the culture which adopts it. Making and enforcing laws codifying the felt needs of the community (within Constitutional restrictions) is one of the few things liberals and I agree that the government has a legitimate role in.

What homosexuals want is to redefine our culture, laws, marriage and religion so that they can feel better about their choices. Fine, they have the right to try.

And rational people, the majority of us, have a right to fight that attempt. We have the right to protect our society against those who would diminish it.

@21

Hmmm.

From Websters: bigot- a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I have yet to express a hatred I don't feel for homosexuals. Pity, yes, but not hatred. Nor do I ask to regulate the sexual behavior of other adults. What happens in my neighbors bedrooms is entirely their business, and I like it that way. The sexual choices of a lesbian or gay are no more my business than my sexual choices are theirs.

For the rest, the term would seem to apply to anyone who stands on a deeply felt principle. Does that make FDR a bigot for being stubborn and dedicated to his idiotic notions about the role of government in our lives? How about MLK for stubbornly asking that he and others like him be treated as equal citizens? I'd ask about Obama, but he hasn't any principles, other than the main chance.

@26 Your responses have been replete with lies and obfuscations as per usual, SB, but I'll just take on one specific falsehood here: "What homosexuals want is to redefine our culture, laws, marriage and religion so that they can feel better about their choices. Fine, they have the right to try.

And rational people, the majority of us, have a right to fight that attempt. We have the right to protect our society against those who would diminish it."

Your "rational people"? They ain't in the majority anymore, hunnybuns. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/2…

And well I guess you can look at having a society with less bigots like yourself in it as a sort of diminishment, most of us rational people don't share your view.

@29

Again with the word bigot? You really have difficulty with English comprehension. I even gave you the definition, and you still don't understand the word? Geez.

We'll see how people vote, as opposed to how they respond to polls. Not legislators, like the left wing nutjobs in New York who like like trying to destroy marriage in that state, but the real people who will vote the bastards out next election for that attempt.

@28

Ever actually read the 1st Amendment? No? Well, that makes your comment more clear.

The Constitution does a few around religion. It prohibits the establishment of a religion as England had with the C of E. And it prohibits religions tests for office. For instance, we couldn't require that Jim McDermott be an evangelical atheist to suit the far left loonies in Seattle, or that on the more rational side of the state Yakima couldn't enforce Baptist or Methodist office holders.

And here's the bit you missed. It prohibits government interference with religious expression. It explictly protects the choice to be or not be religious.

No mention of free expression of homosexuality anywhere, unless my copy is just missing it...

We pass more than governmental inclinations down to kids. We pass general standards of behavior, morality, how a father or mother or uncle or friend expresses those roles and the whole complicated routine that is a sophisticated civilization. And we do this in large part when a father and mother, the extended family, and the network of friends and acquintances they have model these things for their children.

Yes, some tiny percentage (at most 3%) of the population may be susceptible to the weakness of homosexuality. For this tiny percent homosexual 'parents' (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) may be appropriate, if falling victim to this disorder is the monstrous goal. For everyone else they simply are not.

When gay marriage is legal Seattleblues, and it will be because thankfully your view is a shrinking minority, you will have exactly the same right as a gay person, the right to marry a man or a woman. If you choose to not marry a man, that's your choice.

@31 You're right, there's no bigotry in that last paragraph at all! My bad, I retract my previous mischaracterizations, SB.

Seattleblues, you say you're not a bigot, but you keep insulting people you don't know, based on the group they belong to. Homosexuals are, in your mind, "weak," they can't really be parents, and in loving members of their own sex, they suffer from a "disorder." Since this is a perfect illustration of "prejudice," and since you are demonstrably "obstinately devoted to your own prejudices," that fits perfectly with Webster's definition of "bigot."

Your arguments are really no different from those of white supremacists, so this is a lot like having a discussion about geology with a young-earth creationist. It's time to shrug my shoulders, agree to disagree with your prejudices, be thankful that the trends clearly show acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage within our lifetimes, wonder if you're aware you're on the wrong side of history (indeed, your posts here are like the preserved opinions of a better-spoken Archie Bunker), and say, "Adios Amoeba." I hope you're able to find happiness despite your baseless fear of people you've never met and your resentment of their happiness.

My my :) I think I touched a nerve.

Oh. I live in Snohomish you dipshit.

Tiffany reproduction Ugg Boots Australia lamps are exactly as Ugg Boots On Sale described... reproductions of original Ugg Boots Outlet Tiffany lamps. When UGG Classic Cardy I talk about Tiffany lamps, this is UGG Classic Mini what I'm referring to. This article is about identify UGG Classic Short good quality Tiffany reproduction lamps.