News May 6, 2010 at 4:00 am

Anti-Gay Bigots Get Smacked Down by a Conservative Supreme Court Justice and a Republican Politician During the Arguments over the R-71 Signatures Case

Conservatives McKenna and Scalia cozy up to the gay agenda. Robert Ullman


That illustration will give me nightmares.
I'd sign a petition to uphold the Public Records Act, provided that my name isn't released with it.
The R-71 case is not about gay rights at all. The Court will decide whether the state would violate the petition signers' Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and privacy by making their names public. The issues would be exactly the same if it was a pro-gay-rights petition, i.e., the message is irrelevant. And there is no irony involved. This is just how the system works.
@3- But it's still refreshing to see that Scalia is objective enough to say poo-poo to their notions, even if he agrees that gays should have no rights at all. Others in this culture war might not be.
As a former fundie, I can say that they have as much or more persecution-complex as queers do. The entire world is out to stomp on devout Xtians just for existing, doncha know? I made the transition from born-again to out fag without having to drop my paranoia in the least.
Why is it always pro-gay versus ant-gay with The Stranger?

Could it possibly be that Justice Scalia is more concerned with the US Constitution than The Stranger’s Liberal Gay Agenda?

It is impossible to second guess the Supremes. This piece of written tripe is nothing but a lazy reporter calling one in for his rice bowl. What is more pathetic are publications and bloggers who buy into this twaddle as if it is authoritative. It is not.

Oh I get it now. The faults we first think we see in others we know to be true in ourselves. It’s The Stranger that would compromise the law and the constitution in order to move forward their personal agenda….

I see your true colors shining through…..
Doe v. Reed is a disclosure case, not a gay rights case, but search this stupid article for "First Amendment" or "Citizens United" and you come up blank. Anyone with some familiarity with Scalia's jurisprudence could have easily predicted this ruling.
I know The Stranger is a free paper, but I'm sure you could find some first year law student at UW to write these kinds of articles. Jake Blumgart's ignorance of the issues here is just deep and pure.
the constitution and "the liberal gay agenda" are the same fucking thing, you moron.
Only in your jaundice eyes Adrian Ryan, you self-serving potty mouthed mooncalf.

It's not the fact that y'all have an agenda that bothers me. Everyone has an agenda. It's that every once in a while you don't know what you're talking about and you overreach and end up looking just as bad as any other special interest group.

Not everything is about you, kids.
"Which is, at least, a somewhat more respectable way to discriminate against an entire class of Americans."

Please resist the urge to sound cool and casual while writing a serious article in print. For further guidance, consult Jesse Vernon regarding the correct use of relative pronouns.
I lost my agenda.

I'm using post-it notes in the interim.

Let's see ... "change the world, peanut butter strawberry goodness, feed next door dog bacon ..."

TylTay is still incredibly bitter that R-71 passed, twisting his narrative that we should let the people have the last word.

Your appalling attempt at antagonism reveals a yearlong, festering, self-inflicted wound that you will not stop licking to let it heal.

It’s clouding your judgment to the point that you cannot even see this pathetic excuse of an article by Jake Blumcart was as poorly written piece of The Stranger tripe as ever to grace a less than fresh fish on Pike Street.

This is not just my humble opinion; none of the other 12 comments including yours state that this is a first-class article or well written. Why?; because it wasn’t.

Blumcart completely called this one in for his rice bowl. It is racked with rhetoric and reeks of irrational speculation as other comments have indicated.

Instead of contributing something of substance or improving the author’s conclusions in the article, you attacked congenial me.

Your word choice in your last post was particularly poor, indicating you might have been inebriated or high when you blogged…hopefully not due to the aforementioned wound…if it was, then Baconcat, dude; either get over R-71 or get some therapy.

Oh no, there's no wound. We won and you were wrong about everything. Click on your profile link to check your predictions from the past and then get back to me with any corrections or points of order.
Great Article Jake!
Baconcat dude or dudette, get some are angry and overly antagonistic…as well as off point.

@15 Jake: It is considered crass to blog under a different name and complement your sub par work….
@5 sorry to disappoint you but there is no such thing as a 'liberal gay agenda', just people wanting to be treated equally with the rest of the human race
Oh god, why am I besieging you with facts and your own record, TylTay? Shame on me.
My understanding is the anti Referendum 71 folks went too far in attacking the Public Disclosure Act all the way to the US Supreme Court. Apparently even after this rigmarole they can still seek to block the names by invoking an exemption to the PDA.
Could it possibly be that Justice Scalia is more concerned with the US Constitution than The Stranger’s Liberal Gay Agenda?

Only if you ignore the article's explicit point that he ruled against the 4th Amendment in "his 2003 vote against the court's decision to overturn anti-sodomy laws."

Once again facts show their liberal (pro-gay) agenda
TylTay is an ass. And not the kind that I like.
Blumcart blumcart blumcart

Referring to yourself as "congenial me" shows that you at least have a well-developed sense of humor.
To David U:
Everyone has a Constitution Right to free speech. That is not in question. You can say what you want, join others in saying it all you want, and sign documents with your statements.
The questions are, do you get to hide who you are while making your statement? How does the public know that the correct number of people signed and that all the signatories are legitimate voters? That's it. It's not about whether you can say what you want - please do, say what you want, David. If that's your real name.
@3 is right. I'm very disappointed about the reporting on this issue. The Stranger refused to acknowledge that the other side has a point. What if the roles were reversed? What if there was an initiative to allow Gay Marriage? What if a lot of people wanted to sign it, but were afraid of harassment or violence?

Too unrealistic? OK, how about this one. Imagine the state bans abortion and there is an initiative to overturn the law. Would you want to sign it? Before you say yes, remember that lots of people have died for supporting reproductive freedom. I would want to sign it, but I would sure want it to be private.

Still too hypothetical for you? OK, one more. How about the new marijuana legalization initiative. Would you sign it if you were a cop in say, Richland? How about a teacher? A small business owner in an uptight area next to a school?

There are trade-offs with this issue and The Stranger has only shown one side because it benefits them in this case.
Guess what? Cops, Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, and Politicians have been signing pro-marijuana petitions for YEARS. The braves ones, the best of us, speak out without disguise, without hiding. Only pussies, afraid of pissing off their boss, hide behind their nanny's apron while stating their true beliefs. It's called Coming Out. You should try it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.