Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[Holmes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGo11tMoGw0

Holy sh**t you guys, your fundies are freaks.

[Holmes]

Gregoire wants to see a bill on her desk. No specifics, just wants to see a bill on her desk.

Hello!?

[Holmes]

Yes, they claimed a few days ago that they have 75k. I don't believe that though.

Although they've been claiming that this is a same-sex marriage bill, priests will go to jail etc etc.

[Holmes]

I'm willing to wager anyone that they don't even have enough. This was all a ploy to get some money into Gary Randall's pockets.

[Holmes]

Washington's same-sex couples have nothing to gain from a vote, they can only lose what they should have.

Fraud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47u2m4hH0SQ

I love how the woman at the beginning says she supports same-sex marriage, and gets fooled into signing. :/

[Holmes]

Mmm... I don't know. I don't doubt we can win at the polls, but I just don't think it would help get same-sex marriage through the legislature. What would be better instead, would be for Democrats to perform well in the 2010 elections, because I don't think the legislature would want to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2010, during an election year, even if the domestic partnership hypothetically does well in the polls.

By the way, I'm not familiar with Washington referendum law - will we ever get the number of signatures?

[Holmes]

I thought you guys might find this interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009559521_webref17names30m.html

Although if it was any other kind of petition, the signature gatherers wouldn't be in court trying to prevent what's required by law...

[Holmes]

On the flip side, I guess the numbers are encouraging because the opposition was basically saying this was marriage and was running on that, and they hardly went over the minimum requirement. Their ads were all "THIS BILL WILL ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND CHURCHES WHO DON'T OBEY WILL GET THE DEATH PENALTY! STOP THIS BILL NOW!", so I don't think their signature gathering strategy was much different in the Idaho part of the state.

[Holmes]

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Holmes]

Sigh. Washingtonians, are you hopeful?

[Holmes]

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge couldn't rule fairly in a case involving the legality of a gay partnership referendum is not the same as saying gay people can't be judges.   One is a statement that a judge with a (perceived) conflict of interest shouldn't hear a particular case.  Another is a blanket statement that simply wasn't made here.  Judges recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  She probably shouldn't here, but who knows what will happen?

Sorry, but no. She is a judge, and she rules over every kind of case that should come her way. To discredit her for one case because of her sexual orientation is to discredit her fully as a judge, even if it's just for one case. You can't pick and choose.

They are claiming, "only straight judges can make rulings about Referendum 71" because gay judges have personal bias, but in the end, everyone has personal bias. Their whole prerogative is to take down same-sex couples, I don't think they feel too well with a gay person with more power than they do.

Anyway, I stand by my claim that they don't think gay people should and can be judges because their heads are stuck so far up their asses that they think any ruling that conflicts with their own opinions is activism. Well, isn't that what their definition of activism is?

[Holmes]

LOL. They're trying too hard to enter joke status.

[Holmes]

I hope Washington does not legalize sodomy.

[Holmes]

Omg you guys, I know this guy is in New York, but since we're on the subject, read the e-mail this guy got:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/09/letter-from-christwirecom.html

He doesn't think gays are literate or sober enough to read the news after a night of sex raves.

[Holmes]

Marriage, hm...?

[Holmes]

Are you gonna "Reject Marriage = One man, One woman"?

[Holmes]

Oh, sh**t. They're not happy enough with us just letting them exist? Now they want people to respect them?

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they keep running on marriage, and lose, won't it make it harder for them to seriously campaign against the real same-sex marriage bill?

[Holmes]

Is everyone aware that the last time Protect Marriage Washington asked for donations was back in September 15th? Curious.

[Holmes]

So... everyone is aware that Approve 71 is kinda doing a crappy job right? Or maybe that's just me.

[Holmes]

Maybe I was a little bitchy, but I dunno. I mean, why are they letting opponents redefine the issue as marriage? This really bugs me. All I've seen is this 2 minute ad with a huge chunk of writing talking about the law... really unappealing. Are they identifying voters and preparing to GOTV? Voting day is in less than a month, after all.

[Holmes]

Ah, that ad is web only? It had some good visuals but it was the text that killed it... having an announcer say parts of it would be effective, I think. And I like how the campaign is basically making seniors feel guilty if they vote against it.

Are you guys just targeting Democratic voters or Independents too? And yay Microsoft.

[Holmes]

Damn Washington, chu got some crazy fundies.

http://vimeo.com/6853620

Didn't know California could be outclassed. They're not even pulling that in Maine... where there actually is a same-sex marriage law up for a vote! Can't you just wait for the real marriage law to come up for a vote?

[Holmes]

Here's another one for you guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFnc6EEpn8

Turnout might be high in eastern Washington. :o

[Holmes]

This blog entry has pictures: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13454/russian-radicalright-sends-its-children-to-cheerlead-bigotry

California's not the only state with a loud homophobic Slavic community.