Please tell me this will be streamed live online.

Make sure you have armed security in case Seattleblues gets any ideas.

Woo-freakin'-Hoo!

Just printed out my ticket!

I will be there with bells on! (No, really, with bells!!)

@4 probably because that argument is beside the point. This is about real legislation, not fantasy.

oh for god's sake, @4. we're talking about securing full equality and LEGAL RIGHTS as citizens! it absolutely IS a government issue. i assume you are trying to differentiate between marriages and civil unions - let marriage be a religious thing and have civil unions for all - and i totally agree on that front, but come on. don't miss the larger point here.

you misspelled hutcherson. was that intentional?

Does Brown Paper Bag know more about me than I know. My security word was: PANSY

Thanks, @7, I fixed it.

Can't attend, but am hoping to be able to view and/or listen in some fashion.

Great ! When will we be having the debate for/against interracial marriage? Also, for/against 'Colored Only' drinking fountains? Or the debate for/against women voting?

YAY !! Progress is awesome !!

@6, I'm guessing @4 is alluding to the usual libertarian stance that all the rights and obligations of committed-couplehood should be laid out in private legal contracts between the parties involved, allowing reams of marriage/family laws and tax regulations to be erased.

(Since I think libertarians are simple-minded if occasionally well-meaning children, I won't try to characterize that position further.)

@12, or France, where marriage equality went hand with giving genuine legal equality to unmarrieds and their kids, such that the newest generation of couples gay and straight aren't bothering to marry much any more.

This event should be fun, even if all we learn is how good a smackdown Dan can deliver (yes please!)...And speaking of smackdowns, Dan got a backhand from Joel Connelly just now:

Savage, in his way, is just as huffy as Santorum.  He complained Thursday that a New York Times reporter didn't call him before writing about Santorum's "Google problem", while telling Stranger readers what an important guy he is.
"There are tons of folks at the NYT who have my home, work and cell numbers, email address, Twitter handle, etc.," wrote Savage.  Like many Savage posts, first-person references were numerous along with the possessive "my readers."
The feud's heightened profile could prove good in the long run for both men. Crowds are showing up to hear Santorum in New Hampshire, people are asking for autographs, and TV crews are jostling to record his words.
 Savage is likely to get more gigs on MSNBC, Olbermann's show on Al Gore-TV, and with Bill Maher.  If they run out of Santorum shots, he and Maher -- an atheist -- can always run down religion.
Santorum is unlikely to be the Republican presidential nominee, but he will command higher honorariums and a higher profile on Fox News.  Savage will fulsomely agree with Maddow and Olbermann, and prosper on the speech-making circuit as the activist who savaged Santorum.
Alas, Cable TV practices ideological apartheid.  It would be fun to see Santorum as a guest on "Countdown" -- although Olbermann doesn't welcome disagreement --and to see Savage join Sean Hannity on Fox.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/…

Yeah Laurie Jinkins! She represents my district and she is awesome.

LivestreamlivestreamlivestreamPleasepleaseplease!!!! Those of us who can't go reallllly want to see this!!

@15) I'm working on getting it live-streamed.

Wow that Ken Hutcherson guy is actually going to do this? I'm not from Seattle, and for a long time when he would show up on the Slog for whatever reason, I thought he was satire. This is going to end up being his Scopes Monkey Trial moment.

@17: great reference. Although our dear prayer warrior is hardly William Jennings Bryant, this should be great theater.

@16 if you guys can, record and YouTube on the Stranger YouTube channel? Some of are shitty with commitments in January. :(

I wanted to post this on Joel's column on the PI.com, but I refuse to use their Facebook plugin so I'll post it here.

ATTN: JOEL CONNELLY

Jesus H Christ. Jealous much Joel? Like it or not, Dan Savage is Seattle's biggest media star.

You? Not so much.

Yes, please stream online/post later! Would LOVE to watch but can't make it that night.

Ok, so what if three guys want to get married?

(cf. Santorum Q&A in NH)

Joel Connelly has latched onto the meme that Public Figure X uses the first person at an unusually high rate (and this must mean a character flaw). It's infuriatingly ridiculous, because 1) there's no evidence that use of the first person indicates self-absorption (it may be topic-appropriate); and 2) THE CLAIM ITSELF IS USUALLY FALSE. Obama (the primary target of this meme) actually uses the first person at a slightly lower rate than other recent presidents (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=…). Connelly is similarly slippery with his facts ("numerous" compared to what? ). Can't wait for this meme to die.

Ugh, so sorry can't go, will be out of town on business that day. Please, if you can, ask the following of Pastor Hutch for me:

When the Governor announced her support for legislation legalizing same-sex marraige, you claimed: "Marriage has been between a man and a woman since Adam and Eve. And you got to understand something, I believe the Bible, I live the Bible, I walk in the Bible, I will fight what the Bible says I need to fight."

Well, in the Bible, Jesus says this: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9). And this: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." (Mark 10:11). And this: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." (Luke 16:18). As you know, it's rare that three of the four gospels record the same teaching of Jesus, so this must be a very important point.

And as you also know, there are only ten commandments, one of them being: "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14).

So it seems that it is very, very, very clear that a man should never remarry after divorcing. Never. After all, that would violate of one of the Ten Commandments. That's what Jesus taught.

And yet you, who claim to believe the Bible, live the Bible, and walk in the Bible, OFFICIATED Rush Limbaugh's FOURTH wedding.

You didn't view your role as the violation of God's commandment. You thought it was like a game.

"The Buffalo Bills went to the Super Bowl and they lost a lot of times, but they never gave up. Rush Limbaugh never gave up on the institution of marriage."

You said the wedding was "absolutely fantastic.”

And you also said: "There's no such thing until there's 'death do us part.'"

Tell us now why we should believe you have any understanding of the Bible or listen to anything you say.

After all, what did Jesus say about hypocrites?

Maybe you need to be reminded: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 23:13).

Will there be popcorn for sale, or will I have to bring my own?

'Cause, this is gonna be fun.

I can say without a doubt that Savage is way more important than Connelly.

By the way, what has Pastor Hutch prepared as his response to Dan telling him to suck his dick? Or is Hutch going to avoid saying that being gay is a choice?

Live stream and Live Slog. I failed to be near a computer during the panic, so I'll have to settle for bitching to you guys in real time here.

Goddamn. I'm never away from a computer this long. Are they all gone?

I'll be there, not because I am pro-gay marriage (i'm one of those queers who can't stand anything relating to assimilation), but because seeing Dan Savage and Ken Hutcherson on a stage at the same time will be hilarious.

Is it true that if Ken Hutcherson doesn't show up that Clay Jenkinson will portray him?

@30 Actually, stinkbug, Clay Aiken will be portraying him. In a minstrel fat-suit.

@16 Thanks for your efforts, I'm sure there are a lot of us from out of state that would love to watch/listen to this!

anything that gives ken h a platform outside his hate circle makes me sad.

the only thing worse than his views is his ego, he is insufferable

this exposure will only let him raise more $ from his 'congregation' to fight against the pagans homos etc

Steve Pidgeon lived across the street from my very lesbian wife and though we live in NY now, we will actually be in town. Can anyone get us 3 tickets? She and her mom have some questions for that guy.... Lol

Just tried to get tickets, and the website says full already. *MERDE*

@33 Totally agree. I have no interest in being in the same room with Hutch under any circumstances.

I don't want to have to listen to anyone opposed to me becoming a first-class citizen in my own country. Pass.

@35 Yep, it's sold out in about 12 hours (as this posted at 6pm last night). Well done. We'll just have to catch the livestream.

When referring to everyone as excellent debaters, you were including Hutch? I remember him being pretty well dismantled the last time (the only time?) he stopped by The Stranger office, but then that was a while back.

I missed getting tickets for this because at 6:00 last night, I was at a meeting where we were working out the details of being sponsors at this year's Seattle Pride Parade, under the flag of Christains for Marriage Equality.

So, absolutely, I want to see it live streamed, slogged, you-tubed, whatever, so I can watch.

If Gay People were entitled to get married in Church, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have created Pirates to solve Global Warming.

Oh. Wait.

Never mind.

I'm going to make a point about same-sex-marriage that I feel is being overlooked. "Marriage" as a modern function isn't just about love, even though ideally we all want it to be. Its a legally binding contract between (preferably) consenting people of shared life and property including parental obligation and responsibility. Here's my point, a preacher, pasture, reverend or other ordained position can marry a couple into a legal binding contract, but if that couple chooses to get a divorce they can't go back to the preacher that married them. They have to get an attorney and go through the court of law to nullify the legally binding contract that holds them to that relationship and any property, emotional vestment and even children are negotiated in the severance of said legal contract. So as long as it is a legal contract, it doesn't matter if its man/woman, man/man/, woman/woman or anywhere in between. As long as two consenting adults understand the marital contract they are entering into, they are entitled to all of the benefits that go along with such an arrangement, and also all the consequences that go along with severing it just like any married couple would have to do. So regardless of religious beliefs about whether "god" meant marriage to be between and man and a woman (or visa versa) its been far past that for decades. "God" doesn't negotiate the terms of a divorce and obviously doesn't enforce the vows of marriage, otherwise every divorce would end with one person dying (death do us part). So while religious beliefs may not agree with that lifestyle, nobody has the right to tell anyone else they cannot enter into a marital contract any more than they can deny them a contract for a home loan (the banks do a good enough job at that). And btw as an ordained reverend I plan on marrying any same sex (or opposite sex) couple that wants to be wed in the state of WA as soon as this legislation passes. Good luck at the meeting everyone, this needs to happen.

is this debate still being held, despite the snow?