Q-Seattle Events: Tacky Tourist Clubs

Redmond pastor Ken Hutcherson has, without much fanfare, dropped efforts to get an initiative on the November ballot that would have rolled back anti-discrimination rules adopted by the 2006 legislature. The rules bar discrimination in jobs, housing, and contracts based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

The Seattle Times has the most detailed explanation we've seen, but even that paper's story -- in a digest of news items -- doesn't say all that much:

Hutcherson would have needed signatures from at least 224,800 registered voters by July 6 to place an initiative on the November ballot.

He said Thursday he discontinued his efforts early in the spring after Joe Fuiten, senior pastor of Cedar Park Assembly of God, asked him to instead unite in opposing a domestic-partnership bill for gay and lesbian couples. That measure ended up passing the Legislature in April.

Fuiten confirmed he asked Hutcherson to drop the initiative, saying "I didn't think we should run it. The time wasn't right. The climate wasn't right."

Whether or not it's related, Fuiten is now involved in starting a new organation called Washington Family Policy Council.

Lynnwood businessman, conservative political donor, and Christian activist Larry Sundquist is spearheading the formation of the group with help from Fuiten and several national conservative Christian activists, including Tony Perkins and James Dobson.

Sundquist told The Herald, "We don't want to position ourselves as a right-wing Christian organization.... We want to be credible and not be marginalized. And we want to be credible without thumping on our Bibles and quoting scripture."

Uh huh. We guess backing a pro-discrimination measure would not be one of the best ways to get that message across.

The Herald offers these details of the new group:

To get started, Sundquist enlisted to the Board of Directors the savvy veteran of political brawling Pastor Joe Fuiten of Bothell. Fuiten tangled a lot this year with lawmakers as president of Positive Christian Agenda; he will merge that group into the policy council.

Larry Stickney of Arlington has been hired as executive director. Stickney, who is chief aide to Snohomish County Councilman John Koster, will leave his county job next month.

Stickney knows the challenge will be great. Democrats in the Legislature pushed bills granting domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and overhauling sex education in public schools.

He looks to recalibrate the voice of Christian conservatives in time to make a difference when lawmakers arrive for next session.

"We're not ashamed to say we are going to promote the Judeo-Christian worldview," he said.

"And we're not going to be shy about it."

It's odd, however, that they've chosen a name that's almost identical to an official state agency, the "Washington State Family Policy Council" whose mission is far less restrictive.

Labels: I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson

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

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

An eastern European republic might seem like a strange place to lobby for a state ballot initiative in Washington, but Redmond's Pastor Ken Hutcherson has found an eager audience (and, presumably, donors) for his anti-gay message in local churches that cater to immigrants from former Soviet republics.

The Redmond pastor has built on that local support by appealing to the homeland churches of those immigrants. Earlier this month, he traveled for a second time in a few months to the Latvia to attend a meeting there of church officials attracted to his anti-gay message.

Hutcherson's message rings true to right-wing immigrants from the Russian-speaking Slavic republics of northeastern Europe according to a radio host and newspaper who spoke at a Kent church.

"I consider myself more American than those who were born in this country who are destroying it," said Wade Kusak, host of a Russian-language radio show in Sacramento and publisher of newspapers there and in Seattle.

It's no coincidence, he said, that states with growing evangelical Slavic communities are the most liberal, full of people "trying to destroy our families."

That's why God "made an injection" of Slavic evangelicals. "In those places where the disease is progressing, God made a divine penicillin."

Shapovalov [the pastor of a Kent church] said Kusak has spoken to his congregants on how to conduct themselves at political demonstrations.

In Kusak's home base of Sacramento, which has the nation's largest conservative evangelical Slavic community, church members have picketed gay-pride events and packed legislative meetings, often far outnumbering other protesters, according to the Los Angeles Times.

UK Gay News provides a translation of a Russian-language report on Hutcherson's trip from the the Latvian website NewGeneration.lv.

The Latvian site reports, "The US guests did not need introduction -- their human rights and anti-gay movement activities [are] widely widely known in Latvia."

Hutcherson was in the Latvian capitol of Riga this month to attend a conference organized by Janis Vanags, Archbishop of the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church. According to UK Gay News, representatives of "all main denominations of Latvia" attended the conference along with Hutcherson and several prominent Latvian politicians.

"It is a huge honour for me to be in such a company," NewGeneration reported Mr. Hutcherson as telling the conference.

"I will try to be useful in resolving the problems which we all care about. Homosexual pressure is experienced today by many countries. Where the danger was not identified timely and the destructing forces of homosexuality were not evaluated timely, we see how homosexuality is spreading widely and becoming legal," Hutcherson said.

It's not clear if it's related directly to the conference, but shortly afterwards, an anti-gay activist group in Latvia that calls itself "No Pride" sent a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The open letter asks that Blair stop muzzle London's mayor who has expressed supported gay activists in Latvia.

No Pride writes

Each nation's citizens have a right to choice a way their country develops and it is unacceptable that civil servants of the United Kingdom interfere with the Latvia's internal affairs. We consider unacceptable London Mayor Ken Livingstone's alongside organisation ILGA Europe actions supporting and escalating the conflict in the Latvian society between traditional values and supporters of homosexuals' rights, by stating their support for Riga Pride 2007.

The language of the letter echos the speech that Hutcherson gave to the discrimination conference:

"There many countries on the world today where same-sex marriages are legalised," Hutcherson warned the conference, "where same-sex adoption in possible, where education of a new generation is based on sexual diversity and family transformation. We need to talk today about the fact that the people simple overlook how homosexuality step by step forcefully taking space."

The Stranger's Slog has printed dispatches (here and here) from the preacher who says he was a hit on local TV stations, but maybe not so much with the US Embassy:

It went extermely [sic] well with American embassy?they aren't very happy right now, because I had to lay it out, they are not representing American values well.

It also went well with the Parliament, the Ministry of Interior, and Minister of Integration.

Labels: I-963, initiative, ken hutcherson

Bloomburg offers one of the best summaries yet seen of Initiative 957, sponsored by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)

Gregory Gadow calls his own ballot measure absurd.

The proposal he wants to put before Washington voters in November would require the state to annul any heterosexual marriages that don't produce offspring within three years.

The goal is to undermine a July state Supreme Court ruling that upheld Washington's ban on marriage between homosexuals. The court said the state has a fundamental interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because of their ability to procreate. Gadow hopes to force a review of the ruling, and rile social conservatives along the way.

"Making them choke on their own rhetoric is just a nice side benefit," said Gadow, 39, a Seattle computer programmer. ...

Local gay-rights groups aren't backing the measure because they prefer to push for legislation authorizing gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage dismiss the proposal as a stunt.

"If they get many signatures, it will be mostly homosexual signatures," said Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland. A former National Football League player for the Seattle Seahawks, he organized a Washington, D.C., rally against gay marriage in 2004.

The story by reporter Dana Bass points out that Gadow and his friends have been working without much support from big names and organizations.

Gadow's idea has plenty of detractors. State Senator Ed Murray, one of five openly gay state lawmakers, said he opposes it because he prefers to focus on legislation permitting gay marriage.

Murray is in rare agreement with Jeff Kemp, president of Families Northwest, a non-profit group in Bellevue that opposes gay marriage. Kemp said Gadow's measure trivializes marriage.

"To throw away the model because in some cases people don't have kids is an insult to humanity," said Kemp, a former NFL quarterback and the son of 1996 Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp.

If it's up to Gadow, I-957 won't result in any annulments.

He said the ballot measure is unconstitutional. His goal is to get it passed and struck down by a state court. That would contradict Andersen v. King County and lead to it being overturned, he said.

The story offers a concluding surprise in a quote from a UW constitutional law professor Hugh Spitzer who believes the initiative might stand up to judicial scrutiny if it ever did garner the required signatures and pass

He [said] that it might not be overturned at all: States may have a right to define marriage any way they wish.

"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it," said Spitzer, who filed a brief supporting the Andersen plaintiffs. "If they think they're going to lose in court because it's unconstitutional, they may have another thing coming to them."

Declining gayborhoods

It's one of those stories that appears with each real estate cycle, but AP nonetheless weighed in on gay neighborhoods with a feature this week.

The story focuses mostly on San Francisco's Castro District, but here in Seattle, SOAP might be happy to learn that Seattle is dismissed as one of several places where a gay neighborhood has been replaced by "'Disneyfied' places boasting chain stores, restaurants catering to a diverse clientele and 'cleared of any reference to sex.'" (The quoted author appears to have mistaken Broadway as a street that was once something more gay than it is now.)

Brian Basinger sees danger in the proliferation of baby strollers on the street.

"When I see a stroller now, I see it as someone who evicted a person with AIDS, right or wrong," said Basinger, president of the Harvey Milk Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transexual Democratic Club.

The reporter, of course, finds those who dismiss worries about Castro's changing demographics,

But some activists point to cities with less-established gay districts as a sign of what could happen.

Honolulu's Kuhio district stands vacant after its gay bars were dispersed in the late 1980s. In Atlanta's Midtown, once the gayest area of that city, gay nightclubs recently have given way to condominiums.

When Basinger walks through the Castro these days, he sees the apartment building where he watched friends with AIDS die, too pricey these days for someone young, old or sick to afford. Or the corner where his efforts at community organizing are met with yawns. Up the street, the raunchy window displays at sex toy shops have brought complaints from parents, both gay and straight.

"We have Chinatown and Japantown and so forth, and that's important for minority communities in this country, to have a place where they can get a sense of being the majority," said Joe Curtin, an architect who serves as president of Castro Area Planning Action. "But if you took those away, you would still have China and Japan. If the Castro goes away as a gay neighborhood, there is nowhere else."

SOAP has argued for two years that Capitol Hill is the wrong place to celebrate LGBTQ Pride. They'll probably want to make copies of this article, crossing out a few of the graphs we've quoted here.

Labels: I-957, initiative, politics, Seattle, Seattle Pride, wa-doma

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

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

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

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

• Hutcherson on Signorile: Redmond's Rev. Ken, who likes to call himself the "Prayer Warrior" and whose antics are well-covered by Slog, will appear this Friday on The Michelangelo Signorile Show on Sirius Satellite Radio. The show airs 11 am to 3pm (PT) on OutQ, channel 106 on the radio service. They'll be debating Hutcherson's proposed pro-discrimination initiative.
• New cha-cha: The cha-cha is now on Broadway -- not the Pine St. bar, but rather brass dance-steps in the concrete of the new low-income apartment building/Walgreen's store at the corner of Pine and Broadway.
• Old guys reminiscing: The same P-I article adds another paeon to The Elite's Broadway location. The bar's going away party on Broadway will be this Saturday, but it will stay open there until January 31. The grand opening on Olive is still expected in February.
• Odd folks protesting: The legislature passed a bill restricting protests by the rabidly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, but only when they happen -- as they too often do in the twisted logic of this "Christian" outfit -- at the funerals of service members.
  

Labels: equal rights, gay bar, gay news, initiative, local bites

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

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