"go to fight and important referendum"

never mind the typos

@1... Jesus... I spend an hour writing a post, and then leave a typo up for like three minutes before finding and fixing it, and of course, that's all you can comment on?

No, just the only thing I can comment on before digesting it.

Free proofreading is just one of the many services I offer.

At least she's not Darcy Burner, AKA the terrible Democratic candidate who will hand the new WA-01 to the Republicans.

It seems like a slimy move to start your political career with. To go from "it's a church matter" to "landmark piece of civil rights legislation" in ..what... 2 and a half years, for the purposes of fundraising?

I'm not in the 1st so I won't have a say in this, but I hope there's another viable option for the nomination?

Yeah, politicians are a self-selected, self-serving group that care about their own re-election funds more than anything else, because that's what the system we've built encourages. It's hard to even blame them for it, when you can't get political office without shit-tons of money.

I'm glad you dropped a real link in there, though.

Honest question: Is it a foregone conclusion that the anti-equality people will gather enough signatures to put this to a vote? (especially with possibly 2 competing petitions circulating)

@3:

Free proofreading is just one of the many services I offer.

Well, apparently, you get what you pay for. You missed the "the the" typo later in the post.

@7, If they put the money into it to hire the signature gatherers, yes, it's a foregone conclusion. With sufficient dollars to buy signatures, you can literally get anything on the ballot. Anything.

"I was against it before I was for it."

I just listened to a Planet Money podcast w/ an interview with a former lobbyist. He said with the frequent House of Reps election cycles lobbyists would get a fair amount of calls from Reps seeking money for campaigns. So K-Street doesn't actually always have to knock on the doors of legislatures. Cash strapped campaigns go to the money just as much as special interests go to the lawmakers.

@8

because then ridiculous laws like "I-47: Let's Remove Kitten Koder's Kidneys For A Relatively Small Gain On The Black Market" will pass with little opposition, financially-speaking. is that what democracy looks like to you?

Fagwashing. I suspect we'll see a lot more of it before November.

DelBene: "My job as a representative is to support their legal rights. I think marriage implies a religious view, and churches need to make that decision themselves."

Marriage is first and foremost a contract sanctioned by the state. Whether or not people choose to marry in church is completely optional and has no bearing on the benefits granted by marriage in front of a judge. She sounds like she'd be one very confused representative and not much of a leader for progressives.

Fagwashing, that sounds fun.

@2, how about your campaigning on behalf of Darcy Burner, should people comment on that, this is another in-kind contribution from The Stranger, thanks to Goldy.

@17, Sure, that's fair game. I like Suzan, and could enthusiastically back her in the general versus John Koster, but I've never hidden my support for Darcy. So you're perfectly in the right to accuse me of being biased, because I am.

@19, Goldy with a "y" is the masculine spelling.

Goldy, I love how on top of the comments you are. If I were in the same position as you, with a public format and such, I'd so stalk the comments of my own posts.
This is not really a thoughtful comment, just a slightly tipsy comment on how much I appreciate The Stranger staff caring what the hoi polloi say.

18: Would you have called DelBene out if Burner wasn't running?

@23 He's always been prone to attacking dishonesty etc. in Dems too, since Horses Ass. Your classic Goldy would have probably been a little skeptical by the late decision and the amount of money and establishment support she brings to the table, even if he ultimately argued hard for her.

While I know that Goldy has a bias toward Darcy Burner, I completely agree that this is more than tasteless.

She is co-opting an impending referendum battle for her own private fundraising purposes. Yes, @7, it is inevitable that opponents will get enough signatures. They have already committed a minimum of $2 million to their campaign on the day the referendum was filed. With that kind of cash, they will have no problem getting the needed signatures.

We will need every dime we can get to fight this, and it pisses me off that DelBene is subtly siphoning off some of this toward her own campaign, which will do nothing whatsoever to help the coming referendum battle.

My husband and I donated to her when she ran aginst Reichert. I just sent an email to the Delbene campaign asking her to host a fundraiser for Washington United for Marriage. With her wealthy eastside contacts she could turn this from disengenious to helpful.

As my husband points out it points to a real cultural shift that this is an issue she thinks can help her win.

Goldy, I'm glad you commented on this. I received the same funding request, had the same gag reflex, and replied back the following:

Ms. DelBene:

I find this sort of funding plea to be disingenuous at best. I support Democratic candidates for office on a regular basis (which is how, I suspect, I ended up on your mailing list). To use the issue of marriage equality as a way to generate funding for your own purposes is dishonest. There is a threat now from Focus on the Family to overturn what the Washington Legislature has achieved. Electing you to this office will not stop that.

If you feel strongly about this issue, use your platform and your donor list to encourage people to donate to Washington United for Marriage. And hey, you might find that a stronger liberal turnout to support this issue is beneficial for you in your endeavors, too.

@18, Hmm. Probably, given the other qualified Democrats in the race.

I'm on the email lists for Burner, Goodman, and Ruderman. As best I can tell, none of them have sent out messages trying to co-opt the marriage equality issue for contributions to their own campaigns.

Goldy, what's your take on Ruderman? She seems a far more viable candidate for the 1st over Burner with some pretty stellar past credentials in-state.

I'm not sure the Times interpretation of that quote is definitive . I can't find any other quote to corroborate it. Suzan has long advocated for "marriage equality" while opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. She has used the terms "marriage equality" and "legal marriage" interchangeably. In my opinion, she draws the line at forcing churches to perform ceremonies in conflict with their dogma and/or rules. That is consistent with her answer in the Times interview, and may explain any ambiguity. In any case, she has clarified her position. That said, I'm just as biased as Goldy when it comes to Darcy. She's my candidate, but I'd enthusiastically support Suzan if she makes it through the primary. I like her. A lot.

@19 and @22 - why would you think Goldy would be insulted by being referred to as a woman? Is being a woman a curse worse than death, a curse with which you can smite your perceived enemies? Misogyny does not look good on anyone.

@30, an excellent question, which Goldy is not yet taking on, 2 weeks after you've asked it. He supports Burner. But you are absolutely correct: Ruderman has proven she is very electable, given her success in ousting an R in the 45th District and then getting re-elected twice. That state district is demographically similar to the 1st District. Ruderman is the strongest choice in this field: knows how to beat Republicans, actually was a legislator, and is a solid principled Democrat.