Q-Seattle Events: Tacky Tourist Clubs

An appeals court yesterday ruled unconstitutional a law passed by the Oklahoma legislature in 2004 that was designed to make a child adopted by a Seattle gay couple into a legal orphan in the state where she was born. [Opinion in pdf format here.] The legislature passed its draconian law after Greg Hampel and Ed Swaya asked the state of Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate for their adopted child that included both their names.

The state's Department of Health issued the requested birth certificate, but legislators quickly responded with the new law on "foreign adoptions" directing that Oklahoma agencies "shall not recognize an adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction."

The Denver Post had this summary of the case in November when arguments were presented to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court:

When Ed Swaya and Gregory Hampel of Seattle adopted their daughter Vivian, now 4, they counted on her eventually getting to know her birth mother in Oklahoma.

But now they're wary of even entering Oklahoma until a federal court in Denver decides the fate of an unprecedented state law that would challenge adoption rights of same-sex couples.

Oklahoma officials this week launched a legal push to uphold the Adoption Invalidation Law, passed in 2004, that would ban state officials from recognizing a same-sex adoption.

Same-sex couples anywhere with legally adopted children would lose their status as parents when inside Oklahoma -- meaning doctors, educators, police and others would treat them legally as strangers.

A federal judge in Oklahoma struck down the law in May.

Oklahoma officials have appealed, and now the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals must decide whether to affirm the lower court's decision -- setting a precedent in what is emerging as a hot legal issue nationwide. The appeals court heard arguments in the case this week.

"This is about my daughter's rights," Swaya said. "We will not go to Oklahoma now, and that is hurting my daughter. My daughter has a right to know her birth mother."

Partners Swaya, 46, and Hampel, 37, were among the adoptive parents challenging the law.

Swaya and Hampel adopted Vivian in 2002 after she was born to a 19-year-old woman named Jenny, who selected them after viewing their website.

Lambda Legal filed suit against the state of Oklahoma on behalf of Hampel and Swaya and two other couples whose adoptions were affected by the Oklahoma law.

Each family is headed by a same-sex couple with children adopted in Washington, New Jersey and California respectively. Two of the families moved to Oklahoma; the third still lives out of state but wishes to travel to Oklahoma. We argued that the law is unconstitutional. A Federal Court struck down the extreme law and prohibited state officials from enforcing it in the future.

For technical reasons, both the lower court and the appeals court declined to consider Hampel and Swaya's specific case, but both courts now stuck down the Oklahoma law based on the situation of one of the other parties in the suit. The appeals court ruled yesterday,

We hold that final adoption orders by a state court of competent jurisdiction are judgments that must be given full faith and credit under the Constitution by every other state in the nation. Because the Oklahoma statute at issue categorically rejects a class of out-of-state adoption decrees, it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Oklahoma is expected to appeal yet again. A legal-issues blog that called yesterday's ruling a "blockbuster decision" notes that the three-member appellate court issued a divided ruling.

Although the constitutional ruling is a doozy, the crux of the opinion deals with the many procedural quirks of this case. ...

The majority of Judges Ebel and O'Brien didn't buy Oklahoma's elaborate effort to destroy justiciability on the ultimate constitutional question. In a short dissent, Judge Hartz takes issue with the majority?s rush to judgment. As for the merits of the decision, read it now. With so many ways for an en banc court, or even the Supremes, to vacate this decision, you might not have much time.

A different legal-issues blog prefers to look at the merits of the three cases involved and offers this conclusion:

Also, as a practical matter, it has been observed that Oklahoma has the second highest divorce rate, after Nevada. Therefore, if there are gay people that are adopting in Oklahoma, they probably have a more stable relationship than straight married people. So, let me make it clear to all the "family" values types. Wouldn't you rather have mature, stable, gay people (that have been screened for the maturity and stability by the government) adopting and raising kids, then the large numbers of people that got married just because the girl happened to get pregnant? Quite frankly, adoption (gay is straight) is a much more involved process than copulation, and anyone that begins (much less completes) the process is pretty darn sure they want to raise a child.

Labels: gay news, law, Seattle, Washington

When last we came across a print edition of Spokane's gay paper, Stonewall News Northwest, a banner on the front page of the bi-weekly paper announced that the May 2 issue would be "Our Final Issue; Stonewall suspends publishing".

A letter from then-publisher Mike Schultz explained

...the fun has become increasingly lost on the struggles of declining advertising revenue... While Stonewall has enjoyed a circulation and readership that has tripled over the last two years, stable advertising revenue has declined. ... So what happened to Stonewall? Something very simple actually. Our advertisers didn't hear from you, our reader.

Schultz said that "a deepening relationship with my partner and building our lives together have also taken priority over the cost of personal time for the outreach that it takes to keep our community engaged with Stonewall," but offered a ray of hope that "someone motivated and committed to a level of outreach that transcends the insulated tendency of our community" would buy the paper.

It turns out, that that's exactly what happened, but not without a fair share of drama.

A July 14 story by reporter Donna Tam in Spokane's daily, The Spokesman-Review, tells a story that hints at the messy intrigue that followed. (A note first about that link: It's remarkable that you can actually read an S-R story on the web. Until recently, they hid most of their stories behind a firewall that not only required a nasty registration process -- something too many papers do, but also restricted web readership to those who subscribe to the paper's dead-tree edition. Maybe they had a deal with Weyerhauser, but things seem to have opened up a bit. Something to do with that McClatchy "RealCities" logo that now appears on the page? Maybe... But that's different media story.)

Fred Swink, described in the S-R story as a "recent Chicago transplant" took over the paper in June, but it wasn't exactly a smooth transition, according to the daily.

Since Fred Swink became Stonewall News Northwest's publisher last month, the paper has faced staffing issues and what Swink called an attack on its Web site, leaving Stonewall unable to publish a print edition.

Swink said Stonewall News' Web site was dismantled by a "disgruntled staff member" who managed the site and laid out the print edition. He said the staff member, whom he declined to name, made editorial changes to the paper during layout without consulting Swink and lifted Associated Press wire stories without attributing them or subscribing to the service.

Former arts and entertainment editor Christopher Lawrence identified Stonewall News' previous publisher, Mike Schultz, as the person who worked on layout and the Web site.

Schultz, Stonewall?s publisher for two years, confirmed that he took down the Web site. He said it was not included in the sale of the newspaper.

"They were on loan to Fred Swink as a courtesy," Schultz explained. "It would be fair to say that courtesy has expired."

Schultz said Swink's other assertions are false. Both he and Swink decided that Schultz should separate from the paper after a disagreement about the layout.

For anyone who vaguely watches what happens with these little ink-on-dead-tree outfits, that's juicy stuff. Proof: Tam is able to use the adjective "disgruntled."

It turns at that the "former arts and entertainment editor Christopher Lawrence" became "former" only after Swink took over. After working at the paper since 2004, he resigned "citing creative differences with Swink." As often happens with the staff of gay papers (in our view, unfortunately), Lawrence is also a community activist, serving as chairman of the board at OutSpokane, the nonprofit that runs Spokane?s Pride Parade and Rainbow Festival.

"I think it's tragic," Lawrence said of the tribulations of the paper in the last year. "I'd like to just get back to putting out a paper that is a community paper."

The paper is an important part of the local gay community, said Lawrence. ... "It helps us see ourselves as a very diverse community," Lawrence said of Stonewall. "We don't just go to bars. We don?t just do drag. We don?t just wear leather. We live on farms. We have families."

We didn't see many issues of the paper, but we were always impressed with it when we saw it. It almost always offered a unique local slant on gay news that went beyond republishing press releases -- something often missing from its west-of-the-mountains big brother.

One thing it didn't have, however, was much of a web presence. The best they could manage on their former website were headlines and pdf copies of the print edition's pages. Who knows, given the daily's odd web policies, maybe what Schultz identified as the "insulated tendency of our community" applies more broadly to the Spokane area.

Whatever ends up happening to the print edition under Swink, the paper at least boasts a slightly better website. He's apparently regained control of the url at stonewallnews.net, and offers a website with actual stories on the web. (Unfortunately, in keeping with that "insulated tendency," reading beyond the headline currently requires registration.)

We wish them well, but hope they break Spokane tradition and get rid of that registration requirement.

Labels: gay business, gay news, gay organization, Washington

By noon on this, the first day of registrations, 105 couples had signed up at the Dolliver Building in Olympia for the state's new domestic partnership registry. (The number of reporters and TV crews there to cover the event isn't reported, but might be just as high.)

The secretary of state's office keeps a running tally of the registrations here. Among those registered are 43rd District Senator Ed Murray and his partner Michael Shiosaki and 43rd District Representative Jamie Pedersen and his partner Eric Cochran Pedersen. Murray was prime sponsor in the Senate and Pedersen prime sponsor in the House of the bill that grants domestic partnerships.

Equal Rights Washington asks everyone who is thankful for this baby-step toward marriage equality to thank legislators who passed the new law. They also suggest writing up a personal story and sending it to your local newspaper.

Like many reports, the Seattle Times story by Andrew Garber on the signups in Olympia mentions that many there -- including Murray and Pedersen -- feel that the new law doesn't go far enough.

For many, though, the celebration will be tinged with anger that lawmakers did not grant gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Sandy Mosel, who is Canadian, noted that she and Rachel are legally married in Canada, but the certificate has no legal weight in Washington. "I'm a full person in Canada, but when I cross the border I'm less than that," she said.

Washington's new law extends only a handful of the rights -- dealing with health care and death -- granted to heterosexual married couples. For example, married couples have the right to refuse to testify against each other in court. That right isn't extended to gay and lesbian couples under the new law.

"It's like signing up for second-class-citizen rights," said Sandy Mosel.

David Hopkins, of Seattle, has similar feelings. His partner wants to register, but Hopkins is resisting.

"It's a slice of a loaf when you should really get the whole loaf," he said. "I'm willing to wait until I'm admitted to the set of citizens who have full civil rights. I don't perceive this as giving me full civil rights."

Or, as the always entertaining blog G.A.Y puts it:

So remember the date, Washington kids: "7/23/2007 -- A Day Society Will Look Back Upon and Say, 'Wait, why did early 21st century Americans have to set up different ways for gays to achieve pseudo-parity? Doesn't that seem both short-sighted and un-American?!'"

Update: The secretary of state's counter might have become a bit overtaxed, since it didn't move much after noon. At 6pm it is showing a count of 155 registrations.

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, SB5336, Washington

Does the air feel a bit different out there today? Something beyond this uncommon summer rain? Do you feel the earth shaking under "traditional marriage"? Yeah... Probably not. But today is the day when domestic partnerships for gay couples and some straight couples officially become recognized in Washington. Of course, it doesn't make a lot of difference until the Secretary of State's office opens tomorrow morning at 8 am in Olympia to begin processing the registrations.

And if you are planning to head to Olympia tomorrow along with all the TV satellite trucks, the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed warns that you should expect to wait in line:

Monday July 23 is the first day that the Office of the Secretary of State will accept registrations at the Dolliver Building. The doors will open at 8:00 am.

We are expecting long lines and long waits on the first days of registration. It is likely that we will not be able to complete every registration that we receive on the first day. Review this information to help us complete as many registrations as possible on July 23

• Consider mailing or leaving the declaration form and fee to be filed. All complete registrations will be effective on the date received. We will mail the completed registrations, certificates, and wallet cards to you. You can register in person and receive your certificates on the spot, but you may need to be patient.
• Complete the forms before you come in. We will post the forms on this website on Wednesday July 18. The forms will be in PDF format. Download the form; complete it on your computer. Then print the form.
  
  If possible sign and notarize the form before coming to the Corporations Division. We will have notaries available, but notarizing the documents will add substantial processing time to each application. The more documents we have to notarize, the fewer registrations we will be able to complete on the first day.
• Parking and transportation. There is very limited parking available at the Dolliver Building. On-street metered parking is available in the area but it is difficult to find a space. Free parking is available at the Capitol Visitor parking lot. See Map. Intercity Transit offers the free DASH shuttle from the Capitol Visitors parking and the Capitol Campus. This service runs every twelve minutes and stops one block from the Dolliver Building. DASH Shuttle information.

The registration fee for partnerships is $50. Once the two of you are officially partners, each partner will receive an original (and, we trust, frame-able) "Certificate of State Registered Domestic Partnership" along with a wallet card showing the registration of the domestic partnership. (It's not clear from the website if they give a wallet card to each partner, or just one. In either case, a replacement card is available for $10.) The secretary of state's office will also provide one file stamped copy of the registration document.

Reed's office also offers a nifty FAQ to answer a few frequently asked questions about the partnerships.

Reporters have been searching out gay and lesbian partners to profile in preparation for the big day tomorrow. A few of the stories:

[Seattle PI:] After spending this weekend relaxing in Olympia, Laura Mansfield and Marilyn Guthrie plan to walk from their bed-and-breakfast to an office of the Secretary of State on Monday morning and file a notarized form. ...

For Mansfield and Guthrie, the registration comes nearly a year after their pastor at University Congregational United Church of Christ conducted a wedding for them in the front yard of their Ballard home.

"We made our commitment then, before family and God and friends," said Mansfield, 43, director of communications for Seattle Central Community College. "This (registration) is recognizing our relationship legally."

Guthrie said she hopes gay couples would gain "not only the benefits but the responsibilities of full marriage equality."

Among those, she said, is involvement in the care of partners who are hospitalized, especially when they are in intensive care. Under current law, hospitals could limit access to spouses or other close family members.

Being relegated to the hospital hallway is "sort of the big scary thing out there that you don't want to happen," said Guthrie, 46, storm water program manager for the Port of Seattle.

---

[AP via Boston Globe] Tom Richardson and Salvador Valenzuela first marked their commitment to each other with a city domestic partnership in Seattle. When Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage, they married, and hyphenated their last names.

Now back in Washington state, the Richardson-Valenzuelas plan to register for a state domestic partnership here. ...

The only problem is that by doing so, they risk getting Salvador, a Mexican national, deported, because registering could jeopardize the temporary tourist visas he uses to enter the country.

"It's really important for our relationship to be recognized," said Tom Richardson-Valenzuela, who said they both realize that the immigration laws may catch up with them. "We are a legitimate couple. If we have to leave the United States, as much as we don't want to leave the country, we will."

The AP story in the Globe warns couples that include a foreign national or a member of the armed forces to carefully consider the risks before signing up for a domestic partnership. The registry is public information subject to disclosure on request.

[The Columbian] One couple who won't be waiting are state Sen. Ed Murray, prime sponsor of the domestic partnership bill, and his partner of 16 years, Michael Shiosaki.

"In Olympia on Monday morning, amongst all the general excitement and with great joy and pride in our hearts, Michael and I will get in line with everyone else to be registered as domestic partners by the Secretary of State," Murray, a Seattle Democrat, said in a statement.

State Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, another openly gay legislator, said he and his partner will not be taking advantage of the domestic partnership law.

"We will be holding out for the big church wedding," he said. "When that becomes legal , and we can get a legal notice in your newspaper, we'll take advantage of that."

AP writer Dave Ammons offers a brief history of the legislative road that led to the domestic partnership law.

The state's first openly gay legislator, Cal Anderson, and other lawmakers struggled for nearly 30 years to get the civil rights bill through Olympia last year. Democrats padded their majorities in both houses and came right back to pass marriage-like rights this year.

On Monday, Sen. Ed Murray, Anderson's successor in the Legislature and in leading the charge, and his 16-year partner, Michael Shiosaki, will line up at the secretary of state's counter in Olympia to register their domestic partnership.

Then Murray will drive home and get started on the next phase of the battle that has sometimes consumed him.

What's next? The gay community isn't much interested in civil unions but plans to seek full marriage equality. How long that takes, say the advocates, will depend on how quickly public opinion continues to turn their way.

"I believe we will get there in a decade, if not sooner," says Murray, the senior of five gay men in the state Legislature.

Foes say they'll fight every inch of the way and insist they still have public opinion on their side. One leading evangelical, though, believes it likely is a losing battle and that gays will someday be able to marry here.

Labels: marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Under pressure of a lawsuit like that filed against Bellevue earlier this year, the Redmond City Council this week voted unanimously to grant benefits to the domestic partners of city employees that are equivalent to those offered to spouses of married employees. The move came only after the Eastside city had recieved a letter threatening suit by Lambda Legal.

Lambda Legal had threatened the city with legal action on behalf of two veteran city police officers, Cmdr. Kristi Wilson and Lt. Betsy Lawrence. In a strongly worded letter to the city on June 19, the organization called on city leaders to heed years of requests on the part of both employees and several unions, and grant equal benefits to all employees.

"We are pleased that Redmond has joined its municipal neighbors and other mainstream employers by adopting an equal family benefits plan for its gay and lesbian employees, said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. "Other cities should follow Redmond's lead by recognizing that their dedicated lesbian and gay employees deserve equal pay for equal work."

PI columnist Susan Paynter had given Redmond's council members added incentive to finally equalize its benefits package in a strongly-worded column published the morning before the vote was taken.

It's not a new benefit; it's one the city already provides. Certainly it's not "special treatment," says Redmond Police Cmdr. Kristi Wilson, a 20-year law enforcement veteran with 14 years on the Redmond force.

And, contrary to what cities and companies always say just before they cave, it's really not about money.

"If I were to leave (the job), they likely would hire a heterosexual to replace me and have to provide the same benefit they're denying me," Wilson told me. "The financial aspect just doesn't hold water. Look at the hundreds of companies around us. Microsoft, lots of other municipalities. The state. And they're not in bankruptcy."

The health-coverage scare struck home in January when Wilson was diagnosed with breast cancer. Thank God it wasn't her partner who wouldn't have been covered, or something catastrophic striking their two kids, now nearly 6 and 3 1/2 years old.

Equal benefits actually give employers an advantage in hiring and holding on to high-quality workers, not to mention the fact that it's just plain right, Wilson says. "There are human beings attached to this issue. I'm not an unknown commodity. They know me. My partner stays home to raise our kids. We are mainstream America."

Paynter's column, coming on the heels of Lambda's letter, may have helped humanize the issue for the council.

Redmond Police Lt. Betsy Lawrence has 23 years in law enforcement. She and her partner have five kids -- all but one of whom lives with them full time -- to feed and care for. And she has a deep sadness about the way we seem to crawl toward equality. "Employees with same-sex partners deserve the same compensations as those who are able to marry their different-sex partners," she said.

Ultimately, she'd love some legislative stroke of the pen to put this patchwork approach to bed. But, for now, this seems to be the way we do it.
Lawrence lauds the Redmond Police Department as the best bunch of dedicated, fair-minded folks she's ever worked with. If it were up to them, she said, they'd do this today. Instead, it's at the door of City Hall. ...

But, for Lawrence, her partner, and their kids -- 15, 11 and 5 and 19-month-old twins -- it's a matter of basic security. When the twins were born a month premature, the fragility of both their health and the family finances really hit her. Had she not rushed her already prepared adoption paper work to the courthouse within hours of the birth, hundreds of thousands of dollars from a month of ICU costs would not have been covered.

Lawrence thinks that everyone who works -- certainly those with jobs that put them in jeopardy -- ought to be able to handle a health care crisis without facing financial ruin.

She went into law enforcement in the first place in order to make people feel safer, to ensure that those who've already been hurt won't be harmed any more. "I just want the best for everyone, really," she said.

Labels: equal rights, politics, Washington

Just weeks after Bellevue responded to a lawsuit by allowing domestic partners of city employees to get the same benefits afforded spouses of married employees, Pierce County will consider following suit.

The Tacoma News Tribune reports that the county executive, John Ladenburg, announced the plan Tuesday. It's expected to be introduced to the county council next month.

Under the plan, the county would extend medical, dental and sick leave benefits to domestic partners for both same- and opposite-sex relationships. The county has no estimate of how many domestic partners would be eligible.

"We're joining the many cities and counties around the country that already provide benefits to employee partners," Ladenburg said in a news release. "It puts us on equal footing when it comes to attracting and keeping good employees."

In addition to Bellevue, King and Snohomish Counties, and Seattle, Burien, and Spokane offer similar plans to their employees.

Labels: equal rights, marriage equality, politics, Washington

We haven't heard much from Redmond pastor Ken Hutcherson lately about his discrimination initiative, I-963. If passed, Hutcherson's initiative would wipe out a law passed by the 2005 legislature that amends the state's civil rights laws to bar discrimination in housing, employment, and insurance because of sexual orientation or transgender status.

Despite the lack of publicity, the measure is being given a good chance in an analysis by Olympian reporter Brad Shannon of initiatives that have been introduced for possible placement on the November, 2008 ballot.

Hutcherson hasn't raised the kind of money usually required to qualify any initiative for the ballot, but an alliance of churches might still help him get his measure on the ballot, according to the report.

"Unless they are raising six figures, it's really hard to get things on the ballot.... It costs usually hundreds of thousands of dollars ... to get on the ballot," said Todd Donovan, a Western Washington University professor of political science who has authored books on the initiative process.

One potential exception is I-963, which seeks to repeal gay-rights provisions adopted by lawmakers in 2006. That law already survived Eyman?s referendum signature drive last year.

But this year's effort is led by Ken Hutcherson, the former professional football player who now serves as senior pastor at Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland; Hutcherson opposes same-sex marriage and civil rights protections for gays.

Donovan said other states have seen low-cost ballot measures succeed around the issue of gay marriage or gay rights.

"A lot of those were low-cost campaigns where they got a lot of signatures through churches," he said.

It's not mentioned in the Olympian article, but Hutcherson's recent activism on behalf of anti-gay groups in the Baltic republic of Latvia (see our posts) has probably helped to cement his alliance with some Russian-speaking churches in this area. His partner on the Latvia trips was anti-gay activist Scott Lively from Oregon. Russian-speaking immigrants in Oregon organized loud protests in Salem when the Oregon legislature considered a similar anti-discrimination measure earlier this year. The bill passed in Oregon.

Labels: I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson, latvia, politics, Washington

Bellevue's city council voted unanimously last night to grant to the domestic partners of city employees the same benefits now offered to married spouses of employees.

"It's definitely an exciting night and a giant leap forward for the city of Bellevue," George Einsetler, a Bellevue 911 dispatcher, told the Seattle Times.

Lambda Legal filed suit in April against the city on behalf of Einsetler and two firefighters who had been denied benefits for their partners. On May 14, the union representing Bellevue firefighters joined the suit. In a letter to Bellevue's mayor and council, International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 1604 wrote, "We strongly urge the City Council to adopt a broad based domestic partner benefits program."

Bellevue firefighter Larry deGroen turned to Lambda Legal after being denied one day bereavement leave when his partner's father died.

deGroen told KING5, "I don't think I deserve to be treated like a second-class citizen, and I don't want my gay and lesbian co-workers to feel the pain that I felt in being told that my family doesn't matter... I think this lawsuit has really shown that... the time is right for the City of Bellevue to move forward."

deGroen is a firefighter and paramedic in Bellevue and has been an employee of the city for more than 12 years. He and life partner Tom Dixon have been together for more than 16 years.

Einsetler is the city's lead 911 dispatcher, and has been a city employee for 13 years. He and his life partner, Cameron Murdock, have been in a committed relationship for more than three years.

The other firefighter named in the suit, Faun Patzer, has a 17-year career as a Bellevue firefighter, and was the first female firefighter to successfully complete the city's prestigious paramedic training program. She has been with life partner Carrie Wurzburg for over four years.

IAFF had pressed for the domestic partner benefits in recent contract negotiations but had been rebuffed by the city.

After Lambda filed its suit in April, the city council directed staff to finally develop a "strategy" for equalizing city benefits. The council voted last night to adopt the staff recommendations, but benefits will not be implemented until the city's human resources department renegotiates contracts with unions, including IAFF.

In a May 14 letter to the city council, Lambda's lawyers for the case, Jennifer Pizer and Tara Borelli, wrote,

Lambda Legal and Local 1604 are delighted that the City Council is considering the adoption of a domestic partner benefits plan. As the plaintiffs in the deGroen lawsuit know well, a denial of family-support benefits inflicts real harms on dedicated, loyal City employees. Lambda Legal and Local 1604 therefore urge the City Council immediately to end the City's restriction of those benefits to only married employees.

King County and Seattle have both granted benefits to domestic partners for several years, as has the state, Snohomish County and other cities. The Seattle Times report notes that lack of benefits in Bellevue might have cost the city some employees.

Several gay employees have left the city in recent years because of the lack of benefits, according to the employees involved in the suit.

[Bellevue Mayor Grant] Degginger said he hopes the new benefits will help the city retain and recruit workers. "It's a challenging job market out there," he said.

Labels: equal rights, marriage equality, politics, Washington

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has released results of what they call "the largest-ever national survey of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans."

The Task Force study of the results is titled Living in the Margins and shows high reported rates of discrimination.

Nearly every respondent (98 percent) had experienced at least one form of discrimination and/or harassment in their lives.

• Eighty-five percent had experienced discrimination and/or harassment based on their race or ethnicity
• Seventy-five percent reported that they had experienced discrimination and/or harassment based on their sexual orientation
• Nearly seven in ten (69 percent) transgender respondents said they had experienced discrimination because they were transgender.
• Nearly all respondents (89 percent) agreed that homophobia and/or transphobia is a problem within the broader API community.
• Seventy-eight percent agreed that API LGBT people experience racism within the predominantly white LGBT community.

A Task Force press release on the study quotes Mala Nagarajan of Trikone-Northwest in Seattle. "The lives of Asians and Pacific Islanders are complex," Nagarajan said, "and they are made invisible by popular perceptions of our community as 'the model minority.' This report helps shatter those myths and raises important issues from which we as a community can and need to mobilize."

Despite being the "largest ever" such survey, it still draws data from what strikes us as a relatively small sample. We're far from statistics experts, and the Task Force report doesn't list the survey's margin of error, but the data is drawn from "more than 860 respondents" in 38 states and the District of Columbia. That looks to our inexpert eye like a small group, which means that some of the results might be skewed.

The Task Force collaborated with API LGBT community organizations to administer the survey. The results show a high level of political involvement among respondents.

67 percent reported that they planned to vote in the 2006 mid-term election (approximately 20 percent reported that they were ineligible to vote).

Of those eligible to vote, a strong majority (67 percent) of respondents were affiliated with the Democratic Party, with 20 percent not affiliated with any political party. Two percent were Republican.

Strong majorities of respondents also reported that they participate in other political activities, including signing petitions (81 percent), participating in marches or rallies (65 percent) and contacting their elected officials (55 percent).

This is a point where the sample size and the methods of finding respondents -- through community organizations that are more likely to attract politically active members -- might lead to imbalanced results.

But, despite those possible problems, it's a fascinating report that goes a long way toward fulfilling the study's goal:

to collect basic demographic data on API LGBT Americans and quantitatively analyze the effect of multiple minority identities on their experiences of discrimination and harassment, as well as their political and civic participation.

The study authors conclude in the report's Executive Summary:

This study reveals insights into the lived experiences of API LGBT people. Through understanding the intersections of racism, homophobia/transphobia, sexism and classism and how these affect API LGBT people, key issues emerge as recurring opportunities for proactive organizing. The issues addressed in this report cut to the heart of community members' experiences as a racial or ethnic minority in predominantly white LGBT settings, and likewise, as LGBT participants in predominantly heterosexual API environments.

An anecdotal example of the complexity demonstrated by the survey data is provided on the website of the Seattle group Tricone-Northwest. Tricone describes itself as "a vibrant, diverse group of individuals creating a social, supportive, educational, and political space for differently oriented South Asians and their family, friends and community."

The group's goal is to "to create a safe and inclusive world where differently oriented South Asians can freely express themselves and reach their unlimited potential by building community, increasing social and political visibility, and promoting racial and sexual equality."

These kinds of statements are usually hammered out by consensus in group meetings. Notice that even the usual alphabet soup of "LGBTQA" (choose at least three) doesn't seem to work. Instead, the group shows the complex nature of its intended membership by using the term "differently oriented."

They describe the term:

By differently oriented we mean those individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer and those who choose not to accept a label or prefer other identities such as hijra, kothi, meti, men who have sex with men (MSM) or women who have sex with women (WSW).

The survey breaks out results for the 30 respondents who live in Washington. That's a tiny sample size, but the results are generally in line with the overall survey results with a few notable exceptions. Washington respondents were more politically active, with 80% saying they planned to vote in the upcoming elections, compared with 67% of those in the overall survey.

Within the small and politically active sample, Washington respondents also identified slightly different political priorities, showing more interest in two issues -- marriage equality and discrimination -- recently addressed (partly) by the state legislature.

• Marriage equality ---------------- WA: 40%, Overall: 35%
• Immigration ----------------------- WA: 37%, Overall: 32%
• Media representations ---------- WA: 33%, Overall: 37%
• Job discrimination/ harassment - WA: 33%, Overall: 29%
• Hate violence/harassment -------- WA: 33%, Overall: 39%

In the overall results, one-third of respondents reported being in a committed relationship, and 10 percent had a domestic partner. Washington respondents were more likely to be partnered, with more than double the number having a "domestic partner" even before the state-wide DP registry takes effect. In Washington 20% of respondents reported being in a committed relationship, 23% had a domestic partner, 7% were dating and 37% were single. The remaining chose various other categories.

The Washington sample shows how the issue of labels plays out in the numbers (where respondents could choose multiple labels). Results from the larger survey are included in square brackets:

50% self-identified as gay [47%], 27% as lesbian [19%], and 3% bisexual [9%], while 20% identified as "queer" [20%]. The remaining chose various other categories.

Local LGBT groups should note one startling stat in the Washington breakout. The Washington respondents were more likely to report "that API LGBT people experience racism/ethnic insensitivity within the predominantly white LGBT community." 87% of the Washington respondents agreed with that statement compared with 78% in the overall survey. Again, the small sample size might skew things, but the number indicates that there is probably much work to do in these parts. The number is high here and elsewhere despite long-time presence from API groups in local Pride marches and in some community organizations.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, gay organization, Seattle, Washington

Since we don't often get comments here [sob], we can't be sure what readers want, but we figured we'd reintroduce something that we tried before, but with a more exclusive Northwest focus. These are items we wrangle from the web and post first to our Squidoo Gay Seattle page.

It seemed like it might be worth it as a test to occasionally post them here as well.

Ex-state senator, gay rights foe dies
Wouldn't talk to his lesbian daughter, but loved hunters, bridges, and -- of course -- the bible.
Mystery novel features Capitol Hill gay couple in a paranormal Seattle
What you might get into if you yearn for an old mansion.
Reality show star charged in Seattle assault
Keeps his tabloid career alive for another five minutes with anti-gay and racial slurs.
Oregon teens 'Free to Be' at alternative LGBT prom
Coming out on the town in the Portland suburbs.
Opponents aim to put Oregon gay rights to vote
It will -- at least -- probably delay the January implementation of domestic partnerships.
Outsider aces local candidates in election of Episcopal bishop
New bishop at St. Mark's will have to deal with local fallout of the anti-gay Anglican schism.

Labels: news bites, oregon, Washington

Congrats to David Brewster's Crosscut for doing a second story on gay issues in a month. That's more than The Weekly would have done in a year while he was running the thing.

The latest story is by Austin Jenkins, "the Olympia-based political reporter for Northwest News Network, a consortium of public radio stations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. He covers Northwest politics and public policy as well as the Washington Legislature."

It's a good story about the influence of philanthropist/activist Tim Gill on Washington politics. But we're just slightly less than thrilled to see it because we saw the same story somewhere else several months ago. Where? Right here and here. That was February.

Unlike our story, Jenkins doesn't show the actual influence of the Gill group on Washington races, but he does add some quotations by folks who didn't comment for our story.

Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, an openly gay Seattle Democrat, says the gay lobby has traditionally focused on national races. But after the 2004 election, that started changing.

"In the last presidential election, the gay community had its clock cleaned," admits Murray, referring to the eleven states ? including Oregon ? that passed ballot measures banning gay marriage.

Murray and Guerriero say after that election, the gay community swung into action. Murray explains it this way: "What's going on is there's sort of a fairly low-grade, under-the-radar conversation that's going on in the gay community about investing at the state level."

...and...

The fact the Gill effort in Washington and Oregon is only now [???, ahem...] coming to light ? six months after the election ? concerns one defeated Republican. Former House member Toby Nixon says it's a sign the current campaign finance disclosure system may be inadequate.

"If there was some way in more real time during the campaign to find out that this kind of considered effort was going on, maybe a more effective response could be mounted," says Nixon.

But another defeated Republican, Luke Esser, a former state senator and now Washington State Republican Party Chair, refuses to bash the out-of-state money that came into his district. "I think it's incumbent upon Republicans and those who are not in favor of the gay marriage agenda to be ready to raise the money they need to win elections in the future," Esser says.

It's a story worth repeating and Jenkins tells it well, but really now... there's a thing out here sometimes called "the internets" and something on those "tubes" called, by some "the Google" or "the Technorati". Amazing things. You should try them out. We also understand that Brewster and his crowd of ex-Weekly-ites at Crosscut like to see themselves as arbiters of what is good and proper in journalism and much more, but really, now. Wouldn't you consider this kind of thing unseemly if it were done without attribution by someone else?

Labels: legislature, politics, tim gill, Washington

One of three announced candidates for the open post of Snohomish County Sheriff is bringing in Redmond's anti-gay activist preacher Ken Hutcherson for what is billed as a campaign fundraiser and "prayer rally."

Tom Greene a current bureau chief in the county's police force is running against Democratic state Rep. John Lovick and sheriff's Lt. Robert Beidler for the post which must be vacated by incumbent Sheriff Rick Bart who can't run again because of term limits.

Although they couldn't quite figure out where or what Snohomish County is, UK Gay News found it odd that someone running for sheriff would bring in as a campaign speaker the preacher who is reportedly being investigated for misrepresenting himself during his recent foriegn trips to Latvia.

With the White House denying that Hutcherson had been given any special status for his trip to Latvia, and Hutcherson claiming that he has "video proof" (though he is refusing to produce this), it is a certain case of "oh no we didn't" and "oh yes they did".

So, in true British pantomime tradition, perhaps there should also be the "behind you" message sent out to the Bureau Chief of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office who is now campaigning for election as sheriff.

It's not clear from Greene's campaign site why he's invited Hutcherson to become involved in a Snohomish race for sheriff. But then, there are often code words used for these kinds of things. Maybe that makes it notoble that Greene touts as one of his "core values", "Live by the Boy Scout Law and Oath".

Labels: ken hutcherson, politics, Washington

Bellevue's Sheriff Dave (aka Congressman Dave Reichert (R-8)) joined 24 other Republicans and 212 Democrats (including all of Washington's D Congressmen) to pass a federal hate crimes bill this week that would expand an existing statute to include acts of violence explicitly motivated by the victim's perceived gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The bill, dubbed "Matthew Shepard Act", would increase possible penalties, provide federal assistance to local jurisdictions under special conditions, and expand the conditions under which federal authorities could prosecute a bias-motivated crime under any of the categories which also include race, religion, sex, national origin.

In a statement released upon passage of the bill, Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott (D-7) said,

Every day somewhere in this country, an innocent person is victimized or traumatized because of their race, religion or sexual preference; that is wrong and intolerable and I will not stand by while civil rights are beaten back or shouted down. This legislation would provide local law enforcement with resources they need and don?t have to vigorously pursue and prevent hate crimes.

Reichert and the other Republicans who voted for the bill have been targeted by right-wing lobby groups and bloggers because of the vote. They're urging supporters to flood Riechert and the other Republicans with letters and emails. (Those who live in Reichert's district and support his vote should contact him as well.)

Even before the final vote in the House, the White House issued a statement saying that Bush would be advised to veto the hate crimes measure if it reaches his desk. The statement was issued after a heavy lobbying push by opponents of the measure.

A major right-wing talking point used by those who opposed the measure is that the bill -- which explicitly covers only overt acts of violence -- somehow creates a class of "thought crimes." An example:

Make no mistake about it, the Democrat[ic] House is trying to make thought a crime. ...

This is an insidious bit of legislation meant to create special laws to legitimize homosexuality and make a crime anyone attempting to advocate for a Christian worldview. This bill makes activism against the homosexual agenda, among other things, subject to prosecution as a "hate crime" because the definition of "hate crime" is being expanded to include sexual orientation.

Gay blogger Chris Crain -- who was himself once a victim of a gay-bashing assault -- patiently explained in several posts prior to the vote that the law would not criminalize thought.

Not only does the Shepard specifically limit itself to "violent offenses," the bill contains a special provision to prevent evidence of the person's views or affiliations being used as evidence of biased intent:

Evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.

Unlike McDermott, Reichert didn't release a statement explaining his vote, so we can only guess what might be behind it. The vote might simply reflect the changing politics of his district.

Reichert represents a once rock-solid Republican district that has started to tilt away from the party as the GOP has been pulled father to the right by so-called "social conservatives." He faced a tough reelection challenge in 2006 from Democrat Darcy Berner who is expected to run against him again in 2008.

But we suspect there's more. According to Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the gay lobbyist group that has made the bill a primary element of its agenda, the measure was backed by "the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 26 state attorneys general and the National District Attorneys Association." Reichert's long career as a beat cop in the King County Sheriff's Department, detective, and sheriff might actually have helped him understand this law better than some of his GOP colleagues and have helped him to see beyond the misleading talking points of the right-wing opponents of the law.

In a slide show on its legislative lobbying agenda for the 109th Congress, the sheriff's association stated

The National Sheriffs? Association remains concerned about the continuing rise in crimes committed against individuals because of bigotry. While the crime itself is perpetrated against one individual or group, the effect is felt throughout the entire community and Nation. If hate crimes persist, members of the targeted group will continue to live in fear and no American should have to live in fear of violent attack because of their ethnicity, religion or belief.

The law that was passed by the House last week would, in specified instances, give local cops more federal help in the often expensive investigation of hate crimes. The cops and prosecutors who investigate the crimes understand that long-established category of "hate crime" does not criminalize thought. It does, however, give them more resources to lock up those who commit overt acts of violence. As an ex-cop, Reichert is in a better position than many in Congress to understand that evidence of motive is one of the factors considered by investigators in any kind of assualt case and becomes a factor in making a distinction between, say, manslaughter and capital murder. Courts have shown themselves capable of making fine distinctions when considering evidence of bias as a complicating factor in an assault case.

One of Reichert's constituents, Redmond's anti-gay activist preacher Ken Hutcherson, joined with several other black pastors to lobby against the bill in the weeks before its passage. Because of a series of inexplicable snafus along the way -- like a lost cell phone that prevented a scheduled appearance on Rush Limbaugh's show -- Hutcherson didn't get much of the publicity he prays for during his lobbying visit to the capitol, but the other pastors who tried to paint the bill as an anti-pastor measure did get some fawning coverage.

The handful of black pastors joined with white evengelical leader Lou Sheldon and others to brand the measure as an "anti-free speech and anti-religion bill." The ever-wacky Sheldon also dubbed it the "Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen Bill."

If passed and signed into law, it will be used to establish a legal framework to investigate, persecute and prosecute pastors, businessmen and others whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible. So-called ?hate speech? could become the target of zealous pro-homosexual federal prosecutors ? which could include a pastor?s sermon against homosexual behaviors!

The blogger Republic of T, explained at length and with chilling examples why the preachers were wrong.

Nothing in there about preaching. But, essentially, those black ministers and their white evangelical counterparts want to leave bias-crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a post-1964 state. ... There's nothing in either piece of legislation that would cause a minister to be dragged from the pulpit for anti-gay preaching, and anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or engaged in deliberate deceit.

The ministers and the rest who oppose the bill, and will likely cheer the president?s veto don?t have anything more to fear than the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, or any other hate group. They're still free to spout their hatred; as free as they ever were. There are consequences, as W.A.R and Tom Metzger found out in 1988, if their words include incitement to violence against a particular group, and those words lead to actions by those who received them. But, that's about it.

Residents of Reichert's district should thank him for seeing beyond the obfuscations offered for the past month by opponents of this bill.

Labels: ken hutcherson, politics, Washington

Crosscut, David Brewster's new online newspaper for the Northwest run largely by Seattle Weekly alumni, has -- and this is remarkable -- used the word "gay" in a headline today, "Young gay-rights opponents get vocal in Oregon". That's news in itself, but more interesting is the story under the headline.

Those young gay-rights opponents were mostly from Russian-language (Russophone) churches in Oregon. They provide a link that helps explain the reasons for the recent visits to Riga, Latvia by Redmond's Ken Hutcherson and Oregon haulocaust revisionist Scott Lively. [See our previous posts on the visit and Latvia.]

The Oregonian reported on the Russophone anti-gay rally:

Twice in the past two weeks, hundreds of Russian-speaking Christians from Portland and Salem flocked to the state Capitol to protest efforts to bolster gay rights. They arrived by the busload, jamming hearing rooms, singing hymns under the rotunda and providing testimony.

The protests were organized in only a few days by Russian-speakers calling themselves The Voice of Oregon Youth. They pulled it off by using laptops, e-mail and phone calls to the tight network of Russian and Ukrainian churches in the area. Legislators estimated about 1,000 people showed up for a public hearing April 9, with 662 signing up to testify.

"We just went for it, no stopping," said Anna Zaichenko, 19, of Salem, a rally organizer. "I saw how passionate a lot of people became."

In February, months before the protests in Salem, Lively celebrated the activism of the Russophone youth, according to Willamette Week:

In front of about 30 people gathered recently in a Salem church sanctuary to celebrate the reunion of the Oregon Citizens Alliance, Scott Lively found cause for optimism about the rebirth of the anti-gay group.

Lively's reason to believe the OCA could return from dormancy to its glory days of the early 1990s, when it claimed to have more than 3,400 members and earned national notice for getting anti-gay measures on the state ballot, are immigrants from the former Soviet Union who haven't yet been indoctrinated by American culture.

[WWeek traced OCA history in 1998.]

While they were in Latvia, Lively and Hutcherson were guests of Alexei Ledyaev, a Russophone preacher in Riga. Lively showed a video at the February OCA-revival meeting that featured Ledyaev, according to Willamette Week:

The 45-minute video, which repeatedly refers to homosexuals as "terrorists," shows how conservative Latvians successfully stopped gays from marching [*] in their capital, Riga. (European news reports show anti-gay demonstrators throwing feces on the gays.)

The video also features Alexei Ledyaev -- a Kazakhstan-born Baptist pastor and leader of the New Generation Church, whose satellite broadcasts claim an audience of more than 200 million people -- leading large crowds in chants of "In the name of Jesus Christ, we curse the name of homosexuality!"

As OCA members cheered the video and chanted, "Amen," I tried not to laugh out loud at the one-sided images, which portrayed gay men as leather-clad deviants, whipping and licking one another in public.

Lively told the OCA-revival crowd in February, "There is a fairly sizable Russian population in Portland who is not poisoned to the OCA. That's a good place to start. They weren't poisoned by the sexual revolution."

Hutcherson had already started to draw Russophone churches in the Seattle area into his orbit, appealing for their help with his pro-discrimination Initiative 963.

Crosscut links to an LA Times story that focuses on the large and largely anti-gay Russophone emigre population in Sacramento.

Many credit the Slavic Christian immigrant community with filling a void left by the traditional American church and providing reinforcements in the ongoing culture wars over what should define family, acceptable sexual relationships and marriage.

"Russian Christians bring a fresh faith and uncorrupted family values to this country. They are a shining model for the rest of us in terms of faith, family, work ethic, patriotism and community," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

Gay civil rights activists, meanwhile, accuse the demonstrators of hateful and aggressive tactics that they say sometimes lean dangerously toward violence.

There are plenty of preachers and other discrimination activists out there who hope to tie their own agendas to the energy of the young emigres. Hutcherson and Lively helped endear themselves by making sure that discrimination is a two-way street through their visits to Latvia.

* [A Latvian court recently ruled that it was illegal for the Riga city council to deny a parade permit in 2006 to the organizers of a gay pride event.]

Labels: I-963, ken hutcherson, latvia, oregon, politics, religion, Washington

Just days after Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher, Bellevue's city council decided Monday night to launch a study about offering health, bereavement and related benefits to the partners of all of its employees.

As the council considered the long-simmering issue, the Seattle Times, which -- despite its name -- strives to be the hometown newspaper for Bellevue and other east side cities, had an editorial in the can urging the city to adopt the benefits. Under the title "Hostile Bellevue," the editorial appeared Tuesday morning.

Bellevue ought not cast a shadow on what has been a sunny renaissance by appearing to be hostile to gay city employees.

The city has been slow to extend family employment benefits to gay couples, leading to a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit by three employees alleging discrimination. If the lawsuit is successful, it could force public employers statewide to extend the same employment benefits to partners of gay workers as provided to heterosexual families.

This page sides with the employees. The right to care and provide for loved ones is the cornerstone of family, whether they are gay or heterosexual. Extending health care, bereavement and family leave to domestic partners pays off with a work force high in morale and productivity and low in turnover.

Bellevue is surrounded by good role models that offer domestic-partner benefits to employees. They include Washington state, King County and Seattle.

Thousands of private employers also recognize the positive impact on morale and retention by offering domestic-partner benefits.

Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger personally supports domestic-partner benefits but is reluctant to commit without knowing the costs. Another Bellevue official points to the city's no-new-benefits policy.

But less-wealthy cities such as Burien, Sammamish, Tumwater and Pullman offer domestic-partner benefits. True, they are smaller, but as a matter of principle they stand tall.

Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger said in a news release, "The time has come to take action and give clear direction." The city hasn't exactly joined with those forward-thinking burgs like Burien, but their council has at least shown that it can do "Seattle process" as well as its neighbors to the west: When faced with a problem, launch a study.

At a meeting Monday night, City Council members directed staff to prepare information on how the city might offer domestic partnership benefits for employees across all bargaining units, as well as nonunion workers. The staff was also asked to analyze how much it would cost. [#]

Lambda Legal's lawyers also showed their understanding of the process with an understated response:

"It is welcome news that the city has had a change of heart and is going to work up a domestic partner benefits proposal," said Lambda Legal attorney Jenny Pizer. "We're eager to look at the details."

Labels: Gay, LGBTQ, politics, Seattle, Washington

Governor Christine Gregoire signed the domestic partnership bill into law yesterday in what's being described as an "emotional" ceremony in the capitol building's ornate Reception Room.

She was surrounded by legislators who guided the bill through the two chambers and by several of those who had told their stories in legislative hearings. The best report we've seen on the ceremony is from reporter Kathie Durban of The Columbian in Vancouver.

In a ceremony infused with joy and tears, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a landmark bill Saturday that creates a state domestic partnership registry for gay and lesbian couples, allowing them to make health care and end-of-life decisions for each other.

"This is a very proud moment for me as governor," Gregoire told a standing-room audience in the Legislative Building?s ornate reception room . She urged those who felt tearful to "let 'er rip!"

Personal stories of troubles faced by lesbian/gay couples had been important elements in each of the public hearings held during the session. Several senators and representatives repeated those stories in explaining their votes in favor of the bill. The governor did the same.

The governor repeated the story of Charlene Strong, a Seattle woman whose partner of 10 years, Kathryn Fleming, died last December after she was trapped by rising water in the couple?s flooded basement studio.

Strong was barred from Fleming's hospital room, and the funeral director who handled arrangements after Fleming's death refused to acknowledge the couple's relationship, although "he was more than willing to accept (Strong's) credit card," the governor said.

Strong was present for the ceremony. Many lawmakers said it was her moving testimony before legislative committees this year that gave the bill the margin it needed to pass both chambers.

Gregoire also told the story of a lesbian couple from Spokane. When their 6-year-old son was injured in a bicycle accident, the doctor refused to treat him because the parent who brought him in for emergency care was not his biological mother, she said.

"It's difficult enough in these tragic circumstances," she said. "Why then do we compound the tragedy?" she asked.

"Love manifests itself not in some cookie-cutter way," the governor said. "Love comes in many forms. Our families are different, but every one of our families deserves our undivided support."

Some reporters turned to anti-gay activists like Bothell preacher Joe Fuiten to issue, but his warnings that this bill could lead to full marriage equality had already been explicitly stated by supporters of the bill.

Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who led the campaign for last year?s gay rights bill, called the domestic partnership bill "a significant step in undoing the hurt this Legislature inflicted" on gay and lesbian couples in 1998 when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The state Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Sponsors of the domestic partnership bill made it clear when they introduced the bill in January that their goal is full marriage equality for same-sex couples and that they viewed domestic partnerships as an incremental step on that path.

Dawn Prentice of Olympia and her partner of four years, Kriscinda Hansen, said the two will "more than likely" decide to register as domestic partners in order to obtain the health care and end-of-life benefits the law provides.

"I'd like to see equal rights," Prentice said. "I'd like to be able to marry the person I love."

From an AP report:

"Today is a beginning, not an end," said Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who sponsored the measure and who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the state Legislature. "It offers the hope that one day, all lesbian and gay families will be treated truly equal under the law."

And here's a surprise item from The Columbian's report about the effectiveness of Fuiten's and other anti-equality lobbying efforts:

Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, one of five openly gay state legislators who worked for passage of the domestic partnership measure, said he had not received a single negative e-mail about the bill.

Here are details of the law from the AP story:

To be registered, couples must share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else, and be at least 18.

In a provision similar to California law, unmarried, heterosexual senior couples are also eligible for domestic partnerships if one partner is at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry. ...

The new law will take effect July 22. Couples can either register with the Secretary of State in Olympia, or download the form from the Web site and send it in to register and receive a certificate of the partnership.

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Governor Christine Gregoire will sign the domestic partnership bill in a formal ceremony Saturday, April 21 at 9:30 am in the State Reception Room.

According to an announcement from Equal Rights Washington (ERW), the ceremony will be held in the State Reception Room on the third floor of the Capitol Building in Olympia.

The LGBT lobbying group calls Saturday "a historic day for the LGBT community in Washington State. This bill will provide emergency protections for many LGBT couples and families until the full rights and responsiblities of marriage are secured. "

ERW's statement urges all supporters of the legislation to thank their legislators for passing the historic measure. "The emails and letters you sent and the conversations you had with your legislators, friends, and families made a huge difference," according to the statement, which also recognizes that the new law goes only part of the way toward establishing full equality of rights for all citizens of the state. "We look forward to continuing our partnership with you," ERW states, "as we move toward marriage equality."

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Updating yesterday's post about a lawsuit filed Tuesday against Bellevue by two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher seeking equal rights for their partners.

A story about the suit in Wednesday's Seattle Times has more about the possible effect of the suit, if it is successful:

A lawsuit filed Tuesday against the city of Bellevue could force all public employers in Washington -- from the largest university to the tiniest town -- to extend the same employment benefits to partners of gay workers as they now provide to families of heterosexuals. ...

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, accuses Bellevue of violating the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, which bans the granting of special privileges to one group that is not provided equally to everyone.

If that claim is upheld, all public employers across the state would be required to offer domestic-partner benefits, said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal.

And more about Bellevue's reluctance to offer equal benefits:

Gay-rights advocates have been trying for years to get domestic-partner benefits for Bellevue city employees. The firefighters union, as recently as last fall, included them in bargaining with the city, but failed to get the issue passed.

Bellevue officials say it's a question of cost.

In recent years, the city has adopted a "no new benefits" position to address rapidly escalating health-insurance costs, said Tim Waters, a city spokesman.

Studies show that extending domestic-partner benefits would add between 1 percent and 2 percent to an employer's overall compensation costs. ...

Borelli of Lambda Legal said a lack of domestic-partner benefits is a pocketbook issue as well ? about equal work for equal pay.

Family benefits constitute about 30 percent of an employee's total compensation, she pointed out. "By denying them these benefits, the city is paying them 30 percent less than heterosexual colleagues."

[Tee hee:] And Metblogs.seattle, which has always preferred to get their corporate media diet from less local and less cantakerous sources, finds a copy-editing mistake on the website version of the story to be a sign that Fairview Fanny "goes neanderthal." (We suspect that metblogs might be hearing from the Geico cavemen about that characterization.)

GAYSUIT? Did they seriously just call this a GAYSUIT?

Wait, is this a comment on the lawsuit or the snappy apparel of the fireman? I can't decide. (By the way, can we take a moment to reflect on the hotness of gay firefighter Larry deGroen? Okay, carry on.) I can't wait for more catchy wordslinging from this copy editor. Next up: immigrants from Mexico sue Bellevue in what the Times calls the "Mexisuit," and Taco Bell instantly picks up the term for a new menu item.

And of course, the "slug" used for the story is, indeed, "gaysuit" which appears even in the url "/localnews/2003670943_gaysuit18.html" But. Yes. The firefighter is hot.

The slug had been removed from the picture by 10:30 am.

Labels: LGBTQ, marriage equality, Washington

Two Bellevue firefighters and the city's lead 911 dispatcher have sued the City of Bellevue to recieve the same kind of benefits granted to married heterosexual partners of Bellevue city employees.

The suit was filed today in King County Superior Court by Lambda Legal on behalf of their clients, Larry deGroen, Faun Patzer, and George Einsetler.

The gay-advocacy law group explains in summary of the case:

Larry deGroen and Faun Patzer put their lives on the line for the people of Bellevue, Washington, each day they go to work as firefighters and paramedics. George Einsetler assists members of the public when they're at their most vulnerable as the city's lead 911 dispatcher. Each has served the city for more than 10 years with distinction. Each is in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner. Each is being denied valuable family benefits that are offered to their heterosexual married co-workers. Lambda Legal has filed a suit against the city of Bellevue seeking equal family benefits for its gay and lesbian

Unlike Seattle and several other Washington cities ad dozens of companies, Bellevue does not offer benefits to domestic partners of its employees. According to a Lambda Legal press release, the Eastside city resisted efforts by its firefighters' union to include domestic-partner benefits in its contract.

As firefighters, deGroen and Patzer are members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1604 (IAFF). In its recent contract negotiations with the City of Bellevue, IAFF pressed the city to include domestic partnership benefits for the members of its union, but the city refused.

Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney based in the organization?s Western Regional Office.Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney based in the organization?s Western Regional Office, is lead attorney for the case. Her co-counsel for the case is Derek A. Newman of Newman & Newman in Seattle.

"Because our clients aren't allowed to marry according to Washington law, they are categorically denied the family benefits extended to married city employees for their different-sex partners," Borelli said. "It is simply unfair and against the law to deny these public servants basic protections like healthcare for their partner or bereavement leave when their partner?s parent dies."

Labels: LGBTQ, marriage equality, Washington

The Soulforce Equality Ride bus made an unscheduled lunchtime stop yesterday in Kennewick on its way from Seattle to Nampa, Idaho where activists will visit Northwest Nazarene University.

The bus and its twenty-plus rider visited Vista Youth Center, a drop-in center for "LGBTQA" youth that opened in February. On its web site, the center describes its mission this way:

We work with GLBTIQQA individuals 14-21 years old and offer unique combinations of direct service, social service, referrals. Our programs are youth-driven and based on the model of peer support and leadership.

[And we, too, have only only the vaguest notions of what the various collections of initials might mean.]

According to the Herald story, one of the riders on the Soulforce bus is from Kennewick and is inspired by the new facility in the Tri-Cities.

The bus stopped at the Vista center to show support for the facility, which opened six weeks ago to provide a haven for gay youths. Seventy young people from around the Tri-Cities have attended the center, including a crowd of 39 on April 5, said Mark Lee, executive director and founder.

Although the Soulforce Equality Ride primarily is stopping at colleges, it stopped by the Vista center for lunch Thursday in part because bus passenger Allison Eby, 29, is from Kennewick.

"Coming back with this bus and seeing this new center opening is really exciting," Eby said. "I really wanted to help bring some attention to this new center, because I think it's really important the youth have some place to go."

When she came out eight years ago, she wasn't aware of a gay and lesbian community in Kennewick, she said.

"So I think I felt pretty isolated," she said.

Because it was a daytime stop and the center doesn't usually open until after school at 3pm, most of the center's usual visitors were not there to greet the bus.

Instead, the travelers were greeted by about 20 people, including Vista Youth Center supporters, members of River of Life Metropolitan Community Church in Kennewick and a women's group from Shalom United Church of Christ in Richland.

The center depends on volunteers and contributions from local groups and churches.

The driving force behind the center is Mark Lee, 44, of Kennewick, a recent Portland transplant who spent years in the computer industry and is on the board of the nonprofit Equity Foundation.

The Oregon-based group promotes education, social justice and the welfare of LGBTQ people, according to its Web site.

When Lee moved here, he was looking for a way to become involved in the community, he said. In talking with Tri-City social service providers, he discovered there were few resources for gay youths.

He quickly found people willing to help with a youth center.

Along with volunteers..., the Benton-Franklin Health District and Planned Parenthood of Central Washington have agreed to send staff members during center drop-in times. They'll be available to provide education and give referrals.

Labels: activism, gay news, LGBTQ, Washington

The Washington House easily passed the domestic partnership bill yesterday on a lopsided vote of 63-35 .

Three Republicans voted for the bill -- Shirley Hankins (R-8, Richland), Fred Jarrett (R-41, Mercer Island), and Maureen Walsh (R-16, College Place). Two Democrats voted against the bill, Mark Miloscia (D-30, Federal Way) and Tami Green (D-28, Lakewood).

TVW includes highlights of the abbreviated debate at the start of the April 10 Legislative Week in Review audio program. The full floor debate is also available in audio format only. Debate on the domestic partnership bill (SSB 5336) begins at time-stap 02:

The PI explains the debate process this way:

Under the current balance of power in the House and a three-minute rule that abbreviated debate, Democrats merely waited out a squall of opposition and voted down a flurry of Republican amendments.

Because some of the amendments required a voice vote, the debate is scattered, but here are a few highlights with timestamp:

[02:14:02] Rep. Mark Miloscia, one of the Democrats who voted against the bill said he was in favor of the underlying legislation except for the provision that would allow senior couples to enter into demestic partnerships.

"Our society in its history has treated terribly those individuals with a different sexual orientation those individuals who are gay and lesbian -- couples, even," Miliscia said in the floor debate on an amendment that would have stripped the senior-partnership provisions.

"Many of the institutions and parts of our society have treated these individuals in a horrible manner, and I feel a little guilty about that. And we have to deal with our brothers and sisters who are lesbian in a different way.... And we have to provide rights and protections to them and their families that they need."

But Miloscia argues that the provision that allows senior couples to enter domestic partnerships provides "an alternative to marriage for heterosexual men and women." He argues that this "marriage light" provision would "send the wrong example to our next generation."

Miloscia's amendment would have stripped that provision. It failed, as did all the others, but indicates that the vote was even closer than it appears from the 63-35 vote count alone.

It was a generally reasonable debate. Several of the proposed amendments would have significantly changed the intent or effect of the bill.

The floor discussion on the bill itself begins at 02:28:10 with remarks by Joe McDermott (D-34, West Seattle), one of the original House sponsors of the bill. McDermott admits that "I wish we were here to talk about marriage. Unfortunately in my opinion, we are not. Married couples recieve over 400 rights, responsibilites, and privileges under state law when they make this commitment. But same-sex couples are prohibited from doing this under our marriage laws, as are elderly couples who may suffer significant financial penalty. Therefore, today we advance a domestic partnership registry that provides some immediate protection for these couples."
McDermott went for a flourish with his conclusion: "From the Palouse to Alki Point, across the sate, this bill provides real relief. If you've ever fallen in love, I call on you to support this bill."

During the debate on the bill and the amendments, several opponents charged that supporters were trying to use the bill as "a precursor to same-sex marriage" [02:31:45].

Rep. Lynn Kessler (R-4) appears to assume her most ominous voice as she says, "This is a step, just as the civil right bill last year was a step. And that's the way I see it.... The next step is to solidify the domestic partner relationship in a marriage contract." [02:47:05]

The argument was less effective than it might have been because the supporters of the partnership registry admitted that full marriage equality is, indeed, their ultimate goal.

At a press conference after the vote, Rep. Jamie Pedersen said, "It's not marriage. There are more than 400 state law rights or obligations that don't come with domestic partnership and we are going to have our hands full trying to get those rights and protections, too. "

"Fifteen down, 408 to go," Pedersen added, referring to the oft-repeated list of rights, responsibilities, and privileges bestowed by the state's marriage laws.

At 02:33:00 into the floor debate, Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49, Vancouver), another of the prime sponsors, tells of burying his "gay peers" during the 80s and of the fear that, in death, they would not be able to share the life they'd built with a partner.

At 02:39:50 Rep. Dennis Flannigan (D-27, Tacoma) argues that the bill is a part of a broader long-term stuggle for civil rights. "Those of us who are not gay or lesbian have just as much a stake in this as anyone else." He said he was standing in the chamber only to grant to everyone the same rights. "I'm not here to do anything other than give you what I have, which is the right to visit my sister, to visit my partner, to visit my wife, to visit whomever needs to see me at any moment in any time, to have the right to go out and purchase a tombstone, to do the things that are so simple, so alive to the very purpose of living that I cannot be silent when it seems to me that the souls of the business we're in are at stake. Please support."

At 02:41:00 Rep. Jim McCune (R-2, Graham) gives a summary of the revisionist-historical argument that the chamber should be there to do God's work, which -- he argues -- the bill harms.

02:42:15 "Today, we did something that will help families who care for and love one another," said Rep. Lynn Kessler (D-24, Hoquiam). She recounts her days in the probate department of a Seattle law firm where she saw the effect that a reliable inheritance could have as survivors face the death of a loved one.

02:45:00 Rep. Schindler argues that she is only trying to protect "an institution that has been around for thousands of years." She argues that contract law should be enough for lesbian and gay couples. (She doesn't explain why contract law shouldn't also be adequate for heterosexual couples.)

At 02:49:00 Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43, Seattle), another of the bill's prime sponsors, points out that the Supreme Court decision upholding the state's "Defense of Marriage Act" also pointed out the gross unfairness of current law.

Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-5, Roslyn) makes a speech at 02:51:30 that might well be used as a platform plank for the satirical Iniative 557. "It's about children," Anderson inisists. He dismisses the stories that had been recounted in hearings about problems that couples face under current law because, he insists, that "the institution of marriage is about children.... Government's interest is not about how we love each other, but about how we care for our children."

You can hear the final vote, taken without reponse, at 02:58:30.

[5:00 An update adds a press-coference quotation from Jamie Pedersen. Sources linked.]

Labels: I, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Back when Gregory Gadow and his colleagues who collectively call themselves Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) introduced Initiative 957 -- a measure that they themselves styled as "absurd" -- we found several memes among the web responses. One was to insist that proponents of marriage-as-a-special-right (we'll call that MAASR) had never argued that procreation is a condition of that purported special right.

That's surprising, of course, because the argument made it into the controlling plurality decision of the Washington Supreme Court when it upheld the state's "Defense of Marriage Act."

WA-DOMA uses satire in the serious world of politics and we love 'em for that. But the reaction to their initiative has consistently demonstrated the difficulty of carrying off satire in an unfamiliar setting.

We saw another example of that last week when one of the arguments that some MAASR proponents say they don't make, cropped up in two surprisingly different places.

The bloggers at G.A.Y. found the argument presented last week where it might be expected, in Baptist Press, a Southern Baptist publication.

Marriage, with its uniquely positive environment for procreation and the rearing of children, is worth maintaining for the perpetuation of society and the future of the nation. That?s why it is not simply a religious institution, but is protected in our body of law.

G.A.Y. has much more about that article.

The church lady wasn't trying to be funny, but a similar procreation argument was also presented in a more surprising venue, Salon.com, where humorist Garrison Keillor pined for the good old days when mommies were mommies and daddies were daddies.

Nature is about continuation of the species -- in other words, children. Nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people.

Keillor's piece caused something of a blog scrum with Dan Savage leading the way over on SLOG. Keillor has now semi-apologized for the piece -- or at least for the reaction to it. He insists it was meant as satire. Maybe. That's Keillor's shtick, after all. And Savage overreacted. That's his shtick.

But Keillor's column reads much like the church lady's Baptist Press column. Keillor is a professional satirist. But his column wasn't funny. On this issue, we'll take the amateur satire of Gadow.

But there is a chance that Keillor was aiming for satire again in his "apology." Really, now. Surely, he must be aiming for humor with his "I'm sorry for the way you reacted to what I said..." response. Either it's meant to be humorous, or we have a better explanation for why he's been married three times.

Labels: Dan Savage, I-957, initiative, wa-doma, Washington

PI columnist Robert Jamieson thinks that we should ignore the the anti-gay political contributions of Sonics co-owners Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward in debate about funding their proposed sports palace. He says we should ignore it because, well... at least one of their good friends is gay.

The gay friend of Sonics managing partner Clay Bennett and co-owner McClendon is Jim Roth, an openly gay councilman for the county that includes Oklahoma City. Roth wrote a letter to the Seattle Times that was printed in today's sports section. Roth says that he's recieved support from both Bennett and McClendon

When I was elected in 2002, I became Oklahoma's first openly gay elected official. From the beginning, Clay and Aubrey initiated a genuine kindness and friendship toward my partner and me. They have publicly and consistently supported me, even pushing back when right-wing attacks have occurred. Their support is unconditional and has helped improve the overall climate for expanding tolerance here at home.

That support is significant because Roth faced considerable obstacles in winning his seat. The Washington Blade outlined it in a January profile of gay and lesbian office-holders in the heartland:

Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth could be considered one of the most patient gay candidates on the campaign trail, having endured an anti-gay onslaught from his Republican opponent, David Mehlhaff, a Southern Baptist deacon.

"He came to see me in my office and challenged my faith," says Roth. "He got down on his knees, grabbed my leg and prayed for God to save my wretched soul my last year in office."

Mehlhaff also disparaged Roth publicly.

"He said I wasn't right with God and that I had a warped world-view based on my 'chosen lifestyle,'" he says.

Roth began his political career as chief deputy commissioner and staff attorney for his district in 1995. He was named deputy county clerk in 1999, and after being elected commissioner in 2002, he was reelected last November. His platform has included fiscal accountability, improved roadways and infrastructure, better care for senior citizens, home ownership, and job growth and economic development.

"We had a great track record based on what we?ve done for seniors and bringing humanity to the treatment of prisoners in the county jail," says Roth. "I received significant support from the Chamber of Commerce and business leaders, who also wanted to reject bigotry."

Roth says Mehlhaff tried to get black ministers to oppose him, but they ended up supporting him instead.

The PI's Jamieson talked to Roth about his letter to the Times.

As we spoke, Roth recalled a formal public ceremony soon after he took office where Bennett left the head table to visit Roth and his partner. "He said, 'I'm so thankful you are both here,' " Roth said. "He made us feel so welcome."

When Roth first ran for commissioner, his backing largely came from Democrats and gay rights advocates. When he ran for re-election last year Bennett & Co. stepped up to back Roth, prompting an Oklahoma paper's headline: "Unlikely Support."

Bennett donated more than $2,000 to Roth's campaign, according to news accounts, though Roth tells me the figure actually topped $4,000. McClendon gave $5,000. Bennett praised Roth for his "progressive ideas."

It's good to know that Bennett and McClendon, at least, aren't bigots. In his letter, Roth says that the contributions by McClendon and Ward to Bauer "were probably more about economic interests, ballot measures swaying Senate control and impact on the energy sector." Jamieson figures that's enough to end the discussion.

Some Seattleites, somewhat histrionically, liken the money contributions to financial support of the KKK.

Well, a lot of Americans do support traditional marriage, and they don't lynch gays, burn down their houses or march in parades.

But Jamieson surely knows that most of the politicians who benefited from the KKK in its heyday didn't lynch blacks or burn down their houses. They didn't do it themselves. But those politicians benefitted from the racism -- much of it deeply felt and "faith-based," by the way -- of that group. Those politicians used the racism of the KKK for thier own agendas, but, in doing so, contributed to the culture that prompted the lynchings and burnings.

Gary Bauer, whose group was financed by two of the Sonics/Storm co-owners, probably wouldn't even use the word "faggot" as Ann Coulter did the other day, to rousing applause from conservative activists. He wouldn't use the word that was also used last month by a kid in Detroit as he beat an old man to death. But the hate speech of Coulter and Bauer and of those who support them finanacially builds the culture of hate that powered the kid's arm to swung that pipe.

News that the Sonics ownership group might not believe actually in the cause of non-equality for gay folk doesn't make their contributions to an anti-gay campaign seem less like old-time support for the KKK. The news that they were using the contributions for non-related business purposes makes it sound more like that.

Labels: politics, Seattle, sports, Washington

Take a moment this weekend to write a note of thanks to your senator if he or she voted yesterday for passage of the domestic partnership bill, SB 5336. And while you're at it, it would be a great idea to write another note to your representatives urging them to vote for the bill when it comes to the House. (Find your legislators with this web form.)

Here's the roll call of votes on the bill. Each name links to the senator's email form at the legislature's website. You'll have to add in your physical address so the system can check to see if you live in the senator's district. (It will still let you send a message even if you don't live in the district.)

Note: In general, the form of a direct email address is last.first@leg.wa.gov. Here is the list of all direct email addresses. Some senators may not monitor for messages at the address, however, so the web form is a safer bet.

These are the senators who voted for passage:

• Berkey, Jean (D-38)
• Brandland, Dale (R-42)
• Brown, Lisa (D-3)
• Eide, Tracey (D-30)
• Fairley, Darlene (D-32)
• Franklin, Rosa (D-29)
• Fraser, Karen (D-22)
• Haugen, Mary Margaret (D-10)
• Hobbs, Steve (D-44)
• Jacobsen, Ken (D-46)
• Kastama, Jim (D-25)
• Kauffman, Claudia (D-47)
• Keiser, Karen (D-33)
• Kilmer, Derek (D-26)
• Kline, Adam (D-37)
• Kohl-Welles, Jeanne (D-36)
• Marr, Chris (D-6)
• McAuliffe, Rosemary (D-1)
• Murray, Ed (D-43)
• Oemig, Eric (D-45)
• Poulsen, Erik (D-34)
• Prentice, Margarita (D-11)
• Pridemore, Craig (D-49)
• Regala, Debbie (D-27)
• Rockefeller, Phil (D-23)
• Spanel, Harriet (D-40)
• Tom, Rodney (D-48)
• Weinstein, Brian (D-41)

Voting Nay: Senators Benton, Carrell, Clements, Delvin, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hewitt, Holmquist, Honeyford, McCaslin, Morton, Parlette, Rasmussen, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli

Excused: Senators Pflug and Shin

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

The domestic partnership bill introduced this year by the legislature's gay caucus passed through over its major hurdle today when it was passed by the Senate on a 28 to 19 vote.

The bill is expected to easily pass in the House where half of the members have signed on as co-sponsors. Gov. Christine Gregoire has indicated that she will sign it when the measure reaches her desk.

Among other things, the bill would allow domestic partners to:

• Inherit when there is no will.
• Give consent for health care if a partner isn't competent.
• Make funeral arrangements.
• Authorize organ and tissue donation.

The bill requires a central state registry of domestic partnerships that would be kept at the Secretary of State's Office. Couples would have to file an affidavit of domestic partnership with the office and pay a filing fee.

A semi-snarky PI blog post includes extensive excerpts from the floor debate that is described by the Times as "long, emotional and at times heated."

Here's part of Ed Murray's speech:

Imagine for a moment if your spouse was in the hospital, if your spouse was in the hospital and dying, and you could not go into your spouses room, you couldn't hold their hand. Well for lesbian and gay families in this state, that has happened and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

Imagine if you were trying to make the funeral arrangements for your spouse and you couldn't and you couldn't have the right in the future to be buried next to them. That has happened to lesbian and gay families in this state and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

Imagine that you lose the home that you lovingly created over years, that has happened to gay and lesbian families in this state and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

There are some who argue against this bill because they believe it will lead to marriage equality for lesbians and gays in this state. Legally it will not and we know that. I wish it would and morally I believe it will, but legally it will not. I hope though, that through this debate you will realize when you hear the stories of our families, that there is really only one answer for all families and that is marriage.

But this bill will not allow me and my partner Michael who we have shared our lives together for 15 years, it will not allow us to marry. We still won't be able to marry. We met when Michael was in his 20's and I was in my 30's and I am in my 50's and still I can't marry.

There are some who argue against this bill because they believe that rights can be purchased, these rights can be purchased at a reasonable price or because it goes against the beliefs of a particular religion. Such a position defies the promise of the American Revolution, the promise of equality that brought so many people to our shores....

My grandparents left a country were rights were purchased, and where a state religion dictated beliefs that were not their own. Our grandparents did not move to this country for their grandchildren to have to purchase rights. We are citizens of a republic not subjects of a monarchy."

An audio webcast of the Senate floor debate is now available from TVW. after the usual housekeeping matters, the debate begins at 47:10 with an amendment by the Republican caucus that tried to circumvent passage of the bill by sending it to a public vote. The amendment was defeated on a vote of 18-29-2.

The actual debate starts with Murray's statement at 55:50. Sen. Val Stevens's (R-39) frightfully bigoted speech in opposition starts at 1:03:00. Hold onto something that can't be tossed before listening to her.

In his more reasoned statement at 1:08:00, Sen. James Hargrove (D-24) introduced the arguments that have been pressed by right-wing discrimination activists like Gary Randall and Joe Fuiten.

At 1:17:17 Sen. Rosa Franklin (D-29) begins a touching statement in support of the bill. She says that she stands on the shoulders of those who came before her, who fought for rights so that she, a grandchild of slaves, could sit in a legislature and vote on such a law. "The civil rights movement... brought people together of all religions... in order to fight for the rights that were denied to Africans Americans. ... Standing on the shoulders of my ancestors -- and I did not get here alone, I got here with the help of everyone ... -- so to my good friend, your partner, and all who contribute, gay lesbian, I support you."

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

While Sonics/Storm spokespersons try to convince us that the political activities of the team's new co-owners shouldn't be of concern to us "out here," anecdotal evidence from blogs and elsewhere indicates that it does matter.

We were sent a copy of an email sent by a gay man who lives on Beacon Hill to his senator, Margarita Prentice (D-11), who is prime sponsor of a "multi-purpose arena bill," Senate Bill 5986. The complicated measure could provide tax money for the construction of a new arena for the Sonics and Storm. It's a modification of a state law that currently provides funding for some arts programs, for retiring Kingdome debt, and for paying off debt incurred in building Qwest Field and Safeco Field.

Prentice's district is centered in Renton where the new $500 million basketball arena would be built, but stretches north to encompass much of Seattle's Beacon Hill neighborhood.

The idea of getting a sports stadium in Renton on industrial land now owned by Boeing is popular among Renton officials, including Prentice. But her Beacon Hill constituent asks her to reconsider, given the anti-gay political activism of two of the team's owners.

Their values are so contrary to the values of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. At this point, I'm just fine with the prospect of the Sonics (and the Storm, if necessary) leaving town, rather than have my tax dollars subsidize wealthy business people who are homophobic bigots. I also believe it would do all professional sports some good if Seattle (as Los Angeles has done with football.) says no to the economic blackmail game of the franchise owners.

He urges Prentice to "disavow your sponsorship of the 'multi-purpose' arena bill. It tarnishes your fine reputation as a civic leader to be associated with these people."

The letter writer establishes his fan credentials before asking Prentice to disavow the arena deal.

I am a constituent of yours -- I live on west Beacon Hill -- and I?ve been a Sonics fan since their first season. I attended my first game in December of 1966, and I celebrated all night on Capitol Hill the night the Sonics won their only championship in 1979, with Gus, DJ, Downtown, et al. When I lived one block from the old Coliseum in the late 70s and early 80s, I attended several games a year and continued to do so into the mid-90s.

That was back when the tickets were affordable to anyone with a little bit of disposable income. That's not the case anymore. The business model for professional basketball is broken. A Sonics game now is only for people far more affluent than me, who go to watch multi-millionaires who are employed by mega-millionaires and billionaires. It simply doesn?t make sense to me that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars would be used to subsidize the profit-making ventures of such a non-essential enterprise.

Despite his frustrations with the team and with the NBA, the letter writer says he was willing to stay on the sidelines of the political battle over a new arena until he heard about McClendon's and Ward's political activism.

Up until now, I haven't been motivated to contact you to express myself on this issue. But now, I am motivated.

After learning about the huge political donations by Sonics co-owners Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward to the religious bigot Gary Bauer's campaign against equality for sexual minorities, I must speak out. Why on earth would I, as an honorable gay man who was taught by my Christian, Republican parents to be honest and to work for justice for all people, ever want to support the efforts of people like Mr. McClendon and Mr. Ward? Why would you?

After an Olympia hearing on the stadiums bill Monday, Sonics/Storm managing partner Clay Bennett again instisted that the political donations of his co-owners shouldn't matter #.

Bennett brushed off the connection Monday night and said after the hearing that the reports were "unrelated to our process."

But this one letter and dozens of blog posts indicate, it does matter "out here" when owners of a team asking for $300 million in state tax money use their own money to support a bigot.

Labels: politics, Seattle, sports, Washington

Tacoma News Tribune reports that the NBA has clarified its position on anti-gay activities: It's OK for owners to pay other people to say hateful things about gay folk, but not OK for former players to say those things.

The NBA on Tuesday said it did not consider the antigay activities of two of the Seattle SuperSonics' owners the same as the antigay comments uttered by Tim Hardaway before the All-Star break.

On Monday, it was revealed that Sonics owners Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward combined to contribute $1.1 million to the Christian conservative group Americans United to Preserve Marriage, a group led by Gary Bauer that opposes gay marriage.

Because that information came to light so closely after Hardaway said in a radio interview that he hates gay people -- comments that got him banned from the All-Star Game by NBA commissioner David Stern -- the issues were deemed analogous by many.

The NBA does not see it that way.

"The Hardaway situation was one that was filled with hateful language and bigotry," league spokesman Tim Frank said. "That is not the same as making political contributions."

A Sonics spokesperson again insisted that the contributions of the co-owners have no affect on the teams.

Karen Bryant, the team's chief operating officer who has said publicly that she markets the Storm to the gay community, said she does not take issue with McClendon's and Ward's views.

"Political contributions made by two of our owners have no bearing on how we operate and manage the Storm," Bryant said. "I'm proud to say that our Storm fan base represents the diversity of our community.

"Over the past seven seasons, we've demonstrated an environment of inclusiveness to all of our fans and that will continue to be our approach in building an audience for and marketing the Storm."

Bennett, the team's chairman who recruited McClendon and Ward into his investment group, the Professional Basketball Club, issued a release that did not specifically address his partners' political contributions or the effect they might have on the team?s pursuit of a new arena.

If the state does not grant the Sonics the $300 million, Bennett has said he will move the franchise, likely to Oklahoma City.

Labels: politics, Seattle, sports, Washington

Members of the Teamsters Union employed by the Port of Seattle will be eligible for the same health and welfare, dental and vision benefits received by other spouses of port employees, regardless of gender, since 1994. About 250 port-employed union members are expected to affected by the deal which was approved unanimously by the Port Commission Tuesday night.

The port agreed to cover the additional cost -- about $16.40 per employee per month -- of the extended benefits.

Josh Friedas, advocacy directory for Equal Rights Washington, told the PI that the port deal with the Teamsters "can now be a model for other negotiations and agreements."

A Teamsters Union official estimated that the deal could eventually affect about 20,000 union members in the state if it can be replicated in other contract negotiations. Those teamsters are covered under 500 individual contracts, however, so that's a lot of negotiating.

While most of those contacted by the PI lauded the deal, the prime sponsor of a domestic partnership bill in the House, wasn't all that impressed according to the PI story:

What the union is doing isn't groundbreaking, said state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle. Other unions, such as Service Employees International Union and the Inland Boatmen's Union, have already secured some, if not all, of their members domestic-partner benefits.

Local chapters of SEIU provide the domestic partners of their janitor members with health-care benefits through a union trust, but non-janitor members of their union are subject to their individual employers standards.

"I'm happy the Teamsters are on board, but I think that there are a lot of other unions that have been there for a long time," Pedersen said.

What's this? Teamsters didn't support his campaign or something?

Labels: marriage equality, politics, Washington

The PI today picked up on Josh Feit's reporting about Sonics/Storm owners support for an anti-marriage equality group run by right wing homophobe Gary Bauer. Without crediting Feit, the PI reporter repeated most of his enterprise reporting, but managed to add a response from a Sonics spokesman who insisted that the co-owners Oklahoma politics shouldn't matter "out here."

Sonics spokesman Jim Kneeland said the co-owners' contributions and political activity do not contradict the NBA's recent condemnation of bigotry.

"First of all, (Clay Bennett), who is the managing partner in this effort, is not involved in anyway," Kneeland said. "That's a key distinction.

"People are entitled to have their views, they are not views that I happen to agree with ... but they are not trying to impose them on anyone out here," Kneeland said.

"I won't argue that some of the owners may have more conservative political views than the norm out here; one of the things that they agreed to when they bought the team is that they would leave their politics at the state line," Kneeland said. "They have done that. They were not involved in the election cycle out here last year and have no intention of doing so."

Ward is the chief executive officer of an oil and natural gas production company. McClendon is chief executive of a natural gas production company. Both companies have headquarters in Oklahoma City. The ownership team of which they are a part also owns the WNBA's Seattle Storm.

Feit points out that Bauer's group, which lobbied for a federal discrimination amendment, was trying to impose their views "out here."

Um, that's the whole point of Americans United to Preserve Marriage. They're trying to impose their view that gays can't get married onto gay couples that want to get married.

Labels: politics, Seattle, sports, Washington

Supporters of equal rights for all citizens of the state will gather tomorrow in Olympia for the third annual Equality Day rally and lobbying workshops. The rally and citizen lobbying event is sponsored by the Religious Coalition of Equality and Equal Rights Washington.

Advocacy workshops begin at 9 am at various locations on the capitol campus. The rally starts at 11:45 on the capitol steps. It features performances by Seattle Men's and Women's Choruses and several speakers. Visits with legislators have been scheduled for the afternoon. The event closes with a showing of the Seattle-produced movie, Inlaws and Outlaws at 6:30 pm.

Pre-registration was requested, but if you can make it to the Capitol City at the last moment, expect them to try to make room for you. A charter bus (or two) will leave from St. Mark's Cathedral [get directions] at 7 am. (Again, pre-registration was requested, but there might be room.) A donation of $20 is requested for the trip on comfortable Grayline buses.

ERW has an example form of a support email to send to your legislators if you can't make it to Olympia.

If you're looking for additional inspiration, consider this speech given in Wyoming's legislature by a Republican House member, Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, who cast the deciding vote to kill a bill that would have declared out-of-state marriages or civil-unions between gay couples invalid in Wyoming. [via Pam's House Blend]

Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members of the Committee.

I am not going to speak of specifics regarding this bill, but rather talk about history and philosophy in regards to this issue.

It is an exciting time to be in the legislature while this issue is being debated. I believe this is the Civil Rights struggle of my generation.

Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.

In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn't until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60's. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I've read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.

Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.

My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people.

I echo Representative Childers concerns, that testifying against this bill may cost me my seat. I have two of my precinct committee persons behind me today who are in favor of this bill, as I stand here opposed, and I understand that I may very well lose my election. It cost 4 moderate Republican Senators in Kansas their election last year for standing up on this same issue. But I tell myself that there are some issues that are greater than me, and I believe this is one of them. And if standing up for equal rights costs me my seat so be it. I will let history be my judge, and I can go back to my constituents and say I stood up for basic rights. I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people.

I can debate the specifics of this bill back and forth as everyone in this room can, but I won't because the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote. You all know in your hearts where this issue is going, that it will come to pass in the next 30 years. For that, I ask you to vote no today on the bill. Thank you.

And, thank you, Rep. Zwonitzer.

Labels: Gay events, gay organization, legislature, politics, Washington

Because it can't enforce state rules on employee benefits covered by a federal statute, the state's Human Rights Commission yesterday declined the rule on the substance of the first case brought before it under the state's newly modified civil rights law.

The measure protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Washingtonians from discrimination in matters of housing, lending, employment, and insurance. But most insurance programs offered by private employers are covered under the 1974 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which supersedes state law.

Senator Ed Murray, who guided the civil rights law through most of its 30-year journey in the legislature, told reporters that he wasn't surprised by the ruling. "We can't regulate the federal insurance market," he said. "That would be true of any health care issue we're talking about right now."

"We never addressed the issue of health benefits in the bill -- just as the underlying anti-discrimination law does not address the issue of health benefits," said state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a prime sponsor of last year's bill.

"Frankly, that's a separate discussion, and one that we're having this legislative session, as we seek to extend domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples," he said.

"There's no story here. Our progress has not been curtailed. Our protections remain in place."

The case was brought by a woman named Sandi Scott-Moore who worked for Honeywell International in Redmond. Scott-Moore claimed discrimination because Honeywell offered insurance benefits to the unmarried domestic partners of lesbian and gay employees, but did not offer similar benefits for her unmarried male partner.

The Right Commission, which is charged with investigating civil right complaints, did not rule on the substance of Scott-Moore's complaint because its investigators determined that federal law applies in the situation.

"Effectively, because of the federal law, in this type of case, our hands are tied," said commission director Mark Brenman.

Brenman said the hole in the state law's coverage illustrates the need for federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"It's not pointing up a problem with the state law," Brenman said. "It's pointing up a problem with the lack of protection on the federal level."

A federal employment non-discrimination act (ENDA) has been introduced for many years in Congress, but has rarely gone beyond preliminary hearings. The law is expected to do better under the Democratic leadership of the current session.

Labels: equal rights, politics, Washington

Equal Rights Washington (ERW), the state's largest LGBT-rights lobbying group, has released a statement on Initiative 957 which was filed by an unaffiliated ad-hoc group, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA). ERW highlights the serious purpose of the ironic initiative, but points out that the group will not be helping in the effort.

The statement is part of a weekly email sent out by the group. We haven't been able to find it on the ERW website, so we print the whole thing:

Proponents of Initiative 957 Never Want to See it Enacted

An initiative has been filed that would require couples to file a form saying they can procreate, and it would dissolve childless marriages after 3 years. Below is ERW's statement on Initiative I-957.

For exactly the same reasons that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, Initiative 957 should never be enacted. The laws of Washington State should help families, not hurt them. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples do not have the right to marry because they do not procreate. Initiative 957 helps people understand the absurdity of the court?s rationale for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Not all heterosexual couples marry with the intention of procreating or raising children. Some couples who wish to raise children must adopt or use reproductive technology. Many heterosexual couples have childless marriages, or marry for the first time in their older years and never have children. Many same-sex couples are raising children and often these children are the biological children of one of the partners. Gay and lesbian couples often adopt and open their homes to foster children. Some same-sex couples do not have children but marry for the same reasons as do childless heterosexual couples.

The filing of Initiative 957 and the outrage it has sparked among the religious conservatives showcases the absurd legal reasoning of the Anderson case and the hypocrisy of the radical and religious right. The right has long claimed that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because they do not procreate. Initiative 957 seeks to apply the same standard to heterosexual couples. Initiative 957 is showing Washingtonians the truth about the radical right: it is not pro-family--it is simply anti-gay. Obviously Initiative 957 will never be enacted. Most in the gay community would vote it down because we would never seek to take rights away from others. Even the proponents say they would never want to see the initiative enacted.

ERW will remain focused on protecting the state's historic anti-discrimination law that is presently being threatened by a possible initiative. We will provide an update about the initiative to undo the Anderson-Murray anti-discrimination law in next week's e-news.

But is it true that "even the proponents say they would never want to see the inititive enacted"?

What we've heard Gregory Gadow, who filed the initiative, say is that he doesn't expect the initiative to be enacted and that he wouldn't want to see it enforced if it were enacted. But he's also said that enacting the initiative would force the Washington Supreme Court to reexamine its flawed reasoning in the Andersen decision.

But one of the more remarkable phrases in the statement is, "Most in the gay community would vote it down because we would never seek to take rights away from others." Really? And how do they know that?

It offends us a bit to hear an activist group like ERW or even WA-DOMA make those kinds of broad generalizations. ERW can and should speak for the small and tightly-knit group of political activists that form their network. It doesn't surprise us to hear that they would vote against the initiative in the unlikely event that it were to make it to the ballot. But we're not convinced that they can or should try to speak for "most in the gay community" on this particular issue.

The closed network of bloggers (with whom, by the way, ERW seems unwilling to speak) certainly can't represent "most in the gay community," but this closed network has shown considerably more support for Gadow's "political street theater." Many of us would would be perfectly willing to push this parody all the way back to the Supreme Court.

Labels: I-957, initiative, politics, wa-doma, Washington

WA-DOMA's Initiative 957 got a Tip of the Hat last night from Stephen Colbert. (And, you've also gotta love the Wag he gave to John Howard, Australia's wedge-issue PM whose son worked on the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign).

We're guessing the folks at WA-DOMA will want to put this honor on the shelf in front of the Shrammie they picked up last week from that guy on one or another of the KOMOs. (He keeps popping up. Maybe we should watch or listen... On second thought, no!)

Schram insists, "I get it." He gives Gregory Gadow and crew "high marks for the 'hoot' factor," but insists that the humor is misdirected.

The problem is Gregory doesn't get it.Mocking marriage does nothing but provoke
P.O.'d people to dig deeper for reasons to discriminate.

Hey, I've long been a strong supporter of gay marriage.

And I'll admit Gregory got me to laughing. But Greg [which isn't his name] doesn't need me slapping my knee.

He needs gay marriage opponents slapping their foreheads and thinking.

So, for sacrificing substance for silliness; for taking a shot without first taking aim, and for making a point with no thought of making headway, take a bow Gregory, 'cause this "Schrammie's" for you.

But all that assumes that the more vocal opponents of marriage equality are willing to engage in something like "slapping their foreheads and thinking." There is too little evidence of that. The legal argument that managed to get procreation tied so closely to marriage in a Supreme Court decision was put forward by the "Family Research Council."

They are the ones who made this a precedent in state law. They are the ones who convinced the court to turn a silly argument into a precedent that could, perhaps, be used by a clever divorce lawyer for a childless couple to deny benefits to one of the parties. The Family Research Council did that. Although it's a weak precedent because it was accepted only by a deeply divided court, it's still on the books as a result of the Andersen decision.

Will the vocal opponents recognize that because of I-957. No. But the less vocal opponents just might engage in that kind of epiphany of forehead-slapping as a result of the discussions spurred on by this bit of political street theater. Maybe.

Labels: Colbert Report, I-957, initiative, politics, video, wa-doma, Washington, wikiality

If the domestic partnership bill becomes law this year as expected, there will no doubt be celebratory gatherings in Seattle and other cities as there was last year when the civil rights law finally passed.

If it happens, we could expect to see at the Seattle gathering most members of the legislature's informal gay caucus along several pastors and rabbis from Religious Coalition for Equality There would also be the by-now standard parade of executive directors from an alphabet soup of agencies. One name that we probably wouldn't hear and one face that we certainly wouldn't see is that of reclusive Denver philanthropist and former software entrepeneur Tim Gill. We won't hear from him, but if the bill passes, he might deserve as much credit as any of those who take the podium during the celebration.

Gill is profiled in a long article in the current Atlantic Monthly. Former Washington Blade editor and now blogger Chris Craine reflects on his importance to gay politics here and here.

The Atlantic mentions that Washington was one of nine states where Gill targeted contributions in local legislative races that he thought could tip the balance of state control to a more gay-friendly majority. According to the article, the consultants at Gill's action fund compiled a national list of "seventy races in which a key antigay candidate was vulnerable or the outcome of a race was likely to affect control of the legislature."

The article doesn't explain how the Gill Fund affected state races, especially not the ones here in Washington. But a search of Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) records tells more of the story.

In Washington, Gill gave moderate contributions to six candidates, according to Public Disclosure Commission records:

Candidate	Dist/Chamb	DP Spon?	Gill contrib.
Oemig, Eric	45-S	Y	675
Tom, Rodney	48-S	Y	675
Kilmer, Derek	26-S	N	675
Seaquest, Larry	26-H	N	675
Eddy, Deborah	48-H	Y	675
Green, Tami	28-H	N	675

That's an interesting list of candidates. All of them also recieved donations from Equal Rights Washington (ERW) PAC. Five of the six got contributions from Washington Won't Discriminate (WWD), a group that was formed to counter an expected initiative to invalidate last year's civil right law. After the anti-rights initiative failed to get on the ballot, WWD disbanded and distributed the money it had raised to candidates.

Rodney Tom was one of the candidates endorsed by both ERW and SEAMEC, the Seattle Metropolitan Elections Committee. He's a former-Republican turned Democrat who voted for the LGT civil-right bill when he was in the house and ran against conservative Republican Luke Esser for an open senate seat.

Like Tom, Oemig was ran as a Democrat in an eastside district that had long sent only Republicans to Olympia. In its endorsement of Oemig, the PI noted that Oemeg's GOP opponent "votes against the district's interests on too many important issues, including transportation, school funding and gay civil rights."

Oemig eventually won the seat that had been relinquished by Bill Finkbeiner, a Republican who shocked his caucus in 2005 by casting the deciding vote that allowed the LGT civil rights bill to squeak through despite votes against it by a few Democrats.

The election of Tom and Oemig, along with Derek Kilmer's victory in Kitsap County helped the Democrats gain a more solid majority in the senate. Although it's still not certain to pass in the upper house, it's unlikely the domestic partnership bill would have made it through this year without that extra margin.

Without the extra margin of tolerance that the election of Tom, Oemig, and Kilmer provide, the GOP might, instead, have been able to push through its marriage-discrimination amendment this year.

It looks like Gill picked just the kind of tipping-point candidates described in the Atlantic article.

"The strategic piece of the puzzle we'd been missing -- consistent across almost every legislature we examined -- is that it's often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it," Gill explained. "If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you?d have a dramatic effect."

All of the candidates that Gill backed in Washington won in tight races. All of them defeated an opponent who had been a vocal opponent of equality of rights.

But still, whatever the significance of the candidates Gill contributed to, $675 is barely enough to make a ripple in campaign funding. It might print a small stack of yard signs or a few stacks of campaign brochures, but it isn't significant by itself. Both Tom and Oemeg won razor-thin victories, however, which means that even small infusions of cash might have made a difference.

An oddity in the contribution figures for those six candidates demonstrates the kind of networking described in the Atlantic article: Most of the candidates on Gill's list also show $675 donations from the same group of six out-of-state donors. In each case, those out-of-staters donated only to candidates on Gill's own list. Some of them donated only to four or five of the Gill-supported candidates.

We've combined the donations of those six out-of-staters into the "Gill group" column in this table. It also shows amounts donated by the Equal Rights Washington (ERW) PAC, by Washington Won't Discriminate (WWD), and by Vashon Island donor George Heidorn, a retired Microsoft engineer, who is one of ERW's largest donors.

Candidate	Dist.	Spn.	Gill group	Heidorn	WWD	ERW	Total
Oemig, Eric	45-S	Y	4725	1400	1400	1400	8925
Tom, Rodney	48-S	Y	4725	1400	1400	1400	8925
Kilmer, Derek	26-S	N	4725	1400	1400	1000	8525
Seaquest, Larry	26-H	N	4725			700	5425
Eddy, Deborah	48-H	Y	3375		1400	700	5475
Green, Tami	28-H	N	4050		700	700	5450

Here's more background on four of the contributors that we've identified as the "Gill group" in this table. WWD, ERW PAC, and Heidorn all donated to a far broader list of legislative candidates.

$4725 tips toward a significant contribution amount for any candidate. When combined with donations from other LGBT-supportive donors, the amounts given by that group of out-of-staters begins to give financial teeth to the "gay agenda" that right-wing groups have often propped up as more powerful and significant than it usually was.

Labels: HB1351, philanthropy, politics, SB5336, tim gill, Washington

Tim Gill seems to be doing in political activism the same kind of thing he did over a decade ago in software development. He brings to the table a different "model" of how things should be done.

In software development and technology, the "first mover" is often thought to have a built-in advantage. The first developer to release a new product defines the market. Seattle-based Aldus was the first mover in a then unheard of product class that came to be called "desktop publishing." The PageMaker program from Aldus created a new must-have tool and began to change entire industries.

But PageMaker eventually lost its market-leading position to a newer startup, Quark, founded by Tim Gill in Denver. Quark's XPress stole the thunder from PageMaker.

It's impossible to summmarize that whole geekey market fight in many paragraphs, let alone a few sentences, but one way that Gill and Quark managed to take control of the publishing desktop was by looking at the issue from a different perspective, by creating a different model of the process of creating a page for publication.

Aldus founder Paul Brainerd had worked with mainframe-based newspaper production equipment. He brought that model of page creation to the desktop. Gill, on the other hand, appears to have observed how "creatives" built up a ads and posters on a lightboard using x-acto knives, waxed paper, lines made from rolls of colored tape, and sometimes press-on type. Gill's Quark XPress came much closer than PageMaker to being a model on the screen of that kind of creative process.

Brainerd's model was "desktop publishing." Gill's initial model was "desktop layout."

Designers and layout technicians responded by insisting on XPress as their tool of choice and eventually made it the market leader, making Gill very rich in the process. (Of course, Paul Brainerd didn't do so badly himself as any politician in Washington could tell you when they watch his money pore into causes and candidates.)

The market leaders in political giving are organizations like megachurches or the NRA on the right or, in queer politics, HRC or ERW in Washington. They are large organizations with boards expensive fundraising processes, and complex rules on how to spend the money raised.

The model Gill has created is a different kind of beast. It seems to be more like the informal email chains that can develop when a group of friends talk to each other about politics. Rather than building a big organization that must spend as much time begging for money as it does lobbying, Gill's group apprears -- for now at least -- to be a more informal group that does the research to kick-start one of those informal email chains. The Gill Action Fund didn't contribute any money to Washington campaigns, but it does appear to have done the research and generated the relatively informal email chain.

What's unique about Gill's emails, however, is that they go to people who have a lot of money.

Two of the six in what we've called the "Gill group" don't percolate to the surface in Google searches, but bios of the others show that they clearly belong:

Jon Stryker: A Michigan billionaire architect who inherited his vast wealth from the medical equipment company founded by his grandfather. Stryker's Arcus Foundation actively supports lesbian/gay civil rights issues. Its mission: "[C]ontributing to a pluralistic society that celebrates diversity and dignity, invests in youth and justice and promotes tolerance and compassion."

Henry van Ameringen: His father founded the International Flavors and Fragrances Company. van Ameringen is a major donor to New York LGBT and HIV organizations through his self-named foundation.

Esmond Harmsworth: The Boston literary agent Literary agent gave the notable sum of $25,000 to Fair Wisconsin, a group opposing a marriage-discrimination amendment on the 2006 ballot in that state. (The amendment passed.)

Weston Milliken: In its 2005 annual report [pdf], the Gill Foundation describes the West Hollywood business consultant as a philanthropist who has matured "from a reactive check writer to a collaborative and strategic giver."

The California business consultant directs about 90 percent of his philanthropy to support lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth initiatives. "The idea is to teach people how to lead and be effective at what they are doing in life," he says.

Labels: philanthropy, politics, tim gill, Washington

The two bills that would grant significant rights to gay, lesbian, or senior unmarried couples have cleared all committee hurdles and are now just a vote in each house away from passage. Gov. Gregoire has indicated she will sign the measure.

Although she told the Times' David Postman that she hasn't yet counted the votes, Lisa Brown (D-Spokane), the senate majority leader said, "I believe we will have enough votes to pass it."

Over half of the legislators in the house have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, so passage there is virtually assured.

Nonetheless, a right-wing pastor from Bothell is making a last-ditch effort to scuttle at least one of the bills.

House Bill 1351 and Senate Bill 5336 would give partnered gays or lesbians and unmarried seniors rights to visit a partner in the hospital, inherit property when there's no will, and to make decisions on such matters as emergency health care and funeral arrangements.

Even right-wing Bothell pastor Joe Fuiten indicated to the TNT reporter (#) that he thinks the bills will pass. But that hasn't stopped him from issuing an "Urgent Call for Action!" [pdf] that he expects fellow right-wing pastors to distribute during services this Sunday.

In the alert, Fuiten tells fellow discrimination activists that

The constitutional lawyers tell us that a bill like this will be used as the basis for overturning our DOMA laws in federal court. We see this as a critical bill for the eventual imposition of gay marriage upon an unwilling public.

Hoping to strip away just enough votes to defeat the measures, he asks church-goers to contact their legislators about the bills through the legislature's hotline at 800-562-6000.

He, of course, asks callers to tell their legislators to vote against the bills. But that last-minute field-turf-lobbying makes it just as important to contact legislators urging them to vote for the bills. If you're not sure which district you live in, find out by entering your address in the legislature's district-finder (Click the "Find your district" tab). And then call 800-562-6000 and tell your senator and house members that you support SB-5336 or HB-1351 as a matter of basic fairness.

ERW also has a relatively automated email service that allows you to send a customized email message to your legislators.

As we indicated earlier, support for the senate bill has been weak in districts outside of the Puget Sound circle. That makes it especially important for those who live beyond Seattle and the eastside 'burbs to contact senators, since those are the districts that Fuiten's group has been targeting.

That makes a second step even more important for those of us who live within Washington's blue circle: Send emails to friends beyond the inland coast urging them to contact their legislators. (You could even email a link to this post with a personal note if you think that might help. Click the envelope icon below.)

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

In its typically statistics-laden cover story today on gay teens coming out, USA Today offers a brief profile of 17-year old Kenmore student, Zach Lundin, who "has brought boyfriends to several dances at his high school in suburban Seattle."

Zach Lundin had been taught in church that homosexuality was wrong. "I spent a lot of time trying to convince myself I was straight," says Lundin, 17, of Kenmore, Wash. At age 14 he told his parents he was attracted to boys. "I said, 'I'm not going to lie to you anymore. This is what I'm really feeling.' "

His father, Roy Lundin, wasn't thrilled to hear the news. "Any parent who says his first reaction isn't 'Oh, no!' probably isn't telling the truth," he says.

"We felt some sadness. We just assumed we'd have a daughter-in-law someday and grandchildren. It becomes your disappointment, but it's a selfish disappointment. Now we've gotten past that.

"There are some parts of it that I'll never be comfortable with," he concedes, "but that doesn't mean I can't support Zach. I love him and I will support him."

The chart that (since this is USA Today) shows that Lundin may be lucky to have grown up here instead of, say, the plains states. A Gallup poll found that 66% of the population in the Pacific region (WA, OR, CA, HI, AK) "consider homosexuality acceptable" compared to only 38% in the plains states (Dakotas to Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri). New England was the most tolerant region at 69%.

The article sites evidence that gay and lesbian kids are coming out earlier and are often "more vocal."

Still, many continue to have a tough time. The worst off, experts say, are young people in conservative rural regions and children whose parents cannot abide having gay offspring. Taunting at school is still common. Cyber-bullying is "the new big thing," says Laura Sorensen of Affirmations Lesbian and Gay Community Center in Ferndale, Mich. "Kids are getting hate mail and taunts on MySpace or Facebook."

Those problems were highlighted by a recent study that found that up to 42% of homeless or runaway youth are gay.

Resources:
The Washington Gay-Straight Alliance Network
Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, Washington [GLSEN]
Lambert House (Drop-in center for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth and their allies)

Labels: coming out, gay news, Seattle, Washington

The Seattle Times, PI, and local TV stations have now picked up on WA-DOMA's Initiative 957 and through them, the AP and just about everyone else.

And that's released a flood of blog posts on the measure that its sponsors call "political theater."

The Carpetbagger Report has a great discussion in the comments to this explanatory post. Ridenbaugh Press gives the measure a typically insightful analysis. The ever-wonderful Towleroad explains

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has filed an initiative in an attempt to expose the misguided philosophy behind the July 2006 State Supreme Court ruling that claimed a "legitimate state interest" allowed the Court to limit marriage to couples able to have and raise children together.

Several general themes or "memes" in blogospeak emerge from the coverage:

The parody meme

The initiative's prime sponsor, Gregory Gadow, has been busy explaining that this is one primary impetus for the measure.

Many get it.

Andy Heyman, on his blackwhite blog, is at least grinning:

This is the first time, that I know of, that satire and irony have been used as a legal strategy. It strikes me as pure genius.

"Sara no H" couldn't stop giggling after reading about the initiative in Daily Dose of Queer:

Okay, so I'm over here cackling like a mad old bat and cheering on this initiative, and my housemate is pursing his lips and saying, "But that's not fair to people who can't reproduce." And, probably because I'm not versed in disability rights and I'm too rapturous right now to employ any sound other than a glee-filled giggle, I can't think of a single thing to say to that. Help me out?

Michael Hanscomb, in his blog eclecticism, gives the initiative a thumbs up:

This has my support, my signature if I find someone canvassing for signatures, and my vote if it should actually make it to the ballot: the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance's Initiative 957....

I'd add that the language as written is also unfair to heterosexual couples who can't (or for any reason prefer not to) have children, hetero- or homosexual couples who adopt, or any other combination or situation you can come up with that's not the husband, wife, and two point five children scenario. I was disgusted with the ruling them, I still am, and I'm quite amused by I-957's approach to poking at the issue.

Sign me up!

Hard 7, a political blogger in Spokane calls it "Finally, a ballot measure on marriage worth supporting."

Hey, that's the only fair way to apply the court's Defense of Marriage Act ruling, right?

You might recall that I made some similar proposals last fall to take illogical anti-gay arguments to their logical extremes.

Even the kids at a fan-site message board for juvenile-shock-jocks Opus and Andy are mildly amused:

This kinda makes me laugh. How many men do you think are rushing to sign this thing? "Sorry Honey, but I don't want kids. It's not my fault, it's the law."

Queerty points out that the parody of I-957 isn't all that far from what could actually happen.

Although it may sound far-fetched, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that the baby crazy crazies would hop on the propagation band wagon. Surely they won't do so if they know the Defense Alliance just means to take the judicatory piss, but if the proposal were being put forth by, say, Focus on the Family - we can totally imagine the ultra-right signing up for the baby battle.

The I-don't-get-it-meme

Metblogs explains how this one works, but the best example of the meme in action comes from the lawyers and professional marriage-equality activists who responded to the Times for its article:

Other gay-rights groups don't appear too eager to back the proposal, either.

Longtime gay-rights activist Bill Dubay said that while he gets the point of the initiative, it is unlikely he'd sign it.

"I don't think anybody in the gay community wants to take someone else's rights away," he said. "We just want to gain the rights that everybody else has."

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children. State laws, it said, should help ? not hurt ? families.

The deny-the-argument meme

One meme among those upset by the initiative is to claim that procreation has never actually been a Christian-right argument against marriage equality.

"Beth", who writes "A Worshiping Christian's Blog" is upset:

This has to be one of the most ignorant, ridiculous, things I have heard in all my life. An initiative in Washington by same-sex marriage proponents would require heterosexual couples to prove they are able to have children before getting a marriage license and actually have children within three years or else have their marriage annulled. This type of irrational behavior by same-sex advocates does nothing more than make a mockery of their 'cause'. I get that they are trying to prove a point, but the fact is that same-sex marriage is not just an issue of gay couple not being able to procreate. It is an issue of homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the majority of men and women. If this weren't the case, then it would be legal in all 50 states and completely accepted.

She then quotes the usual-suspect Bible passages. But, Beth, those passages are not what the Washington Supreme Court based its decision on.

"Darlene" also tries to mute the arguments made by anti-marriage activists before the Supreme Court:

Certainly, children are the focus of much of the debate. But that's children and their rights, not fertility. Social conservatives don't argue from the individual point-of-view of whether or not same-sex couples affect opposite-sex couples, their arguments generally fall into institutional ones, on how a radical redefining of an institution will affect society at large.

Hmm. The Supreme Court sure did have a lot to say about "procreation and child-rearing," the first of which pretty much requires fertility (about which the Court didn't have much to say).

Here are bits of what the justices wrote [pdf]:

The State contends that procreation is a legitimate government interest justifying the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The State reasons that partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations with children the probable result and paternity presumed....

...DOMA [the Washington "Defense of Marriage Act"] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes....

DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests -- procreation and child-rearing.

...Under the highly deferential rational basis inquiry, encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

...We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

The Christian-right "Family Research Council" submitted an amicus brief to the Court in which they presented the argument that the controlling ruling of the Court accepted:

that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the Washington constitution, and that the state has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation and the optimal environment for raising children. [our emphasis]

But Christian-right discrimination activist Gary Randall of the "Faith and Freedom Network" isn't pleased to see their arguments reflected back at them. Randall isn't laughing, but he's also not repeating the arguments that he and his allies used before the Court:

Marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, has historically served the human race well for more than 5000 years. Clearly there have been abuses of that standard. However, there is no case where alternatives to one man, one woman marriage have constructively served the common good.

The backlash meme

Another opposition meme is the "backlash" argument. "Mark Smith" put it this way in a comment to a post about I-957 on the blog blackwhite -- modern thought control:

This proposal is a dumb move.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage. However, my wife and I are both childless by choice. This proposal is an attack on our marriage. I respond to attacks on my marriage from any source (family members, outsiders, legal maneuvers) VERY strongly.

This is likely to cause a backlash against the gay rights community by the very people who are straight and support them.

The aforementioned "Darlene" put it this way:

Political stunts, especially cynical, insulting stunts served up merely to "dose" one's opponents with "their own medicine" rather than attempting actual persuasive arguments have a tendency to backfire.

As sympathetic as I am to having same-sex couples be afforded some legal institution to afford them contractual rights, I'm hoping this puerile initiative born of street theatre gets the derision deserves.

Interesting way to put it: "As sympathetic as I am...". We take it, from the rest of her post that she means: "Not very."

A fellow who writes a "Moonbat Early Warning System" blog cuts to the meat of the matter with this cleverly swishy quick-take:

OH, PUH-LEEZE! Don't the homorons in Washington state have anything better to do with their lives? Get a grip, people! This is just plain stupid silliness and only serves to demonstrate a childish attitude and a complete lack of common sense.

The they-won't-get-it meme

In this one the humor of I-957's "political street theater" is recognized, but a questioned is raised about everyone else. Are they clever enough to recognize it. In a comment on Blue Oregon, "jamie" explains

i loves me a good satire, but i heard once that something like 30% of americans understand satire. the rest will yelp "rush is right! the gays are attacking marriage!"

i hope this measure makes its point, but i've lost massive amounts of faith in the intelligence of the american electorate in the last seven years.

The makes-me-mad meme

This one crops up in just about all of the discussions. We'll take a comment from one of our own prior posts as an example:

I can't believe this. Its ridiculous. After having one miscarriage 3 years into my marriage and not being able to get pregnant since would make my marriage annulled if this was a law. I cannot believe that someone even lacks the mental capacity to even think of this.

So then, maybe jamie has a point about the effectiveness of satire in politics.

Over at a conservative outfit that apparently aggregates posts, one "Doug Peyton" whines,

They can't talk about it until they get their whining done first. And frankly, the debate was pretty much over in Washington State when the same-sex marriage ban survived the path up to and including the state Supreme Court. This is just the rantings of children who didn't get their way.

Except, of course, DOMA didn't survive "up to" the Supreme Court. It was only in the high court that lower-court rulings striking it down were defeated by a slim and contentious majority.

Labels: I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

A proposed amendment that would enshrine marriage discrimination in the state constituiton has been introduced in the Washington Senate by six Republican Senators and two Democrats. It's Senate Joint Resolution 8219 [pdf]. [via Slog]

This is the full text of the proposed amendment:

Article I, section . . .. Marriage in Washington state shall consist solely of two persons, a male and a female. The uniting of two persons other than a male and a female in any marital relationship is not valid in this state, and, although valid in another jurisdiction, is not recognized as valid in this state. The legislature may provide for such restrictions or sanctions on marriage related to age or degree of kinship as it deems necessary.

The resolution has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee which has not yet scheduled a hearing on the issue.

The resolution was introduced by Senator Dan Swecker (R-20, Centralia). Co-sponsors are Senators James Hargrove (R-24, Port Angeles/Hoquiam), Don Benton (R-17, Brush Prairie/Vancouver east) , Tim Sheldon (D-35, Shelton), Jenea Holmquist (R-13, Moses Lake/Cle Elum), Mike Carrell (R-28, Lakewood/Fort Lewis), Pam Roach (R-31, Auburn/Enumclaw), Joseph Zarelli (R-18, Castle Rock/Battle Ground), Jim Clements (R-14, Yakima), Jerome Delvin (R-8, Kennewick), Marilyn Rasmussen (D-2, Eatonville/Orting).

The resolution has high-profile support among the GOP minority. Prime sponsor Sen. Swecker is the Republican Caucus Vice Chair. Co-sponsoring Sen. Delvin is the Republican Deputy Whip. Sen. Carrell is the GOP's Deputy Floor Leader. And Pam Roach? Well, she's probably packing.

Labels: gay news, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SJR8219, Washington

In the first of several meetings around the state to prepare for Equality Day lobbying event later this month, advocates of marriage equality met in Olympia last week to discuss the domestic partnership bills (HB1531 and SB5336) and the marriage equality bills.

According to The Olympian,

Josh Friedes, advocacy director for Equal Rights Washington, urged people to tell legislators, as well as neighbors and co-workers, why they support same-sex marriage.

"When people know the truth about our lives, they support us," Friedes said. "We will win if we simply talk to everyone we know."

Attendees also heard from Jerry Hebert, Washington's human-rights commissioner.

"I believe with all of my heart that marriage equality is a natural progression in equal rights," Hebert said. "I believe it's our obligation ... to show the world, not just the state of Washington, that we here are forward-thinking and progressive."

The Senate version of the DP Bill, SB5336, was passed out of committee last week. Its next step is a floor vote which has not yet been scheduled.

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, one of the bill's sponsors told the Associated Press that the partnership bill is just a small step in granting equal rights to all of the state's citizens. He said that are more than 400 legal rights connected to heterosexual married couples, while the partnership bill addresses only a dozen or so.

"This is hardly a gay-marriage bill," he said. ?We're affording some (rights) to a small minority who do not have the legal right to marry."

The advocates meeting in Olympia, sponsored by Equal Rights Washington and Lambda Legal, was the first of five. A similar meeting will be held Wednesday in Spokane at the Unitarian Church at 4340 West Fort George Wright Dr. A Seattle meeting will be held Thursday at the First Baptist Church, 1111 Harvard Ave. The final meeting will be held Sunday in Vancouver at the YMCA.

The meetings are designed as preparation for major citizen lobbying event, Equality Day, that will take place on the Capitol campus in Olympia on Monday, February 26.

On Equality Day, members of LGBT communities are expected to gather with clergy and people of faith -- both straight and gay -- and with other allies to lobby their legislators to end legal discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals and families.

A noontime rally will provide legislators and others an opportunity to hear prominent clergy and community leaders speak in support of gay rights. The Equality Day rally typically draws over 1,500 attendees.

Labels: equal rights, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Now that it has been given its official number, I-957, by the Secretary of State's office, the proposed measure sponsored by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is starting to create a bit of a stir. If passed, the measure would require married couples to have children.

A blogger with the wonderful site name "Daily Irrelevant" has this to say:

On the one hand I don't think this is the right way to fight right-wing bigotry, on the other hand, only when a majority recognizes that tyrannizing minorities has consequences for them will the costs of bigotry be properly accounted for.

The initiative's prime sponsor, Gregory Gadow, (apparently) discusses the measure under the user name TechBear_Seattle in an enlightening thread on the discussion board for Democratic Underground website.

He cheekily explains, again, the reason for the initiative:

We, conscientious citizens that we are, are only trying to clean up the huge mess the Court left behind.

And anyway, if same-sex couples can be barred from marriage because they can not procreate together, the state constitution's requirement that all laws must be enforced equally requires that all couples that can not or will not procreate must equally be barred from marriage. It's only fair.

And it is, of course, fairness that is the ultimate goal of this grossly unfair initiative.

A poster complained, under the heading "Passive-aggressive gay-bashing" that the initiative is "anti-gay marriage."

Gadow responds

...well, that's how we do things in Seattle. If you ever want to see real passive-aggression, sit in on a meeting of the City Council

The problem is that any initiative to create equal marriage would very likely fail. Failure would only entrench the current view of marriage as a special right exclusive to heterosexuals. And strictly speaking, there is no more recourse regarding state law because the state Supreme Court has ruled, so our options are a bit limited.

Another poster notes, "I had to read this twice before I was sure it was parody. It's scarily close to the truth."

As all good parody is.

Tri-Cities TV station KNDU put it this way in the intro to their report on the initiative: "A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again." [KNDU video]

Although he mentions in the report that "many people consider the initiative over-the-top," the reporter delivered the story without the smirk or ironic eyebrow that Aaron Brown would have added to the story if he were still on KING or KIRO (or ABC or CNN or anyplace else). Despite that, the young KNDU/O reporter did a good job of summarizing the measure:

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

In response, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed the Initiative.

But they interviewed the pastor of Kennewick's LGBT-focused Metropolitan Community Church who apparently didn't catch the parody.

"There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family," said the Reverend Janet Pierce.
"They don't necessarily marry to have children," Pierce said.

Exactly. But the Rev. Pierce missed a golden opportunity (or the station's tape-editors didn't keep it) of pointing out that this is the very kind of inequality that the Supreme Court condoned in its Andersen decision.

A commenter to an earlier post on this blog about the initiative approached it in the same way:

I am for Gay marrage, but this new initiative 957 I belive is ridiculus and could ruin support that you have gotten from infertal couples.....LIKE ME.

The Stranger's Slog has noticed the initiative, but hasn't yet had much to say. But that hasn't stopped their active commenters who've called it "the craziest thing I've seen all week," "a travesty," "hilarious," "Awesome!" and more.

Gadow slogged in on the comment thread to offer the best explanation he's yet given:

Initiative 957 is political street theater. We are taking the conservatives' own rhetoric, which became the basis of last year's state Supreme Court ruling, and beating them over the head with it.

Our choice of name came from one of our early ideas, to play ourselves up as wide-eyed conservatives trying to prevent screams of "Activist court!" Try to imagine Stephen Colbert sponsoring this. That idea fell by the wayside early but not until after we had filed papers with the state. Now, the official story is that we are "reclaiming" the initials and defending the cause of equal marriage.

If we can get I-957 on the ballot, we will have won. The bigoted meme of "marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation" will be the subject of discussion around the country. For the first time, conservative objections to equal marriage will be under the national microscope. This can only help further the cause of equality, as discrimination and injustice fear few things more than the spotlight.

It would be great if I-957 passes. The Supreme Court would no doubt strike it down, which would critically weaken, if not kill, the earlier Andersen ruling which prompted this initiative.

Most likely it will fail, and (hopefully) by the biggest margin in state history. At that point, I-957 is a referendum on Andersen, and any position rejected by 80% of the voters (90%? 100%) would have to be carefully considered by both the courts and the state Legislature.

But before the initiative can either pass or fail, it needs to get on the ballot. And we need the signatures of a lot of Washington voters to do that.

LiveJournal users discuss the initiative here, with the starting comment, "Unconstitutional on its face. But I applaud the effort - if anything, it's a brilliantly-executed prank. Bravo!" But many of the subsequent comments miss the point and must be corrected by others who approach it without the requisite ironic raised eyebrow.

[Update: 2/5/07]: Timesman David Postman has now noticed the iniative via the Slog post. He comments, "Of course in order to have the full-blown absurdist argument the sponsors of I-957 will need to get signatures from 224,800 registered voters by July 6." Wouldn't that be fun?

Seattle.metblogs noticed it via the Postman post. "I'm not sure that absurdist dialogue is going to work when it comes to government.... [our long ellipses] I think it's hysterical, but a little part of me worries...[theirs] what happens if it doesn't work out that way?"

Labels: gay news, I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson now has a number for his initiative "related to discrimination." It will be Initiative 963.

Remember that number, decline if you're asked to sign 963.

Although the number is assigned, the initiative text is not yet available from the secretary of state's site. You should be able to read it shortly by following the link above.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson, politics, Washington

Equal Rights Washington (ERW) has issued a request for contributions as it lobbies for passage in this session of the domestic partnership (DP) bill.

As we said last week after the Senate hearing, opponents of the bill are now arguing that it is discriminatory. Opponents of DP seemed pleased with their lobbying trick. ERW notes

The radical right, the Catholic Conference and religious reactionaries have stooped to a new low. They are arguing that the DP bill discriminates against brothers and sisters because they may not register as Domestic Partners. Never mind that siblings already enjoy the protections such as automatic hospital visitation and inheritance rights that the DP bill would extend to same-sex couples because they are denied the right to marry.

The first hearing for the House version of the bill in the Judiciary Committee will be tomorrow, Wednesday, February 25 starting at 1:30pm, in House Hearing Rm A of John L. O'Brien Building in Olympia, a one minute walk from the Capitol building [get directions]. Remember to sign in, in support of the bill when you arrive.

Here's a page with parking and transit information for the Capitol complex. And here's a more detailed map of the campus.

The Senate hearing last week attracted an overflow crowd. Fundamentalist opponents of the bill are expected to again bring in many to voice their opposition to equality of rights. You are welcome to attend the hearing if you can.

Even if you can't get to Olympia in person, it's important to contact legislators about the DP bills because they're definitely hearing from conservatives who oppose the measure.

Although personal mail (snail-mail type) is considered more effective, email and calls are also important. ERW has an automated form for sending email to a legislator who hasn't signed on as a supporter, and a suggested thank you letter for sponsors of the legislation.

If you'd rather not use the form, find the email address of your legislators using the search feature on the legislature's website.

The snail mail address for Senators is PO Box 404## (substitute your legislative district for the '##'), Olympia WA 98504

Because, apparently, some people still use those things, the fax for Senators is (360) 786-1999.

The general address for House members is PO Box 40600, Olympia WA 98504-0600

They don't have a general fax number.

ERW and Lambda Legal are planning a series of local events throughout the state to discuss the DP bill and other equality lobbying efforts. Seattle's meeting will be Thursday, February 8 at the First Baptist Church on First Hill [get directions]. The meetings will focus on coalition building, education, advocacy, and getting people excited about Equality Day in Olympia, currently set for February 26th in Olympia.

Track the bills progress with the state's nifty bill tracking feature. Here's the House version, 1351. Here's the Senate version, 5336.

Labels: equal rights, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, Washington

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) has been given a number for its proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. It would become Initiative 957 on the November ballot if supporters can gather 224,880 valid signatures by July 6.

The prime sponsor of the initiative is Gregory Gadow who emphasized the initiative's serious purpose in a press release announcing the number assignment.

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation," Gadow said in the printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do."

"Our agenda," Gadow explained in an accompanying statement, "is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."

If passed, Initiative 957 would:

• add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Gadow says that I-957 is the first of three initiatives planned by WA-DOMA. "The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage."

It's a fascinating strategy that's far from the official position on marriage equality taken by groups like Equal Rights Washington and legislators in Olympia, but Gadow has similar aims even if he and his co-conspirators are approaching them in an unorthodox manner.

"Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court," Gadow admits.

He welcomes court challenges to the initiatives, calling such challenges WA-DOMA's "ultimate goal."

"Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state?s Defense of Marriage Act," Gadow explained. "Eventually, Andersen will fall apart under the weight of judicial opinion, and equal marriage -- the marriage which we seek to defend -- shall become a reality in this state."

The WA-DOMA website has been relaunched, with more information about I-957 and a summary of things voters can do to help in the process.

Labels: I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

Prayer Warrior, horse-breeder, quickly washed-out football player, and discrimination activist Ken Hutchinson, who is awaiting review by the Secretary of State's office of his new discrimination initiative, admits to the Seattle Times writer Janet I. Tu that he has a "tremendous ego."

"That's why I played pro football," he said. "I'm taking that same ego and energy that benefited me in football and now putting it in for the glory of God to do his will and his work."

In that regard, his ambitions are bigger than ever. He talks of organizing an international summit: "I am building a force around the world."

And he's starting by trying to build pro-discrimination coalitions with Slavic immigrant churches in the Puget Sound area. Tu takes a look at one of them, in Kent, for today's fawning piece in the Times.

Hutcherson now hopes the alliance will result in signatures for an initiative he filed last week seeking to repeal a state law, passed a year ago, that adds sexual orientation to a state law banning discrimination based on race, gender, religion and other categories.

"We've got a lot of churches to reach," said Hutcherson, who must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the fall ballot.

"We want to get the Slavic churches, the Russian-speaking churches, the Korean churches, Philippine, Chinese, white, cross-cultural. ... If we're going to win this fight on protecting traditional marriage, we're going to need all churches to work together."

But even if he doesn't eventually get the signatures, Hutcherson is generating plenty of publicity for his ministry at a church in Redmond that holds Sunday services in a public high-school. And he does seem to enjoy that publicity.

Ken Schramm, a fellow who apparently passes for something other than a right wing conservative within Fisher Broadcasting's local media constellation, last week awarded Hutcherson a Schramm bobble-head doll boobie prize called "The Schrammie" that seems to be a regular feature of one of Schramm's programs. Said the Schramm:

It takes a special kind of person to openly advocate for discrimination.

In this instance, it takes a man of stilted thinking; a man of narrow-minded focus, not to mention bigoted determination.

Indeed, in this case it takes...a man of God.

So would Rev. Ken Hutcherson please, step away from the pulpit and come on down.

Last week found the senior pastor at Antioch Bible Church trudging to Olympia to file an initiative that would repeal a state law banning discrimination against gays and lesbians.

It's been a while since we heard or saw one of his commentaries, but Schramm seems downright reasonable in this one instance:

The otherwise personable Rev. Hutcherson is on a crusade to smite those who seek nothing more than fair and equal treatment under the law.

So, for rising to his self-imposed challenge by sinking to an ecclesiastical low; for his disdain of the human condition and his spiteful desire to steal civil rights under the guise of God, take a bow Rev. Hutcherson, 'cause this "Schrammie's" for you.

Of course, he got plenty of emails from good Christians who attempted to explain to him why the man Schramm called "holier-than-thou self-proclaimed tool of God's avenging hand" really is just that. (But who didn't seem to explain why on earth that -- even if it's the case -- should be the basis for a state's laws.)

The reason we're not up on the current state of Mr. Schramm's thinking is this: The closest we ever get to KOMO, KVI, or any of Fisher's radio outlets is the wonderful Blatherwatch blog where Michael Hood is a kind of Perez Hilton of local talk radio (except, or course, that Blatherwatch uses funny and often insightful words instead of silly pictures -- which makes him not at all like Perez).

But even BlatherWatch had to mention Hutcherson clarifying an earlier note about what Ken Hutcherson does in his spare time.

We said Rev. Ken Hutcherson who raises race horses. We were wrong. He wrote to say: "I do not own race horses, they are cutting horses, quarter horses, for roping and cutting out cattle from the herd." The mega-churched ex-Seahawk preacher began his referendum signature drive to undo civil rights legislation for gays on Monday.

Hmm. "Cutting out cattle from the herd." We're not surprised he'd be enjoy that kind of thing.

BlatherWatch adds parenthetically (and probably all too hopefully):

If he doesn't succeed in getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, that'll prove once and for all that God is on the gays' side, and the good reverend will just go away, right?

After reading, in Slog, a reprint of Hutcherson's Prayer Warrior announcement touting yet another in an endless stream of media appearances, Northwest Progressive Institute detected a certain misunderstanding of the whole initiative process.

They kindly schooled the preacher in the technicalities, before concluding,

The real difficulty is getting enough signatures. It's hard to distort what this is about -- legalizing discrimination -- and most Washingtonians aren't interested in condoning bigotry. A signature drive that lacks a ton of money needs superb organization and coordination to make the ballot. At this juncture Hutcherson doesn't appear to have either, and that's good news. We'll be watching closely to see if he gets any help from someone who knows what they're doing.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson, local bites, politics, Washington

One thing you've got to say for the opponents of the domestic partnership bill over at Faith & Freedom Network (FAFREN): They've figured out these interwebs tubes better than the folks at Equal Rights Washington (ERW).

While ERW sticks with occasional notes to their well-worn old-timey email list-server, FAFREN pumps out frequent updates on their issues by both email and and active blogs.

And it was FAFREN, not surprisingly, that got the first news to the tubes about today's hearing on the DP bill. And, in so doing, offer an early interpretation of the bill that oddly matches the criticism it's been getting from the hipsters at Slog [or maybe it's just the any-way-to-get-at-Pederseners at Slog].

Their report was written by FAFREN Olympia lobbyist Jon Russell and posted not just once, but four times to their site:

SB 5336 grants benefits commonly associated with marriage to same sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples where at least one partner is over the age of 62.
The committee hearing-room was packed with an overflow audience in another room for large screen viewing. The testimony was broken into a panel of 8. Four people spoke in favor and four spoke against SB 5336.

The proponents of SB 5336 were four middle-aged lesbian women who have all experienced problems in life due to a non-legal standing associated with their choice not to be married [sic. Playing one of their old tunes]. All of the four proponents recognized that all of these domestic benefits are already available to them, but they have to pay more money than a married heterosexual couple to obtain legal contracts.

As for the opponents of the bill, four individuals spoke about the discrimination aspects of this bill. Our side was able to explain that by only limiting benefits to two groups of people, the bill discriminates against other relationships. This bill should also include siblings, a daughter taking care of her ailing mother and so forth. They also made the argument that the bill would most undoubtedly be challenged in court for discrimination of non-married heterosexual couples under the age 62.

The post doesn't mention if FAFREN will lobby to amendments to include more people within the scope of the bill, but it seems logical to expect that they will if this is really what bothers them about it. The post also doesn't explain why siblings or children aren't covered under current family visitation rules.

Russell notes that both a lawyer [unnamed in the post] who testified after the panels and Sen. Ed Murray both said that the difference between civil marriage and domestic partnerships would be "a political and emotional benefit."

Russell was pleased with his activist group's showing at the hearing:

As I sat and watched the faces of the supporters of SB 5336 standing around the room, I could tell we had called them out on their discrimination game. They expected our side to come in and use the same argument of incremental-ism. But truth has been revealed: this is a discriminating bill which is poorly written and, in our opinion, will not stand in a court of law. For this they had no answer.

A liberal State Representative was overheard in the hallway saying, "This most certainly changes the debate."

Labels: equal rights, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

In more light-hearted initiative news, the Secretary of State's office is also reviewing an initiative filed on January 10 by one Gregory Paul Gadow and his "wa-doma.org". DOMA? As in "Defense of Marriage Act"? What could be light-hearted about that?

Well, you must read the initiative on the website (which, sponsors say, will soon be upgraded with even more information).

Gadow takes last year's Washington Supreme Court decision to its absurd satirical limits with his initiative. Since the Court decided that marriage has meaning only as a mechanism for making babies, the WA-DOMA iniative sets a fecundity [such a great word] standard for marriage licences and creates the required bureaucracy to enforce the standards.

The website explains:

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance was created on July 27, 2006. This January, WA-DOMA will propose an initiative to the people that will give Andersen the force of law while defending marriage from the worst consequences of that ruling. Under the initiative:

• Marriage will be restricted only to those couples able to have children together.
• Couples married in Washington will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law, whichever is later, to either have children together or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being annulled.
• Couples married outside of Washington who live in this state will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law or 30 days from the date they move into this state, whichever is later, to either have children or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being unrecognized as a valid marriage until proper documentation is filed.

We caught up with Gadow (via email) between his frequent news-list postings, and slipped on our woefully undeserved Mrs. Colbert hat to ask a few questions:

In its marriage decision last year, the Court gave a lot of advice to the Washington legislature, but failed to note the obvious need for a law like the one you're proposing. Is it frustrating for you to do the work of the Court?
It is. The Washington Suprme Court found that there is a "legitimate state interest" in preserving legal marriage for the purpose of "having and raising children." And yet the state constitution prohibits laws which are not applied equally (see Article I, Section 12.)

We are disappointed that the Court did not follow through on their ruling: if legal marriage does, in fact, exist for the purpose of having and raising children, and if for this reason same-sex couples may be barred from legal marriage, then the Washington constitution requires that marriage be reserved ONLY for the purpose of having and raising children, regardless of the genders of the married couple.

When the Court refuses to act and the Legislature dares not legislate, it is necessary for the People to take action.

Do you plan to run for a position on the state Supreme Court?
Most certainly not. My skin is too thin, my financial backers are too few and my sense of justice is far too strong.

Would you change your name to "Johnson" if you ran?
No.

Clearly you are worried about the fecundity of Washington's married couples. Do you think your initiative will contribute to a baby explosion in Washington?
I don't think that will happen: most childless couples I know would rather have their marriage annulled than become parents. I dare say that is a common sentiment.

Have you asked for campaign donations from the maternity department at Swedish Hospital?
There's a thought. I will put them down on my contact list, thanks.

Have you considered asking for donations from anti-immigrant groups? (After all, they're often worried about the fecundity-gap between nativists and immigrant groups?)
Another good idea. Could you provide some recommendations and contact info?

Do you think your initiative will help close the fecundity gap?
We haven't discussed this initiative in terms of a "fecundity gap." The only gaps we've been concerned with are the logical gaps found in the lead opinion for Andersen v. King County.

Have you asked for campaign contributions from Mars Hill Church which is also concerned with the fecundity gap?
My contact list already includes a large list of individuals who should find the Defense of Marriage Initiative perfectly aligned with their rhetoric. Included on that list are the Rev. Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland.

You're asking for donations to help fund your initiative campaign. Do you plan to move to Mukilteo?
Good gracious, NO! I already live on Capitol Hill in Seattle, in walking distance to both my job and the entire downtown retail core. Why on earth would I want to move anywhere else?

The initiative is still being reviewed by the Secretary of State's office and has not yet been assigned a number.

Labels: gay news, I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

Discrimination activist and Eastside preacher Ken Hutcherson on Friday filed his expected pro-discrimination initiative with the Secretary of State. It has not yet been given a number, but is expected to be virtually identical to a version that he filed in November.

Hutcherson filed the new initiative under his name using an Olympia PO Box, Antioch Church telephone numbers, and the email address HutchforTraditionalMarriage@hotmail.com. In November, 2006, he pre-filed an initiative "Related to amending the laws against discrimination." Last year's filing allows for quicker review of the current version. The text of the 2006 initiative is available here, in pdf format.

Hutcherson, a one-time NFL football player who is pastor of a large Redmond church that meets in a school building, achieved a spot of fame in 2005 by protesting Microsoft's then-quiet support for the anti-discrimination law that finally passed last year. Hutcherson managed to get Microsoft to temporarily withdraw its support for the law in 2005, but it was a short victory. After an outcry from employees, the Redmond company reaffirmed its support for the law and backed its passage last year.

After the anti-discrimination law passed last year, Hutcherson announced that he would lead a boycott of Microsoft because of that stance, but little was heard about the boycott beyond an initial flurry of press releases from Hutcherson's church.

Hutcherson's November filing was what liberal blogger David Goldstein called a "warning shot" that had this extra advantage:

By refiling the identical initiative on Jan. 2, with the initiative language already approved, Hutcherson gets a few extra days in 2007 to gather signatures, and four extra weeks this month [Dec. 2006] to organize his anti-fag army. Hutcherson is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

That initiative was, in turn, virtually identical to Tim Eyman's Initiative which failed to qualify for the ballot last year. It "This measure removes references to "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" including heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, gender expression, identity, appearance and behavior from the state's law against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations."

Goldstein wasn't impressed by last year's Equal Rights Washington (ERW) spinoff that was set up to battle Eyman's initiative.

It will take far more than a smug (and white) group of Seattle libs launching a web site and handing out flyers to derail Hutcherson. It will take money -- a lot of it. It will take a prolonged statewide media campaign featuring a bipartisan roster of Washington's political, business, and cultural leaders. And it will take serious outreach into Hutcherson's religious base of support, speaking with pastors, other religious leaders, and their congregations about, for example, Jesus' teachings on discrimination, forgiveness, and the judging of others.

Goldstein's smug Seattle-lib dismissal of last year's efforts by the awkwardly named "Washington Won't Discriminate" (which becomes "WWD" and therefore sounds vaguely Cheneyesqe) fails to recognize that WWD was born of two groups, both ERW and the "Religious Coalition for Equality". The Coalition's "Faith Statement in Support of Antidiscrimination" and outreach to religious leaders throughout the state did just what Goldstein says they should have done.

WWD was disbanded after Eyman's initiative failed to qualify, but the campaign certainly seemed to understand the need for media outreach and for the money needed to make that happen. Would their campaign have worked or would they have dismissed as "a smug (and white) group of Seattle libs"? Since the campaign never really got under way, it's impossible to tell. Unfortunately, we'll have another chance this year to find out.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson, politics, Washington

The anti-equality activist at the so-called "Faith & Freedom Network," (aka Gary Randall) reports that a hearing will be held in the House for the domestic partnership bill on Thursday, January 25 at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia.

He promises, "We will be at the hearing."

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, Washington

The domestic partnership (DP) bill introduced early in this session has garnered 21 co-sponsors in the 49-member Senate and 56 co-sponsors in the 98-member House. Senate cosponsors include both the chamber's majority leader, Lisa Brown of Spokane's 3rd district, and the president pro-tem, Rosa Franklin, who represents Lakewood, Parkland, University Place in Pierce County.

That's a good start, but a map of the Senate sponsors' districts demonstrates the kind of Cascade + Sound curtain that is all too familiar in Washington politics.

Blue on the map shows the districts of the Senate sponsors. There isn't a lot of blue on a statewide map because most of the initial support for the bill comes from Senators who represent heavily populated urban districts. (Legislative districts are drawn to give each a statistically equal population, so more densely populated districts cover less area.)

Even Brown's Spokane district which wraps around Gonzaga is the most densely populated district in that mostly Republican county. There is also a touch of blue in Clark County where Craig Pridemore represents much of Vancouver and the area north toward Hazel Dell.

King County sponsors

• Ed Murray, D-43 Seattle (Capitol Hill, U District)
• Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36 Seattle (Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont)
• Adam Kline, D-37 Seattle (Madrona, Rainier Valley, Seward Park)
• Ken Jacobsen, D-46 Seattle (Laurelhurst, Lake City, Northgate, Greenwood)
• Erik Poulsen, D-34 West Seattle, Vashon Island
• Margarita Prentice, D-11 South Seattle, Tukwila, Renton
• Karen Keiser, D-33 Des Moines, Sea Tac, Kent
• Darlene Fairley, D-32 Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore
• Rosemary McAuliffe D-1 Bothell, Mountlake Terrace, Maltby
• Eric Oemig, D-45 Redmond, Woodinville, Duvall
• Rodney Tom, D-48 Bellevue (north), Redmond, Clyde Hill, Medina
• Brian Weinstein, D-41 Bellevue, Mercer Island, Newcastle

Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap County sponsors

• Jeane Berkey, D-38 Everett, Marysville
• Steve Hobbs, D-44 Snohomish, Marysville, Lake Stevens, Mill Creek
• Phil Rockefeller, D-23 Bainbrige, Kingston
• Debbie Regala, D-27 Tacoma (Commencement Bay)
• Rosa Franklin, D-29 [President Pro Tem] Lakewood, Parkland, University Place

Other Puget Sound area sponsors

• Harriet Spanel, D-40 Bellingham, San Juan Islands
• Karen Fraser, D-22 Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey

Sponsors from beyond Puget Sound

• Craig Pridemore, D-49 Vancouver, Hazel Dell
• Lisa Brown, D-3 [Majority Leader] Spokane (Gonzaga area)

Sponsorship of a bill is only one sign of the eventual support it might have. The DP bill and its companion marriage equality bill (which doesn't yet have a Senate co-sponsor to join Murray) haven't yet been given even their initial hearings. The DP bill, especially, is likely to gather more support from legislators willing to vote for it, but not to sign on as sponsors.


But the early list of sponsors shows that the bill already runs the risk of being tagged an urban measure. The problem is obvious even in King County where sponsorship support falls off significantly in the south end.

The county's expansive 5th District, which stretches along I-90 from Issaquah to Snoqualamie Pass and includes Maple Valley, is represented in the Senate by Cheryl Pflug, a Republican and in the House by two Republicans, Jay Rodne and Glenn Anderson. Like all members of the GOP caucus, they're keeping their distance from the DP measure.

South of there, the 47th District, encompassing much of the Green River valley including Covington and Black Diamond, is represented by three Democrats, Senator Claudia Kauffman and Reprentatives Geoff Simpson and Pat Sullivan. Although there is significant support in their party caucus for the DP measure, none of those legislators has signed on to sponsor the bill. [Update: Both Rep. Sullivan and Rep. Simpson are co-sponsors of the house bill. Sen. Kauffman has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the senate version.]

The 30th District (Federal Way, Milton, and Pacific) is reprented by two Democrats -- Sen. Tracey Eide and Rep. Mark Miloscia -- and a Republican -- Rep. Skip Priest . None of them have become co-sponsors.

The 31st District, including Auburn, Enumclaw, Sumner, and Buckley, is split between King and Pierce Counties and represented by the Roach family -- Ma' Pam in the Senate and sonny Dan in the House -- and by Democratic Rep. Christopher Hurst. The Roaches are among the more conservative salons in Olympia and are likely to be active opponents of the bill. Hurst is a former cop who returns to the House after leaving his seat six years ago. He contributed to the Democrat's landslide last November by winning a tightly contested race but his is considered a conservative district. He's an unlikely sponsor.

But the eventual fate of the bill will depend on supporters of this baby-step toward equality contacting their legislators in all those parts of the map that aren't colored blue. Equal Rights Washington [ERW] urges supporters to contact legislators. Anti-equality activists are also gearing up to defeat even the relatively innocuous domestic-partnership bill.

The marriage-equality bill is not expected -- even by its sponsors --to pass in this session, but the simpler partnership bill that would grant limited rights and benefits to domestic partners including "hospital visitation, health care decision-making, organ donation decisions, and other issues related to illness, incapacity, and death." [From the bill [pdf].]

The regional and the urban/rural split in sponsorship indicates that bill's fate depends a great deal on the statewide network that both ERW and the Pride Foundation claim to have built. This will become a significant test.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

The good news is that over three-quarters of school districts in Washington let their teachers at least mention homosexuality in sex-ed courses. The bad news: In 23% of the state's districts, it can't even be mentioned. (The bright side: Given what they'd probably say if they mentioned us, we should be relieved that they aren't talking.)

This shouldn't be surprising in a state where even Al Gore's award-winning documentary on global warming proved too controversial for the Federal Way district.

According to a report released yesterday by a coalition of groups lobbying to require "medically accurate sex education" in the state, there's a ways to go in that regard:

Nearly a third of Washington's school districts do not allow teachers to discuss condoms or any other form of contraception except for abstinence in their sex education classes, according to a new report paid for by a coalition working to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases among teens.

A bill in the current legislative session aims to change that situation.

The new state guidelines outline medically and scientifically accurate sex education. Rep. Shay Schual-Berke, D-Normandy Park, introduced a bill Tuesday that would make medically accurate sex education mandatory in Washington schools that choose to teach sex education. HIV-AIDS education is mandatory in Washington, but general sex education is not.

The medical doctor turned legislator said she is optimistic about the bill's chances this legislative session, because leaders in both the House and Senate have said they would make its approval a priority.

Schual-Berke explained the importance of medically accurate sex education by talking about the impact when a teacher tells her students that condoms don't work, presumably because they want to discourage kids from being sexually active.

Instead, research has shown, the students are sexually active, but they don't use condoms because they think they don't work, Schual-Berke said.

Lifelong AIDS Alliance lists the "Healthy Youth Act" as one of its legislative priorities for this session.

Lifelong notes:

As estimates suggest that 25% of new HIV infections occur among young people 22 and under, a comprehensive approach is crucial to giving young people the tools they need to prevent HIV infection.

Labels: gay news, HB1297, HB1855, legislature, politics, SB5297, Seattle, Washington

The Seattle Times' David Postman reports that the legislature's unofficial gay caucus has now unveiled its two bills for marriage equality.

The bill that would grant equal marriage rights to gay couples is considered a long-term goal. Another bill would create a state-wide domestic partnership registry. The registry bill would be open to heterosexual couples where one partner is at least 62 years old.

It's seen as a first step in marriage equality, said Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle. As he and other lawmakers pledged to continue pushing for same-sex marriage, they said they would also work to incrementally increase domestic partnership benefits. They recognize that gay marriage will be difficult to get approved by the Legislature and could take years.

In an AP story on the announcement, Murray called the registry bill a stop-gap measure.

Murray said he wants to make sure at the very least that benefits are extended this year -- but he emphasized that a domestic partnership law is not enough.

"This is not about domestic partnership; this is about marriage," said Murray, the main sponsor of both bills in the Senate. "The only reason we are introducing the domestic partnership bill is to further the cause of educating the public."

The other legislators sponsoring the measure in the House echoed Murray's sentiments.

"Our goal is marriage equity, and we will work for that," said Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle, one of the Legislature's five openly gay lawmakers who are working on the measures. "In the meantime, our effort is to provide immediate relief, immediate benefits, to same-sex couples."

McDermott said the benefits sought in the partnership bill include health-care decision making, funeral planning and inheritance rights.

"An incremental approach provides the opportunity to educate people," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. "People may see that just because these two loved ones can visit each other in the hospital and plan funeral arrangements, the sky isn't falling."

According to the AP story, the domestic partnership measure will be co-sponsored in the Senate by majority leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane).

"These are very practical issues that same-sex couples face," said Brown, who said she believed the bill had a good chance of passing the Senate.

And they are also issues often faced by senior couples which is why they are included in the domestic partnership bill.

[Update:] And here is Josh Feit's post about the press conference on the boldly redesigned Slog. Feit explains

The incremental approach is certainly about gaining rights, but it's also about highlighting what rights gays and lesbians don?t have. Murray and Pedersen believe this is a way to dramatize the issue for those who may oppose gay marriage....

"What's central to going about it this way," [Rep. Jaime] Pedersen told me, "is that we can make this progress this year. If we were going to do a symbol bill where we don't think we're going to pass it, why don't we just do marriage? Or do comprehensive domestic partnership legislation. We're doing what we can do this year, knowing that we're going to keep on doing this and keep on adding things every session until we get marriage."

[Update 2:] And here's Josh Feit's excellent explanation about the part of the domestic partnership bill that specifically includes hetero senior couples:

There are elderly couples that don't get married because if they do marry, they may lose the pensions that their original spouse left them.

Meanwhile, since they aren't married to their new partner, they don't have any of the hospital visitation rights, funeral arrangment rights etc.. with that new partner. Getting a domestic partnership allows them to collect their previous spouse's pension, while also being able to have rights regarding their new partner.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

AP (via the PI) has this update on plans to introduce equality bills tomorrow in the legislature:

Two bills dealing with same-sex couples are scheduled to be announced at a press conference Thursday: one to allow same-sex marriage, the other calling for domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples.

Supporters say the dual approach is necessary to extend benefits such as hospital visitation rights and end-of-life decisions to same-sex couples, while continuing to push for full marriage rights.

"Our goal is marriage equity, and we will work for that," said Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle, one of the Legislature's five openly gay lawmakers who are working on the measures. "In the meantime, our effort is to provide immediate relief, immediate benefits, to same-sex couples."

McDermott said the benefits sought in the partnership bill include health-care decision making, funeral planning and inheritance rights.

"An incremental approach provides the opportunity to educate people," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. "People may see that just because these two loved ones can visit each other in the hospital and plan funeral arrangements, the sky isn't
falling."

Also working on the measures are Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who spearhead a gay civil-rights bill that became law last year.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, gay news, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, SB5336, Washington

The five openly gay members of Washington's legislature are expected to introduce bills tomorrow that would grant everyone in the state the same (or similar) rights and privileges to marry that are now enjoyed by a restricted group.

Senator Ed Murray of Seattle's 43rd District, the prime sponsor in the Senate, told the Seattle Times that the marriage equality bill probably won't pass in this year's session.

Murray said he's realistic about the odds of getting a bill passed this year allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry: basically nil.

"It's always hard for people who work on this to realize that most members have not really thought a lot about the issue. Most people in the state have not thought about the issue," said Murray, who led a long and ultimately successful effort to pass gay-rights legislation last year.

"It's going to take a number of years to educate people in the state as a whole and not just the Legislature," he said.

The legislators won't introduce their bills until tommorrow, but anti-equality activists like Gary Randall who calls himself the "Faith and Freedom Network" are already gearing up for a fight:

We do not expect them to immediately put forward a gay marriage bill, but rather several bills that will be incremental steps toward gay marriage.

Make no mistake about it; they do not merely want to extend a few rights and benefits. They want gay marriage.

Times political reporter David Postman notes that the legislators are following the advice of the state's Supreme Court with the bills.

The Legislature's five openly gay members are taking up the state Supreme Court's many hints that lawmakers could craft a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

They are also following a now common course of dealing with this often contentious issue on the state level rather than in the US Congress. A forthcoming report by the Human Right Campaign Fund finds that state legislatures had considered a broader range of LGBT equality issues -- most of them not directly related to marriage:

The ... bills covered other areas, including sexual orientation discrimination, hate crimes, family recognition, parenting, and education and schools, the HRC report shows.

"State capitols continue to be the epicenter in the quest for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality," says an executive summary of HRC?s soon-to-be-released report.

HRC's state legislative director, Carrie Evans, called Washington's passage last year of the long-delayed civil rights measure a highlight of the 2006 political landscape.

"For every step forward, there was a half-step back," said Carrie Evans, HRC's state legislative director.

There were 242 "favorable" bills that "furthered equality," she said and 34 of those passed, up from 24 last year. And 11 of 137 "unfavorable" bills were enacted in 2006, the same as 2005.

The highlight, said Evans, was Washington State's passage of an anti-discrimination law, the 17th to include sexual orientation in a state human rights statute and the ninth to also cover gender identity and expression. She also cited the November vote of Arizona voters rejecting a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, civil unions, and more broadly domestic partnerships for gays and straights alike-the first defeat for such a measure-and the narrower margins by which they were passed in seven other states.

Murray had sheparded that measure through the legislature for much of its long slog.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, gay news, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Yikes. This is from the scary-old names resurface department:

An initiative, I-920, will appear on the November ballot that is designed mostly to protect the fortunes of families with names like Blethan, Nordstrom, or Selig (all of whom have contributed to the campaign to get said initiative on the ballot). The initiative would help those and other lake-dwellers by wiping out a state estate tax that is used to fund education programs according to HorsesAss.com.

The tax funds a program "which pays for adding 7,900 higher-education enrollment slots; financial aid for college and university students; and reducing class sizes from kindergarten to 12th grade." [PI]

[It's notable that not all residents with stunning water views support this initiative. Bill Gates is the largest contributor to a group that opposes the initiative, according to the PI.]

All of this deserves mention here because the professional campaign manager hired for the sponsoring families is one Dennis Falk who, way back in 1978, was co-chair of a group that sponsored Initiative 13, a Seattle measure that would have repealed city ordinances protecting employment and housing rights for LGBTQ folk.

The political response to I-13 helped define Seattle LGBT politics for more than a generation, culminating in the January passage of of a statewide equal-rights measure.

Falk and his co-horts failed miserably, but he has remained busy since then. The P-I gives this biographical blurb:

He has been a controversial figure since the late 1960s, when he walked a police beat in Seattle's University District during an era of antiwar protests and confrontations between students and police. He once boasted of having worn lead-lined leather gloves to gain "respect" on The Ave until the mayor ordered him transferred off the beat.

In the midst of his 1978 anti-gay-rights campaign, Falk triggered a storm of protests for shooting to death a fleeing, mentally retarded man who had a criminal record. An inquest jury, in a 4-2 vote, said the shooting was "reasonable under the circumstances."

After leaving the police force, Falk became a staff organizer for the John Birch Society in Colorado, the Seattle area and Southwest Washington, among other places. He has been a member for more than 40 years.

Goldy on HorsesAss offers a more complete profile of Falk and his Nordstrom-family backer including this choice quotation from Falk in a 1978 Seattle Times story:

I think we may have attempted to solve a problem a year or two in advance of when we should have put it on the ballot... Maybe we should have let these homosexuals carry on with their recruiting of our children for another year or so. As they flaunt their deviant behavior in the face of the general public, the public will become concerned and we'll get it on the ballot again.

Of course, none of that happened. Instead, both King County and -- after a long process -- the state adopted measures similar to the one Falk and his cronies tried to wipe out in Seattle. And that happened partly because of the work of the groups that cut their activist teeth fighting Initiative 13.

Seattle Weekly profiled another initiative backer, uber-developer Martin Selig, in this piece.

According to the Time's David Postman, Falk's politics was considered obnoxious enough that some business groups that support the anti-tax initiative decided support it through a splinter group to support the initiative without Falk's fringe political history.

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights gay+groups

Labels: politics, Washington

This one must really make Tim Eyman crazy.

It looks like Eyman failed yet again, but this time on his real pet project, an anti-transit, anti-tax initiative. Too many fake signatures, eh? Could it be that folks are intentionally signing up with fake names just to, well... make him crazy.

And, yes, we really do think you should click again to view that great Gnarls Barkley video which is just so Tim Eyman.

Oh, but we can't resist... (Just in case you didn't want to click to the other version.)


Technorati tags: Star Wars Gnarls Barkley Eyman Washington politics

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, video, Washington

On this, the day when protection from discrimination for LGBT folk became law in the state, Equal Rights Washington [ERW] offers a petition of thanks to the legislators and the governor who passed and signed into law the anti-discrimination measure.

ERW and several other organizations held a celebration of that milestone earlier tonight at the Washington Won't Discriminate offices. If you'd like to share in a more virtual celebration, check out the podcast of last night's "Drinking Liberally" confab in which a number of local bloggers get together to drink and chat about the issues of the week. The first half of last night's program featured a lively discussion of Tim Eyman's spectacular failure.

[Warning: The podcast is a big file that isn't streamed, so you'll need a fast connection to get it.]

The event's host David Goldstein of Horse's Ass explains it this way:

We had a gay old time at Drinking Liberally last night, celebrating Referendum 65's demise by packing our panel with gay men. (Um... so to speak.) Helping us rub Tim Eyman's nose in his latest failure were two of the state's better known homosexuals, 43rd LD Rep. Ed Murray and The Stranger editor and nationally syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage... plus The Stranger's lesser known (and lady-dazzled) Eli Sanders.

The panel then turned to dissing buses and bus riders, pining for the monorail (after all, Savage was there), and reflecting on potential Democratic candidates in 2008.

Tags: Washington politics, equal rights, Seattle, gay groups, eyman, discrimination referendum

Labels: equal rights, Gay events, initiative, politics, Washington

Initiative huckster Tim Eyman and his fundamentalist-preacher allies failed to collect enough signatures to put a referendum on the November ballot that would have rolled back a civil rights measure passed by this year's legislature that added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's anti-discrimination measures.

Because the signature campaign was unsuccessful, the civil-rights measure will become law tomorrow. It would have been put on hold until after the November vote if discrimination activists had managed to put the referendum on the ballot.

After he failed to get the measure on the ballot Eyman was criticized by his erstwhile fundamentalist allies who are now blaming Eyman for the failure of their discrimination campaign which had been collecting signatures at many state churches.

Joseph Fuiten, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Network, which helped lead the signature drive, said the failure to get enough signatures does not indicate most people support the gay-rights law.

...The lack of signatures, Fuiten said, tells him that "Tim Eyman has a knack for messing stuff up. He's kind of an interloper on this whole thing in my opinion. Part of the deal is resistance to him." Fuiten said, "There are millions of people in the state of Washington who don't want to see that become law. It's not a question of lack of support. It's really a question of organization and getting the work done."

Former GOP chairman Chris Vance also blasted Eyman, who showed up yesterday to an Olympia press conference wearing a cheap Halloween costume:

"Now he's coming in and hijacking issues and shoving his way into an issue because it's become a business for him. It's how he gets paid," Vance said. "There will be no end to Tim Eyman as long as people are wiling to send him money ... I think it's hurting the legitimate perception of the initiative process. When you've got a clown out there in a Darth Vader suit lying to the press and things like that, it's not good for the initiative and referendum process."

All but one Republican in the state Senate voted against the civil-rights measure in the legislature.

Although the fundamentalists had earlier tried to distance themselves from the initiative huckster, neither Vance nor Fuiten was saying that kind of thing about Eyman yesterday when he was widely expected to turn in enough signatures to get the referendum on the ballot.

Leaders of several mainline Christian denominations, on the other hand, met the press yesterday to decry Eyman's fundamentalist-supported initiative.

"Discrimination against any human being on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation is a moral wrong," Rev. Jon M. Luopa, senior minister of University Unitarian Church, told a news conference Monday at Seattle's Episcopalian Diocesan House. "It is the duty of a democratic government to protect us from such wrong. It is our duty as citizens to hold the government accountable for such protection."

While she retained her lawyerly non-committal stance on gay marriage at a different press conference yesterday, even Governor Christine Gregoire told the press yesterday that she was distressed by the misrepresentations of discrimination activists who had been trying to tie their measure which was about housing, employment, and contracts into the equal-marriage rights debate.

Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire admonished those who have connected the two issues, suggesting it's an effort to confuse voters.

"That's misleading the public," Gregoire said Monday. "It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with discrimination, and I believe that Washington state's values are fundamentally that we don't discriminate."

[Update] Leaders of a quiet, but ultimately successful anti-discrimination campaign insisted that the failure of referendum backers to gather necessary signatures was a good sign that voters in the state weren't ready to support discrimination.

John Vezina, the Washington Won't Discriminate [WWD] campaign director, is quoted in a Pride Foundation press release:

To not get enough signatures for a referendum -- only half as many are needed as for an initiative -- makes a strong statement that the proponents of the referendum do not represent the vast majority of Washingtonians.

WWD's executive director, Ann Levison, is quoted in the same release:

Our campaign was just getting started and already more than 5,000 people and hundreds of religious organizations, businesses and community groups from around the state had publicly taken a stand in support of keeping the law. I've been involved in many campaigns over the years, and I have never seen an outpouring of support as we have received for making sure the law against discrimination remains the law in our state.

Tags: Washington politics, equal rights, Seattle, gay groups, eyman, discrimination referendum

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, Washington

We mentioned the faith-based anti-discrimination petition in an earlier post today, but there's now another more general petition being circulted by Equal Rights Washington [ERW].

Sign the petition online at this address.

The petition states:

Today I join with other advocates from Equal Rights Washington, their friends, family neighbors and co-workers in proclaiming:

I support Washington's Anti-Discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Today, I endorse the Washington Won't Discriminate Campaign and authorize the campaign to list my name as an endorser on their website.

I pledge to support Washington Won't Discriminate, the campaign leading the fight to save the law from repeal however I can.

I will vote in the November Election.

The petition doesn't have any particular legal standing, but in a pre-election battle of signatures, getting many names to counter-balance those put on the discrimination referendum may help in the long run.

In a public email decrying the church-based signature-gathering campaign for R-65, ERW states

While it was indeed disturbing to see signature collecting happening at fundamentalist churches, we should all take a moment to honor the churches and synagogues and other houses of worship that have led the movement for LGBT civil rights. Clergy, congregations and lay leaders have long been at the forefront of our human rights movement. Over 500 clergy and lay leaders have already signed a faith statement in support of Washington?s anti-discrimination law drafted by the Religious Coalition for Equality.

ERW has created a printable pdf fact sheet to help those who wish to discuss some of the many misrepresentations being made by R-65 signature gatherers.

Tags: washington politics, equal rights, seattle, gay groups, eyman, discrimination referendum

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, Washington

Initiative huckster Tim Eyman last week sent out press releases about what he called "Referendum Sunday" which encouraged ministers at some churches promote signature-gathering for the discrimination referendum, R-65, that he filed. But two non-profit groups that are now spearheading the effort claim they're doing it without Eyman's help, according to The Seattle Times.

"I don't know what Eyman is doing. We're not cooperating with Tim at all on what we're doing," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network.

Randall said Eyman, who is best known for pushing anti-tax initiatives, was simply the first person to file a ballot measure with the secretary of state after lawmakers passed House Bill 2661 in January. The legislation adds sexual orientation to a state law that bans discrimination based on race, gender, religion and other categories.

Annie Levinson of Washington Won't Discriminate told the Times that she expects the measure to gather the required signatures because of the campaign help from some churches.

The Times story notes,

The religious groups and churches that oppose the gay-rights law have an enormous capacity to gather petition signatures on their own.

That was clear at the Northshore Baptist Church, where more than 2,600 people attended its regular services Sunday.

The church held three services in a large auditorium with balcony seating. Hundreds of people packed the 9:30 a.m. service as Senior Pastor Jan Hettinga urged them to sign petitions to get Referendum 65 on the ballot.

The congregation watched a campaign video prepared by Sound the Alarm, a pro-discrimination group that is campaigning for R-65 signatures.

A long table filled with Referendum 65 petitions in the church lobby was mobbed with people after the service.

The equal rights group Washington Won't Discriminate shows 16 churches and faith-based groups among its list of endorsers. The list includes the Washington Association of Churches and the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. Another of WWD's endorsers, the Religious Coalition for Equality, is urging people of faith to sign a statement in support of anti-discrimination.

Tags: washington politics, equal rights, seattle, gay groups, eyman, discrimination referendum

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, Washington

Initiative salesman Tim Eyman needs help to get his twin discrimination measures on the ballot this November. He hopes to find help tomorrow at fundamentalist churches that have agreed to host something the huckster is calling "Referendum Sunday".

"That means that this weekend nearly 500,000 voters are going to hear about and talk about our effort to get a public vote on House Bill 2661," Eyman wrote in an e-mail sent to the media and supporters. "They'll be asked to not only sign the petition, but to take petitions home and fill them up and return them next Sunday."

Liberal blogger David Goldstein at the superb horsesass.org has recognized a significant problem with this plan:

If tomorrow, on "Referendum Sunday," these churches distribute petitions and/or canvass for signatures, or parishioners are instructed to do so, I would say that this would constitute a very real violation of the prohibition on electioneering, and would thus provide clear grounds for suing to have their tax exempt status revoked.

Goldy recommends that those who can stomach it, head off to a fundy church tomorrow with recording devices -- just in case these tax-exempt and discrimination-rule-exempt establishment might, perhaps, engage in some kind of electioneering which is prohibited because of their generous tax status.

[Double hat-tip again to Slog for these items.]

Meanwhile, Annie Levinson of the remarkably quiescent Washington Won't Discriminate group admitted to the PI that the group won't be doing anything to counter "Referendum Sunday":

"We've not spent any time or energy worrying about what they are doing," she said. "Instead we have been focusing on reaching out to progressive and respectful citizens."

Though the group is not attempting to directly counter "Referendum Sunday," Levinson said her group has already begun organizing.

"In the past, we know that people have waited until the signature gathering deadline to get organized and reach out to voters to inform them about what the impact of the measure would be," Levinson said. "We think it makes more sense to do that while the other side is gathering signatures."

Tags: washington politics, equal rights, seattle, gay groups, eyman, discrimination referendum

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, Washington

The debate on civil rights last week between Eastside preacher Ken Hutcherson and King County Executive Ron Sims, sponsored by The Stranger, is sure to be the first of many in the next few months. But the folks at The Stranger know how to put on an entertaining show, and this was that an more.

The primary focus of the discussion was supposed to be the discrimination initiative and referendum now being pushed by professional initiative salesman Tim Eyman. But it ended up focusing on more fundamental issues about the how religion should influence civil society.

If you missed the lively debate that was moderated by KING-5's Robert Mak, you can catch the whole thing via this SeattleChannel feed of the event. The Town Hall lighting makes the images a bit murky, but the sound comes through loud and clear.

Blatherwatch, a wonderful local-issues blog, covers the debate under the headline "Ron Sims kicks Hutcherson ass in Christian bowl."

Blatherwatch was part of the Sims entourage and offered this impression of the Hutcherson entourage:

His security help were thuggish in the way only fundamentalist Christian security can be -- pushy, white, dressed in Christian gangsta wear, and earpieces that might have been iPods filled with Antonius or direct links to the White House basement.

Not surprisingly, Hutcherson's loud followers and the preacher himself were unwilling to hear much that contradicted their narrow beliefs. Hutcherson, in his "'scuse me. 'scuse me!" Bill-O'Reilly-Ted-Baxter style, became irritated if anyone interrupted him, but frequently shouted down Sims, Mak, and the crowd if they attempted to wedge a discussion into his sermons. Despite the shout-downs, Sims presents a wonderful civics lesson on the separation of church and state.

Hutcherson: "In a democracy if we win, we get to impose our will on you and if you win, you can impose your will on us."
Sims: "And the wonderful thing about civil rights is that it was designed to stop just that."

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights Seattle gay+groups House Bill 2661

Labels: equal rights, initiative, politics, Washington