A Fortunate Series of Events / 7-23-10

Why yes, I do continue to rip off everyone and everything for my headlines. Thanks for noticing.

I wrote about 3,529 posts on gay rights last year, but have neglected to wrap up some loose ends on that topic. (Goody!)

As it turns out, we do have an open democratic process in this country, when we take the trouble to defend it.

The Supreme Court thinks so too. It said as much last month, when the Supremes ruled 8-1 that if you want a referendum on the ballot and you sign your name to get it there, that becomes a matter of public record.

From Chief Justice John Roberts, who I would usually only quote in a fit of mockery, but not this time, I suppose: "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."

Add a tally to the side in favor of an open records; subtract a point (more, if you feel like it) from the fearmongering hatecrowd. (Fine, OK, you have permission to take all their points.)

So what we had happen here in the last year or so, chronologically:

1. State legislators decide all adult citizens should have same civil rights
2. Angry people think that's a bad idea
3. Angry people seek anonymity even as they sign petition to get their anti-equality referendum on the ballot
4. Angry people win skirmish in lower court, receive anonymity
5. Secretary of State sues to make list of referendum signers public
6. Referendum fails anyway. Voters affirm civil rights actually apply to all citizens! (Narrowly. But still.)
7. Case makes its way to the Supreme Court
8. Open records win!
9. Gay couples continue to inch closer to full equality with straight married citizens.
10. We wait for court injuction to be lifted, and names become public.

And then, of course, 11: Violent Bitter Gay People get a hold of the list of referendum's signers and harass them mercilessly. Things escalate, and many people are injured and/or killed. Riots ensue.

Oh, that? That's just the theory put forward by the group dedicated to keeping civil rights segregated to their favorite list of Americans. Yeah, those people are generally right on the money, so that's probably what'll happen. Uh huh.

P.S.: WA Secretary of State Sam Reed and AG Rob McKenna, both Republicans, praised the Supreme Court's decision. Good for them. I generally like those guys. I voted for them once and I will again.

A Quickie But a Goodie / 11-4-09

Going to let this one incubate for a day or two before a full post comes out. Until then, here's some instant reaction.

I'm relieved AND proud AND ashamed at the preliminary election results this time around.

Relief category: R-71 passed. Gay couples (and let's not forget, senior citizens in heterosexual domestic partnerships, too) get to keep their rights. Fred and Ned may not have a marriage certificate to frame and put up on the wall, but they remain equal to a married couple under the law. That's worth celebrating. We are all freer today as a result. A semi-anonymous poster on a popular website put it like this: "It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists. If one group of people, or even one person is being discriminated against and denied rights, then none of us are truly free."

Relief bonus: While counted ballots gave R-71 only a 51-49 edge at 1 a.m., it's estimated that most of the uncounted votes are from King County, where the ballot measure enjoys a 2-1 advantage in the Yes column. So it's going to pass.

Pride category: I'd just started to read a Danny Westneat column on the historical progression of gay rights when he delivered this nugget: "it appears Washington state will be the first in America to approve a gay-equality measure not by court fiat or legislative action, but by the direct will of the people. It's never happened before. If the slim lead holds for the gay-partnership law Referendum 71, it would be a landmark."

That floors me. Several states permit same-sex marriage. If Dannyboy's research is money, it IS a big deal. I'll work on confirming that.

Shame category: Somewhere along the lines of 49 percent of the electorate opted to REMOVE rights from a set of citizens. I can almost understand why homophobes would vote to not GIVE rights to gay couples. An initiative along the lines of "Should we the people of Washington state extend every right enjoyed by married couples to gay couples?" is going to cause folks to hide their bigotry behind excuses. Lame excuses like "marriage is a privilege, not a right" and "marriage holds the fabric of our society together, its rights are not to be disseminated." People can rationalize anything they set their heart to, provided they have some sort of cover.

But to take away someone's rights... that's hard to pass off as anything but contempt for the basic humanity of the gay man and woman. There's no excuse for that attitude. There's no fancy hiding behind fancy reasoning available there. That kind of hatred is exposed, obvious, naked. And somehow, half of us in this state chose that option. Disgusting.

(I'll weigh in on the rest of the election results later, specifically on how R's need to temper their glee at taking the VA and NJ governorships, and how D's need to not get too worked up about their two wins in House races.)

The Decepticons / 10-11-09

Nothing to do with Transformers. I'll explain the headline at the end.

I went and forced myself to click on the "Reject R-71" web page, just to see what the gay-bashers are up to. All right, look, I'm sorry. But I did not visit said site in an effort to increase site traffic and enhance legitimacy of said site. I will not even link to it. That would make my fingers explode with shame, which is a nonsensical image, but hey, it's my blog.

(Quick recap: To reject R-71 would remove civil rights from senior domestic partners and gay couples. Approving R-71 is the way to affirm the WA Legislature did the right thing earlier this year when it extended privileges like business succession rights, workers' compensation coverage, visitation rights, custody rights and insurance rights to ALL its citizens in committed relationships, not just the married ones.)

So anyway, over at the site that makes my soul feel unclean, there's a page dedicated to "Talking Points." Apparently, if you want to rationalize and defend your bashing of gays, these talking points are designed to be useful tools in that struggle. Or if you've been ordered to reject R-71 but you don't know why, you could just read the talking points, memorize them, and leave your brain in park, as you've been doing for your whole life.

I know this will come as a heart-stopping surprise, faithful readers, but each talking point is deceptive and/or misleading.

(And by the way, what does it say about your organization when its officially sanctioned talking points contain layers of deception?)

So I thought it would make me feel better to list each talking point and identify the deceptive or misleading content. It's more mature than yelling "YOU LIE!" in a public gathering. Although I've heard that also makes people feel better. But still, on with the show.

Talking Point 1) "Senate Bill 5688 includes the phrase, 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered Domestic Partnerships' over a hundred times."

All righty then. To verify this claim, I went and read the bill. (What a concept.) Turns out, that phrase is indeed all over the text, yes, dozens of times. Only EVERY time it appears, it's as a part of the following: "references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved or invalidated." Every time. Which is clearly not at all what the anti-gay crowd is implying with TP 1).

Oh, and two can play at this game. Let's take a little something Jesus said. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you." That's Matthew 18:34-35, New International Version, with all the words in perfect sequence, I didn't even have to mess with them or begin mid-sentence. Context sure can be a real bitch, huh.

TP 2) "Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as gender neutral. The wording in the bill says, "Where necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."

All right. I have a hard time understanding why this talking point makes the cut, although I'm not completely dense, and I do suspect it has something to do with officially replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Still, someone is going to have to explain to me what makes this such a great TP. Obviously, if the bill's intent is to allow for unmarried cohabitating straight seniors or gay partners to have their domestic partnerships, then the language of "husband" and "wife" is no longer super-useful to describe the partners. You need those terms to be more flexible, so making them neutral is just good legislation. I may not be very misled or deceived here, but I sure am cornfused. Should I be angry? Relieved? What?

TP 3) "If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose 'same-sex marriage' (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November."

This litigation of DOMA you fear: It's going to happen regardless of the result next month on R-71. And the litigants will win a case someday, for the same legal reasons they won in California. You can't stop it. And even if you could, this referendum isn't the way to stop it, since even if you win this time around, the legislature will pass a SB 5688 clone next session.

Also, you're just guessing. Unless you plan to file the lawsuit yourself. (As Jon Stewart might say: "Duuuuu-bi-oussssssssssssssssss.")

TP 4) "Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family."

OK, let's skip past the circular logic of the first sentence and tackle the second sentence. I will bet my house, and maybe yours too, that the vast, vast, vast majority of these "thousands of studies" are focused on children raised in single-parent homes vs. those raised in two-parent homes. And I'm not going to pretend that a single parent can, IN GENERAL, do a better job of fulfilling the emotional, physical, and financial needs of a child or children than two parents can. That's just common sense. (Did I say, "In general" loud enough?) Which is what a study will invariably conclude, time after time after thousandth time.

But how many studies compare the emotional/physical health of kids raised in same-sex marriages with that of kids raised in straight marriages? That's the info that might be pertinent here; not the "non-traditional family" mountain of evidence. Very impressive bit of misleading there, gay-haters.

TP 5) "Criminalization of free speech and 'anti-bullying' laws follow the legalization of same-sex 'marriage'. In a few short months after legalizing same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!"

First of all, next time, lose the exclamation point. It's juvenile. Second of all, don't use the example of a foreign country's free speech legislation to illustrate what might happen here. Canada's free speech laws don't apply south of their border... OR DO THEY??!! Come on. Misleading, with a side serving of scare tactics thrown in.

(Oh, I GET to use exclamation points. In an ironic way.)

TP 6) "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex 'marriage' and homosexuality are perfectly normal."

They may well be "forced" to teach that being gay no longer automatically exempts you from certain rights, especially in civics classes or American politics or social studies or something along those lines. But as long as same-sex marriage remains illegal in Washington, and it still will be against the law a month from now after the election, I doubt the public school system will deem SSM normal. The schools don't make a habit of endorsing illegal behavior. Except for that smoke-in last week in my first-grader's classroom. That was fun. Good weed, too.

But the real deception here is the none-too-subtle implication that kindergartners or early elementary students are going to be discussing those topics. Not really in the curriculum for that age group, people. But thanks for the "Our teachers are going to turn all our 5-year-olds into gay America-haters" scare tactic.

TP 7) "Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!"

Again with the punctuation thing? Whatever. But if you're going to fight against the right of homosexuals to live as they choose, to attain the same set of rights straight people have access to, you should not begin your final talking point with the opposite of what you believe.

In that case, you're just engaging in some pretty heavy self-deception.

Done with that. I DO feel better. Oh wait, yeah, I promised an explanation of the headline. Well, the Reject R-71 crowd is made up of mainly conservatives. Or "cons" for short. The talking points are deceptive. Surely you get it now.

Sure, We Hate, But At Least We're Cowards About It / 9-11-09

In the latest skirmish over whether items of public record may be viewed by the public, the side aiming to keep open records from being open has won a round.

(Not that you can tell where I stand on this issue.)

Judge Benjamin Settle today granted the request of Protect Discrimination Washington, I mean, Protect Prejudice Washington, I mean, Protect CivilRightsDenialIsAFunGame Washington, to keep the signatures of R-71 under wrap of secrecy. For the time being.

To its credit, the Secretary of State's office and now the state's Attorney General wish to appeal so the signatures will become part of the public record, as they have been for past initiatives.

(R-71 is a citizens' initiative aimed at removing certain civil rights granted gay couples earlier this year by the state legislature. It will appear on the November ballot. A yes vote on the initiative, perversely, keeps those civil rights intact. Vote no if you're in favor of hate.)

Got this from the Seattle Times:

"Settle said people have a right to participate anonymously in the political process, and the state's Public Records Act is likely unconstitutional because it abridges that right. The decision alarmed state officials and public records advocates, who said he misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent and would eviscerate open government laws."

So, a silver lining. Good.

More from the Times:

"But state Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn't shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls - nothing that would 'be appropriate to overturning the state's strong tradition for open government.' "

I feel better. Well, not better. But hopeful. Meanwhile, YES on R-71.

It's something, at least / 9-4-09

Here's my first volley in the R-71 battle.
While we wait for the courts to decide if the signatures on R-71 are to remain public, I have something only semi-wasteful of your time that you can ponder.
When you click here, you'll be directed to No on R-71, which is acting as an anti-gay-rights home page of sorts for Washingtonians; it's put together by the same folks who brought you the initiative in the first place. Click through the members. See if you recognize someone. If you do, consider sending them a message. Something polite.
("F*cking hater! Get your slimy holier-than-thou paws off my friend's sex life!" is probably not your best strategy.)
Something like "Gays are entitled to civil rights too. Please consider that R-71 is not about marriage, but about about guaranteeing equal rights to gay couples in matters such as visitation rights, medical care, estate planning, and power of attorney. These are options you take for granted, but which you seemingly want to deny to gay partners, and I wish you would reconsider. Thanks for listening." That will have a more than 0 percent success rate. Not much more, granted, but it'll also make you feel better, which is something.
Oh, you can follow this link too, it's the same.

Spouting / 9-4-09

OK, R-71 qualified for the November ballot. I've moved past denial and bargaining. Trying to sort through anger, planning on skipping depression, moving toward acceptance.
(R-71 is an citizens' intiative here in Washington aiming to remove civil rights the legislature granted gay couples earlier this year.)
But I want to get into the public-record side of things. The group that got R-71 on the ballot, Misguided So-Called Christians With Nothing Better To Do, er, I mean Protect Marriage Washington, is fighting the release of the names of folks who signed their petition.
Those signatures are public record, under state law; the group's attorneys are asking for the names to remain sealed. A Tacoma judge says he'll review the case and might rule as early as Thursday as to whether anonymity is granted.
From R-71 attorney Sarah Troupis, quoted at seattletimes.com: releasing the signatures "directly leads to the threats, harassment and reprisals that we worry citizens of Washington will be subject to."
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.)
You want to use our system of government, which operates on the assumption of open records, to further marginalize a group of citizens, and you want the folks who support your efforts to remain anonymous.
You're afraid that the people you are trying to take civil rights away from will get upset? I grant you that. I'm hopping mad, and it's not even my rights you're directly messing with.
You're afraid they'll turn violent? Hmm. Is that because you view gays in general as somehow sub-human creatures, predisposed to assault you for your opinions? After all, you are trying to put them in a second-class box.
Let's expose hate and discrimination for what they are. Let's have the signatures out in the open, like they have been for every other initiative in state history, and let the chips fall where they may. If a signer of R-71 gets beat up, prosecute the offender for a hate crime, but please, let's not begin to operate this government in secrecy and fear. Instead, may the best ideas win.
P.S. 1. Oh yeah, I don't think excluding gays from civil rights married couples have access to is going to be that best winning idea. But knock yourself out.
P.S. 2. I will be posting extensively on this topic.