The National Anti-Gay Machine Launches Statewide Ground Game Tonight

Comments

1
Game on, bitches. I know fags and dykes in every corner of this state. We're ready to fight from Seattle to Bellingham to Westport to Pasco. Bring it, bigots.
2
@1 - Agreed. And I personally think there are more of us - the LGBT and allies - than there are of the bigots. They're losing the long-term war, and they know it, which is why they're getting so shrill.
3
They got a blog http://www.fpiw.org/about/family-policy-…

Yes.... it appears to allow comments. Might be moderated.

I read his post on why same sex marriage is bad bad bad, but he never really said why it was bad. Only that someone who objected to it personally could lose their job or something.
4
FYI: The good guys are over at Washington United for Marriage. You can follow them on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/WashingtonUnited
6
"thriving gent-and-lady marriages"

LMAO!
7
@5: Who says you won't have the right? Presumably you just wouldn't enjoy it much.
8
Check out the twink spearheading the blog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
9
If people decided to head down, and I think that is great. Please make sure you are UBER polite they will use any negative actions against us. Don’t give them any fuel.
10
Really we need to coordinate with other states...if 5 or 6 big, pricy media states decided to go for marriage equality in the same year, that would cause that bigot money to get stretched in too many directions....the Mormons are rich, but can they fund multi million dollar campaigns in CA, OR, WA, CO, IL, MN, PA, WI, OH all in election AND fund all the other Conservative agendas including Romney?
11
Church is a required field to sign up! Wonder if they're going to reject my application to join by stating FSM Church for lack of a better option.
12
@5 Sargon Bighorn. By "marriage equality" are you referring to Michele Bachmann's definition?
13
I believe the best strategy to achieve marriage equality with fewer ongoing repercussions would be for the Legislature itself to put it on the ballot as a referendum. When polls indicate the timing is right and passage can be achieved.

This is what happened with abortion rights 40+ years ago. Voters approved the Legislature's referendum and we have been spared the worst of the anti-abortion backlash.
14
@12

Sargon Bighorn's point is that campaigning for 'Gay marriage' is a mistake, that it implies a separation between gay marriage and hetero marriage, and that gays are in fact asking for special, if analogous rights. Rather, what we should campaign for is marriage equality; that marriage is simply marriage, and 'hetero' or 'gay' aren't even a factor.

I think. I can't speak for the guy, that's just what I think his argument is (And what I hope people will interpret it as instead of reading that reply as anti gay rights.)
15
@13 The anti-gay forces would love nothing more than the legislature to save them the money and hassle of trying to get a referendum on the ballot the way the rest of us do: gathering signatures on petitions. After all, they'll be fighting against civil equality for LGBT people in at least WA, ME, MD, NH, NY, IA and MN next year. They'd love some welfare from the Washington state Legislature so they don't have to divide their hate funds as thinly.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/20…
17

@16

Ah. Well, you have it. You're free to marry any woman (if you're a man) who will have you, same as me. If you're a woman you're free to marry any consenting man. Perfect equality under the law.

What's that? You want to redefine marriage for your personal convenience and that of the self selecting 3% or so of society who choose a homosexual lifestlye.

How about.....NO.
18
@17: Seattleblues, the only people who can choose a homosexual lifestyle are bisexuals. Gay people are gay, straight people are straight. Folks like you and me are exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex, and folks like the good Mr. Savage are exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. Nobody chooses which gender they'd like to stick their members in the members of.
Let me put the issue to you in a way you might understand.
Approximately 8% of marriages are biracial, and would in the past have been deemed illegal under anti-miscegenation laws. But for the sake of the 8% of people who wanted to marry someone who was a different color than them, the definition of marriage in this country was changed. For a measly 8%! And aren't you glad that this was done? Why are you in favor of changing the definition of marriage to humor 8% of the population, but not for 5%?
(You can say that your faith requires that you oppose societal acceptance of homosexuality. It may interest you to know that the Pentateuch has harsh words also for those who marry outside of their people.)
Tell me, Seattleblues, why do you support changing the time-honored definition of marriage to include biracial marriage, but not to include same-sex marriage? Do you really only care about issues that affect you directly?
19
@18 maybe he's bitter no one is fighting to bring back a dowry system. In all seriousness if we wanted to go traditional than women have no say.
But these goofballs don't care about marriage, otherwise they'd ban divorce. The number one threat to marriage in America.
20
18
And yet Danny has had sex with icky girls.
Choosing that hetero lifestyle- what a traitor!
And all the guys in prison who have buttsex-
choosing that homo lifestyle.
And what about all the coeds who experiment with making out with another chick.
Damn. the whole world must be "bi".....

Perhaps you can next apply your impressive reasoning (or is it rationalizing...) skills to helping fundies explain how the earth was created 6000 years ago over a 144 hour span.
21
@20: Wow, look who can't tell the difference between fucking someone and being attracted to someone.
22
We can and will win this one. Stay focused.
23
@11,

Sometimes I forget I've dedicated myself in holy allegiance to the church of the FSM. Thanks for reminding me! And if they don't allow your registration based on your devotion & allegiance you should contact the ACLU.
24
This article is poorly written. There is not a campaign for "gay marriage" there is a campaign for marriage equality. The coalition of organizations called Washington United for Marriage is working for a bill to be passed in the legislature, and then defending it from the inevitable referendum.
25
@18 and 21

Loving v Virginia recognized that the definition of marriage recognized everywhere marriage itself was recognized wasn't being honored by banning those whose skin color happened to differ from being married. Loving didn't alter the idea of what marriage was, it just said to those who would deny it on spurious grounds to others that they couldn't do so. Across cultures and time marriage has had to do with inheritance and succession and political or economic alliances and, yes, love. But it's always been between a man and woman. It's been arranged or chosen by the married couple themselves. And it's always been between a man and woman. It's involved one man and one woman, and sometimes a plural of either. And yet, always between a man and woman. It's involved children or not, and always, always between a man and woman the contract was formed.

There's a reason for this. At some level people recognize the central role marriage plays in any society. Whether people have kids or not within a marriage, a heterosexual union hypotethetically allows for the possibility. Barren morally and barren of good for the practitioner, homosexuality is also barren from a child bearing point of view. We protect the vehicle by which a culture is transmitted to the next generation, the family, by protecting marriage.

Even if homosexuality were (and it isn't) inevitable biologically, so is cancer or some forms of mental illness. The simple fact of having something encoded in us as a predilection or possibility doesn't itself reccommend the thing. At any rate, if we are the helpless pawns of our innate sexual urges, we'd better stop prosecuting rape or child molestation or bestiality criminally. Without a mens rea there can be no crime, and one unable to alter their mind can't be held to account for the state of that mind. Institutionalize, yes, but we couldn't put someone in prison for a behavior they couldn't control. Further, if sexual behavior is uncontrollable, so must also all behavior. Theft, assault and all the other things we justly hold the perpetrators criminally responsible for must all be relegated to the purview of the psychologist rather than the criminal justice system, by the logic of the Gays as Superior Citizens agenda.

For me, none of this arises as a problem. I can distinguish quite comfortably between a child abuser, who willingly victimizes a minor on the one hand and a homosexual man or woman who victimize only themselves on the other. This is because I recognize the role of choice in behavior.

See, the gay special citizen status movement can't have it both ways. Either you choose your behavior and are responsible for it, or you don't and we'd better empty the prisons or turn them into assylums.
26
@25: Holy false dichotomy/equivalency, Batman! Let's see how many I can count.
ONE! Ah ah ah...
Just because sexual orientation is innate (I really don't know what you mean by "inevitable") doesn't mean that all sexual orientations must be approached equally. Heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality all tend towards and can be fulfilled by consensual and adult relationships. Asexuality avoids sexuality entirely. And then there are a bunch of minor orientations that are known as paraphiliae, in which a person is sexually attracted to objects incapable of consent, such as children, animals, or cars. None of these are chosen, but it's pretty damn easy to categorize them by the simple measure of consent. We can stop persecuting homosexuals but keep child molesters locked up with a clear conscience.
TWO! Ah ah ah...
For that matter, having a certain sexual orientation is innate. Engaging in sexual activity is a choice, as you continue to carry on about. That is why it is legal to suffer from the paraphilia known as pedophilia, but illegal to sexually pursue children. However, the Supreme Court says that we have a right to privacy that covers consensual sexual relationships. Therefore, the law can only intervene if someone is having their rights violated. Being a child predator is in no way comparable to being gay, except in your twisted imagination.
THREE! Ah ah ah...
Sexual orientation is not necessarily either chosen or genetic. You are correct that many phenotypes are not fully penetrant, but you don't understand much biology. Sexual orientation, as far as science can say, is determined by the development in utero of certain areas of the brain responsible for sexual attraction. What we want to fuck is not coded in our genes, but it is determined in the womb. You are a carpenter and I am a biology major, and I'm not quite sure why you're trying to make an argument out of this without even bringing any facts to the table.
FOUR! Ah ah ah...
The government does not regulate the morality of a marriage, nor does it require intention of procreation. If a heterosexual couple were to marry and, after consummating the union, separate and have debauched sex with other people, the government would respect their marriage as valid until they were to get a divorce. If a heterosexual couple were to marry under vows that explicitly denied procreation as a reason for the union, the government would still treat them like any other married couple. It is not the place of the government to impose morality on people any further than the basic precepts of "play nicely" and "keep your promises".
FIVE! Ah ah ah...
Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. In old China and Greece, for example, several kinds of same-sex unions were common. The fact is that in states with anti-miscegenation laws, marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race, and the definition was changed for the benefit of a tiny fraction of society.

By the way, it may interest you to know that the late Mildred Loving in 2007 called for the legalization of same-sex marriage under the same rationale for which she went to court. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is that just as a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews, a law against gay marriage is a law against gay people.
27
@25 Do you really think ignoring intelligent, logical, reasonable counter-arguments and facts automatically makes you right?
28
@3: "Might be moderated."

Ahahahah, what fundamentalist forum isn't?
29
@27: It's the only way he can keep arguing. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_d… ) He ultimately keeps repeating the same bigoted trash over and over again.