Gay question requires straight answers

I was going to blog about all those election “bombshells” and stuff, but it’s late, I’m tired, and I’ve got too much to say. So I’m going to bed, and I’ll finish my rant in the morning.

In the meanwhile I’d just like to briefly follow up on the cowardly parliamentary maneuver by a couple of conservative Democrats — and all 23 Republican state senators — to avoid a floor vote on HB 1515, a bill that would have added “sexual orientation” to our anti-discrimination laws. They don’t want to go on the record voting for the bill, because that would offend their Dominionist constituencies. But they don’t want to go on the record voting against the bill, because that would look like they endorse discriminating against gays and lesbians. So political chicken-shits that they are, the Republican caucus did what it has done in past years… avoided a floor vote entirely.

Yesterday’s satirical commentary apparently went over the heads of some of my readers, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I was only joking when I said that “Sen. Hargrove and I have secretly been lovers for well over a decade.” A more accurate description would be “casual fuck-buddies.”

But perhaps my irreverent approach isn’t for everybody, so I’d like to point you to a very straight editorial supporting HB 1515, from the very straight Seattle Times: “A simple question about gay rights.”

The bill is not about gay marriage. It does not confer special rights on gays and lesbians.

Senate Republicans and sidekicks Hargrove and Sheldon ought to stop playing games with a serious topic. Passage of HB 1515 is way overdue.

Can’t get much more straight forward or straight shooting than that. And if you’re looking for another serious-minded discussion of the topic, link on over to Orcinus, where Dave Neiwert challenges Republican claims that homosexuality is a “chosen behavior,” taking the argument to its logical conclusion, that we should also permit discrimination against “creed”… a chosen behavior if I ever saw one.

The point is, there are are gay people, and they are discriminated against. The Times says that this is a simple question about gay rights, and as I see it, the question is: “Why do we allow this discrimination to continue?”


  1. 1

    Chuck spews:

    No one is discriminated against! Any single man can marry any single woman in this state or any other for that matter. Plain and simple. No person is discriminated against. If you want a “gay or homosexual” thing then call it something else. If the Christians jumped up tomorrow and claimed the Star of David as their symbol the Jews would understandably be really pissed. That is the Jewish symbol. Marriage is a time honored commitment between heterosesual peoples…it is theie symbol. If the gays want a commitment thing, then call it something else, dont steal it from someone else…real simple.

  2. 2

    Unkl Witz spews:

    Ya know Goldy, I’m a liberal and a democrat and very much against discrimination of this kind for any reason. But frankly I’ve found your last two blogs completely tasteless and inappropriate.

    You’ve been very funny and right on point on some other topics, but you are way out to lunch on this one. I’d recommend you either stay away from this topic, or go take a vacation and reassess your style here.

  3. 3

    Chee is an indocrinated tool spews:

    S”tate law already bans discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status and *mental or physical handicap*.”

    As you can see the current law already protects that. Sorry guys, personal opinion, not that there is anything wrong with that… my opinion that is personal opinion.

  4. 4

    Goldy spews:

    Chuck @1,

    Either you don’t bother reading my posts, or your don’t really care about the truth, and are will to repeat lies in order to achieve a political victory. HB 1515 has nothing to do with gay marriage… it in no way makes gay marriage more or less likely. It merely prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, lending, and insurance.

    Unkle Witz @2,

    While I appreciate your constructive criticism, as always, I write for myself, to amuse myself. The fact that I have developed an audience, I view as affirmation that I should remain true to my art.

  5. 5

    Jon spews:

    Goldy sez:

    “So political chicken-shits that they are, the Republican caucus did what it has done in past years… avoided a floor vote entirely.”

    A bit off topic, but are you going to say the same for your Democratic brethen in the US Senate regarding federal court nominees? Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, let this bill be voted on, up or down. I’m asking you to apply your same “cowardly parliamentary maneuver” standard equally.

  6. 6

    Goldy spews:

    Jon @5,

    No… there is a huge difference. Republicans in the state Senate have the votes to defeat HB 1515 on the floor… assuming they are all willing to go on the record voting against prohibiting discrimination against gays. Democrats in the US Senate do not have the votes to block a single nomination on the floor. Without the filibuster, every single Bush nominee would be confirmed… the Democrats might as well not even show up.

    So the state Republicans are using a parliamentary maneuver to avoid having to vote on an issue, whereas the US Democrats are using one to win a vote.

  7. 7

    Diggindude spews:

    I have to admit, I too think “gay” is a chosen behavior, and am totally against letting them call their situation a “marriage” in the traditional sense, they are what they are , and are not going to go away if they aren’t granted the same rights as anyone else.
    The fact these legislators are so afraid to touch this, exposes their yellow streak. Maybe these are the types, to put on the list for extraction, come next election.
    We want people leading us, that have some balls, not cowards afraid to confront the issues.

  8. 8

    Chee spews:

    CLONE@ 3:
    How I see it! Usually the drive within for sexual experimenting and developing one’s sexuality is based on introduction and preferance established by social standards rather than any other preferance outside that box, which is usually based on pure unadulterated arousement and a stirring up till the anything goes well with their driven sexual appetite be satisfied . Laws have been passed over time regarding the prohibiting of some sexual acts and unions; unwanted encounters, underage acts,incest and right to marriage. Those who wish to give creedance to claims of being born gay, can do so. We don’t say a sexual pediphile is BORN a sexual pediphile. Nor do we say a sexual deviant is BORN a sexual deviant. BUT, we talk about being Gay as if it was third sex. I have heard all the agruements, both sides. If many straights flaunted their sexual preferances they might have to yell for help too.

  9. 9

    Chee spews:

    diggindude@7. Shark will be on TV, according last night’s news, Sunday @ 10:30 PM. Don’t know what issues he is addressing but this one might be a good one. I also look at sexual preferance as a choice untill proven otherwise. Seen a lot of unconvincing data so far.

  10. 10

    Chee spews:

    Chuck@1. The term “sexual deviation” well covered the issue of sexual preferance till the word “gay” came into being. Heh, if you veer off you veer off but that does not grant immunity from discrimination. Discrimination against straight people exists also for… any old something and they live with it.

  11. 11

    Goldy spews:

    Chee @9,

    So will I. Both Snark and I have been interviewed for Upfront with Robert Mak. We’re talking about blogging. At least, I’m talking about blogging, because I make always make a point of answering the questions I’m asked. I’ve got no idea what Snark talked about.

  12. 12

    Mark spews:

    Homosexuality (i.e. the mental state of being attracted to one’s own gender) isn’t a choice. However, homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.

    While I think that discrimination against people — regardless of nature or their choices — isn’t good, I also think that people have a freedom of association.

    Would anyone in their right mind force a Jew to rent a room in their home to a member of a neo-Nazi “church?”

    Or… should Goldy be allowed to sue Nordstrom for gender discrimination for not hiring him to work in the lingerie department (with all of his admitted cross-dressing experience)?

  13. 13

    prr spews:

    Tell you what.

    I’ll support this bill as well as Bill as well as Bill Number 5575, when they are recognized for what they are.

    Veiled racism/sexual discrimintaion against the white heterosexual community.

  14. 14

    Mark spews:

    This actually got me thinking… And I’d really like to hear from liberal or conservative posters who REALLY know the answer to this:

    Could one discriminate — let’s say in housing — if it was solely based on behavior? Could you require that a potential tennant followed the BEHAVIORS (or behavior restrictions) of the Jewish Sabbath? Could you forbid tennants — gay or straight — from engaging in non-missionary sexual practices?

  15. 15

    Jeff B. spews:

    Goldy as usual, you go well beyond the pale. You say that you write to amuse yourself. And it’s true because the more you fail to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner, the less your voice matters to anyone concerned with your topics. This is why Stefan and others are getting more and more noteriety, while you continue to play with yourself.

    As for this topic, of course discrimination is wrong. But it’s wrong in both directions. We don’t need laws that single out every single type of discirmination. And we don’t need hate laws either. As much as we all find it distaseful, it’s perfectly fine for Goldy to rant and rave with hate and as long as he doesn’t act on that hatred, it’s free speech.

    Why don’t you concentrate on people as humans instead of trying to pigeonhole them into racist categories even if those categories favor an oppressed and politically popular group?

  16. 16

    prr spews:

    Jeff B.

    I could not agree with you more.

    Quite frankly I find the entire subject matter infuriating.

    About 2 years ago, I was one of the masses searching for a job after the .com bubble burst.

    Time after time, being a college educated, caucasion, hetero sexual, veteran, made me the last pick on the job list.

    Why should other, less qualified, candidates be given priority before me?

    I’d like to see an anti-discrimation bill that just puts out an even playing field for all, gay, white, straight, black, asian, whatever. Why cannot we just have the most qualified person be given a preferred status?

  17. 17

    Chuck spews:

    Unkle Witz@4
    As a matter of fact I did read the post, but if HB1515 ever passed the gays would have the state in court in a New York minit because of the horrible descrimination of preventing gay marrige. You know it as well as I.

  18. 18

    Chee is an indoctrinated tool spews:

    Chee @ 8

    Well spoken, I agree that if they weren’t so flamboyant about their sexual prefrences and wanting to force their sexual prefrences on others they wouldn’t be as persicuted. I can’t remember the last time I heard a heterosexual scream their sexual prefrence out in a mall or grocery store, however I constantly hear it from homosexuals.

  19. 19

    Mr. X spews:

    Funny how gay rights get the trolls all engorged and tingling. The hate (or is it self-loathing?) is almost palpable….

  20. 20

    Black and white, sorry no grey spews:

    Jeff B. & PRR

    AMEN, I couldn’t agree more, if we want to remove phobias and discrimination then remove the titles we force on the “oppressed.” How long have we been passing bills and talking about the oppression of the “African American man?” and where are a good portion of them today? screaming about oppression of the white man, while accepting handouts from the white man minutes later.

  21. 21

    You\\\'re Being Silly spews:

    Mark @ 14

    It would be illegal to condition a housing transaction on a person’s willingness to engage in (or refrain from) certain religious beliefs or practices, because this would violate the statutory prohibition of religion-based discrimination.

    There is no statutory prohibition against requiring, say, a prospective tenant to have sex only in the missionary position, or for that matter, to not have sex. However, courts would consider such a provision in a rental contract as an invasion of the tenant’s privacy, and would refuse to enforce it.

  22. 22

    Unkl Witz spews:


    Not only did you not read the blog, you didn’t even read Goldy’s reply carefully enough to see it was he that was responding and not me.

    Go back and scroll thru this one again and get your thoughts together before attempting to comment.

  23. 23

    chardonnay spews:

    democrats have to invent a crisis to protect people. besides raising taxes they have nothing else.
    If it is proven that homosexual behavior along with liberalism are indeed mental disorders, or a disability, will they then qualify for the euthanasia program? according to scientology and other cults this is strongly suggested for the less than perfect.
    Not that I’m for that….Caveat emptor!

  24. 24

    Mark spews:

    Silly @ 21

    “It would be illegal to condition a housing transaction on a person’s willingness to engage in (or refrain from) certain religious beliefs or practices…”

    Yes, I know that. BUT, what I’m talking about would be secular activities/restrictions in line with something like the Jewish Sabbath. Not being Jewish, I apologize if I misunderstand, but I believe that Saturday is to be a day of rest and feasting. You’re not supposed to work. Without adding any of the religious aspects, why couldn’t you simply state that a tennant is not allowed to engage in any non-rest-type activities in your home on Saturdays?

  25. 25


    Wow, the ignorance is thick in the comments today.

    Heterosexuals don’t flaunt their sexual preference? PLEASE.

    I particularly like Chuck’s revival of the ridiculous argument from Loving v Virginia, where the state tried to claim that because blacks couldn’t marry whites and whites couldn’t marry blacks, no one was being discriminated against. The Court laughed that one out of the chamber; this rehash of a lame attempt to validate bigotry is no better.

  26. 26

    Mark spews:

    Silly @ 21 & Me @ 24

    I actually have a better example of a restricted behavior on Sabbath. (Again, my apologies if I’m misrepresenting the Jewish Sabbath). Apparently, strict adherence to the Sabbath means that you can’t turn on an electric light. Could a landlord, through use of bypass wiring, enforce that behavior in his/her own household as long as that was stated up front in the rental agreement?

  27. 27

    Chee is an indoctrinated tool spews:

    Torrid @ 25

    Ooh the “B” word, I knew it was on it’s way. We just had to wait for the oregonian tax swallowing blogger to arrive, welcome to the party sit down and I’ll light you a fag.

  28. 28

    Dubyasux spews:

    Unkl Witz @ 2

    I find right-wing comments (e.g., by Ann Coulter) that liberals are “traitors” and should be executed or put in concentration camps far more “tasteless and inappropriate.” Goldy’s humor may be raw at times, but he has never advocated violence against those he disagrees with. The same can’t be said of wingers. Last week, we even had a Republican member of Congress tacitly encouraging violence against judges — which to my thinking is vastly more justification for impeachment than a private sexual affair.

  29. 29

    JCH spews:

    #2.UNCL WITZ………You seem a little “touchy” on this subject. Any “special” reason you’d like to share?

  30. 30

    Black and white, sorry no grey spews:

    Dubyasux @ 28 & Unkl witz @ 2

    Hey I commend Unkl witz, it takes balls to stand up to your own party’s tasteless rantings and bill pushing (don’t worry it goes both ways, even though you think it’s only your enemies side that is wrong.)

  31. 31

    You're Being Silly spews:

    26, any agency enforcing fair housing laws will look at that as a ruse to discriminate against non-Jews.

  32. 33

    John Fonda Kerry spews:

    The point is, there are are gay people, and they are discriminated against. Why do we allow this discrimination to continue?”

    Yes, let happy people be happy.

    If you mean there are are homosexuals, bi, child molesters and sexual deviants of all kinds. Yes, there are. They choose to do what they do. Forced sex is rape. Consensual sex is choice!

    Government has no responsibility for what you choose to do with your body, even when your own conscience tells you it is wrong.

    The founding fathers of this country would be the first to send all sexual deviants to Canada or France. You can stop whining now; no one likes self-promoting perverts like you sexual deviants.

    You see afraid to talk about the election:

    “That’s appalling that that would happen,” Reed said, “and totally unacceptable. “If that happened to me as county auditor, as I was in Thurston County, some heads would roll. You just don’t do those things.”
    One of the first tasks for the county is to create an accurate ballot report, he said.


  33. 34

    Chuck spews:

    You could use that same example when a man wants to marry a boy, or a human wants to marry a horse, or someone wants to marry their car…

  34. 35


    chuck @ 32
    compelling interest of the states:

    boy–minors cannot enter into contracts due to their reduced capacity for wisdom based on age.
    horse–animals are not provided rights under the Constitution.
    car–vehicles are not provided rights under the Constitution.

    If you (or anyone) would like to explain the compelling interest of the state that makes barring same-sex marriage a tenable option, you have the floor.

  35. 36

    Mark spews:

    Silly @ 30

    What about the rights of the homeowner? If it is against their religion to have the lights in the home on during the Sabbath, why should they be forced to have them be on? You can’t argue loss of use if it is spelled out beforehand in the rental agreement that the lights in the home will be disabled on Saturdays.

    Similarly, why should that person be forced to sublet a room to a neo-Nazi?

  36. 38

    Mark spews:

    Question to all:

    If homosexual marriage were to be legalized, should people be able to sue a church and FORCE them to perform the marriage ceremony on the basis of non-discrimination?

  37. 39


    mark @ 35
    same rules apply–what’s the state’s compelling interest?

    I would argue (as I believe the states have) that polygamy and polyandry make it impossible to assign power of attorney and inheritance under established laws. In other words, if you have two wives, both wives cannot have your Power of Attorney. Imagine a situation where Terri Schiavo had two husbands, and they disagreed over her care. Who has primacy? The spouse. Uh….which one?

    So the state’s interest is that polygamy would render other laws impossible to follow.

  38. 40


    mark @ 36
    of course not. The discussion is entirely restricted to the granting of licenses by the state (and the benefits thereof), not the performing of governmentally meaningless ceremonies in the church. You can get married 100 times in a 100 different churches on the same day–but the only one that’s legal in the eyes of the state is the one where you got the preacher to sign the license.

    Should preachers be allowed to opt out of signing such a license? You bet.

  39. 41

    Mark spews:

    TJ @ 37

    So, by your argument, if it can be shown that established laws refer to gender in a marriage (and I don’t know if they do), homosexual unions cannot be legalized until said laws are rewritten?

  40. 42

    lal spews:

    where Terri Schiavo had two husbands

    Her husband had two wives. You liberals fail to recognize the common law wife, who is probably next on the death list.

  41. 44


    mark @ 49
    Yes, if a statute refers to a man and a woman as the allowed participants in a marriage, that statute either needs to be changed or found constitutionally wanting…as is currently being done in WA, CA and OR.

    lal @ 40
    There is no common law statute in Florida.

    mark @ 41
    Can they? Or should they be able to?
    I’m unsure about #1–it may vary by state–but the answer to the second form of the question is yes, IMO. The church can refuse to marry anyone they want.

  42. 45

    John Fonda Kerry spews:

    Yes, let happy people be happy.

    If you mean there are are homosexuals, bi, child molesters and sexual deviants of all kinds. Yes, there are. They choose to do what they do. Forced sex is rape. Consensual sex is choice!
    Government has no responsibility for what you choose to do with your body, even when your own conscience tells you it is wrong.
    The founding fathers of this country would be the first to send all sexual deviants to Canada or France. You can stop whining now; no one is fond of self-promoting perverts like you sexual deviants.

    You are afraid to talk real news:

    “That’s appalling that that would happen,” Reed said, “and totally unacceptable.”If that happened to me as county auditor, as I was in Thurston County, some heads would roll. You just don’t do those things.”
    One of the first tasks for the county is to create an accurate ballot report, he said.

    (from Seattle Times)

  43. 46

    prr spews:

    Torrid @ 33

    Your forgetting, if we are drawing the line at this, why could I not marry my sister or my brother then?

  44. 48


    prr @ 43
    I’m not forgetting anything. An incestual marriage would create the same issue as polygamy–the spouse would by nature already hold an irreconciable family status. What happens if the person dies and his will says, “I leave everything to my siblings, and nothing to my spouse?” Could the sister (or brother) he married legitimately claim a share of the inheritance as a sibling, or would he/she be shut out as a spouse?

    lal @ 44
    show me the statute that provides for common law spouses in Florida. I won’t hold my breath.

  45. 49

    prr spews:

    mark @ 36

    Great question.

    As a catholic who was married out of the church, My wife has to go through classes to be married in the church (So I can be a good catholic again, but that’s another subject)

    I think we shoudl redefine the definitions;

    marriage, a union through a religious service.

    Civil union would apply to everyon else. All the rights which apply to a civil union would apply to marriage.

  46. 50


    prr @ 45
    If you mean civil unions would apply to everyone who wished to have state blessing of their union–religiously married or no–I think that’s a great idea.

  47. 52


    apologies if this comes through again–not sure what happened the first time:

    prr @ 43
    for the same reason polygamy doesn’t work–the confusion of status. What if a man married his sister, and then wrote a will saying his siblings get the inheritance, and not his spouse? Does that woman get any money, or not?

    lal @ 44
    if you want to provide the section of Florida code covering common law spouses, knock yourself out. But bring a sack lunch, because you’ll be searching for a while.

  48. 53

    jsa on beacon hill spews:

    Let me join in the lovefest mentioned by prr and torridjoe.

    Agreed! Agreed!

  49. 54

    Dubyasux spews:

    lal @ 44

    No, lal, YOU are wrong — there’s no common law marriage in Florida.

    Title XLIII

    741.211 Common-law marriages void.–No common-law marriage entered into after January 1, 1968, shall be valid, except that nothing contained in this section shall affect any marriage which, though otherwise defective, was entered into by the party asserting such marriage in good faith and in substantial compliance with this chapter.

    History.–s. 1, ch. 67-571.

    You seem to be one of those people who’s too lazy to look things up. Or maybe posting on righty blogs has gotten you in the habit of winging it with whatever pops into your head.

    That kid stuff doesn’t fly on HorsesAss. Most of the folks blogging here know their stuff — and do the research — so if you try that here, you’ll just shoot yourself in the foot, because someone is sure to call your bluff.

  50. 55

    Don spews:

    As long as we’re talking about tasteless and inappropriate humor, I may as well relate an incident that occurred to me a couple months ago when I called in to a well-known local talk radio show. On January 31, 2005, at 4:03 PM, to be exact.

    I was sitting on hold while Carlson, oops, I mean a well-known local talk radio host, was taking a traffic report break when a male staffer (who did not identify himself) picked up the line and said, “I want to ask you a question.”

    Me: “Okay.”

    Male Voice: “Do you think a woman’s desire goes up when she’s pregnant?”

    This was followed by several other people (including at least one female) laughing in the background. I got a distinct impression that Carlson’s, oops, I mean a well-known local talk show host’s staff didn’t have much work to do and were amusing themselves by making fun of the show’s callers.

    Well, I thought it was tasteless and inappropriate, so I called the KVI, oops, I mean well-known local radio station’s business office the next day to complain. I only got a recording, so I left my name and phone number, and stated my complaint.

    Never heard back from ‘em. Guess they didn’t take my complaint seriously. After all, it was just a big joke, right?

  51. 56

    Don spews:

    On a different topic, attorney Paul Lehto sued Snohomish County and Sequoia Voting Systems in King County Superior Court today. Sequoia is the vendor of the touch-screen voting machines used by Snohomish County in the November 2004 election.

    Lehto, you may recall, conducted an investigation that revealed suspicious voting patterns at Snohomish County polling places — although the county’s absentee vote favored Gregoire, the poll voting inexplicably heavily favored Rossi, and voters reported “anomalies” at dozens of precincts (e.g., they tried to vote for Gregoire but the Sequoia machines changed their votes to Rossi).

    I hope Paul won’t mind if I quote his e-mail so those of you wanting more information about this breaking development can easily find it:

    “Our lawsuit against the restructuring of our voting system in favor of secret unverifiable voting has been filed in King County Superior Court on Thursday April 7. (My attorney is Randy Gordon of Bellevue, WA) You can read a brief article about it and download a copy of the lawsuit here:

    “My co-plaintiff Jack Wells is a veteran of WWII, and descendent of one of the early state legislators in WA state as well as the descendent of a Revolutionary War soldier. If the article on washblog is aging down the list, you can also download the lawsuit at You might say I ‘ran into’ this Sequoia contract when trying to obtain additional information to supplement the Lehto/Hoffman study on irregularities in the Nov. 2004 election in Snohomish County, and found out that even after co-writing a 29 page scientific paper showing (among other things) that malfunctioning machines taken out of service contained more than 50% more Republican votes for governor than Democratic votes in the closest gubernatorial election in US history, as well as being a consumer fraud attorney, I was still not entitled to even look at how our computerized elections are actually done, much less get copies of electronic files.

    “We’re seeking to void the purchase contract for Sequoia DREs and return the money (around $5 million) to Snohomish County government taxpayers.

    “The various claims are basically all different way or reasons to reach this same result, but the claims include impairing the right to vote, attempting to change the rights of citizens through a mere purchase contract, and violations of what have been called the strongest public policies in the state of Washington, like that of the Open Meetings Act quoted here:

    ‘The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created’

    “Certainly, it’s ‘good for the people to know’ whether the power they are transferring from themselves to the government, as well as the tax money, is being legitimately transferred or not. Even if it weren’t for the requirement of checks and balances, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to trust any person or government to investigate itself, test itself, count the votes in secret itself, and blow the whistle on itself (unless it absolutely has to). And oh yeah, the Sequoia touch screen voting computers also don’t work. But the worst kind of secret vote counting system is the kind that does work, or seems to work, *perfectly*, because in that case then people tend to let it slip by and an easily corruptible form of voting becomes the new institution.

    “This is not about hypothetical concerns about accuracy, both because there’s lots of evidence (in the study linked to below, which is Exhibit B in the complaint), but also because there’s nothing ‘hypothetical’ about the fact that an entirely new system of nontraditional nontransparent and non-democratic elections ALREADY HAS BEEN SET UP. Thus, this new system has to be checked and balanced now before it gets the power of ‘tradition’ behind it.

    “I’m just glad the Founders didn’t have people running around saying ‘conspiracy theory’ when they were discussing checks and balances, if you know what I mean. Bottom line is that elections are based on trust only in less-than-free countries.

    “The Everett Herald will has the first non-blog story in Friday’s paper>
    (paragraph 3 must be a typo, saying the reps and dems are shielding information when it should be Sequoia and Snohomish County that are doing that.)

    “Twenty three members of Congress recently signed a letter containing some similar demands for openness since the voting companies are performing a governmental function, and stating that they will seek to withdraw their federal funding if they don’t comply. See (Divestiture for Democracy campaign)

    “The Lehto/Hoffman Study:
    “A very simple one page summary of the study in the form of a press release is here:

  52. 57

    Don is an even bigger indoctrinated tool spews:

    Donnysux @ 49

    “That kid stuff doesn’t fly on HorsesAss. Most of the folks blogging here know their stuff – and do the research – so if you try that here, you’ll just shoot yourself in the foot, because someone is sure to call your bluff.”

    You could have fooled me, you are often times the most childish person here, especially when you are frustrated with a completely logical debate.

    Your comment about doing your research is BS statement since you didn’t even know from what precincts the ballots came from when trying to apply proportional analysis. Have fun patting yourself on the back though that should keep you entertained for at least a few more months until Gregiore dries up and blows away.

  53. 58

    Mark spews:

    TJ @ 46

    So, you’re saying that gay MARRIAGE isn’t a “must” as long as civil unions are legal and binding?

    I think that position sits much better with moderate (and maybe even some less-moderate) conservatives than the idea that homosexuals have a right to marriage in the church sense. It may seem a minor thing to some (or many?), but I think one sticking point for those opposed is the specific use of the word “marriage.”

  54. 59

    Don spews:

    Toolless @ 51

    Your opinion of my faults, which by the way is only your opinion (for whatever that’s worth) doesn’t change the fact that “lal” was full of shit when s/he claimed Florida has common law marriage. I quoted the frickin’ statute, what more do you want, jackass?

  55. 60


    mark @ 46
    I think you’re probably right. But when has ANY of this ever had anything to do with church marriages? None of the laws or bills I’m aware of have ever claimed a manifest right for church marriage for same-sex unions.

    I’m saying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is a must as long as hetero marriage is legit in the eyes of the state. If states want to do away with the term “marriage” for their purposes and grant all qualifying couples with a “civil unions license,” I think that’s a fine solution. They can call it “Fish Sandwich Fridays” for all I care, as long as they’re open to two adult humans who consent to a committed relationship sanctioned by the state.

  56. 61

    Don is an even bigger indoctrinated tool spews:

    Donnysux @ 53

    …And the barrage of name calling starts again, don’t worry I won’t steal you lunch money, and I sureley won’t have my dad beat up your dad.
    One brief stint of research doesn’t clear you from the random argument points you throw out that are not based on fact, you know the ones you burn others at the stake for.

  57. 62

    Dubyasux spews:

    I don’t see why gays shouldn’t enjoy the same legal rights to property, inheritance, insurance, employment benefits, etc., as heteros have. I don’t really understand gays and can’t relate to their lifestyle, but to me it’s a simple issue of applying the laws to everyone equally. It doesn’t matter whether you call it “marriage” or “civil union” or “Fish Sandwich Friday,” it’s all the same thing, and equality under the law is the real issue here. I utterly fail to see how two gays in San Francisco can possibly threaten the marriage of someone living in Georgia or Florida or wherever. It’s gotta be a very shaky marriage to begin with, if that’s the case.

  58. 63

    Mark spews:

    Dubyasux & TJ

    So… if you were to do away with the legal concerns by appointing which partner(s) had what power of attorney, etc., what would be the harm in allowing polygamy? IIRC, polygamy has a much longer and broader tradition of cultural acceptance in the world. How did they deal with inheritance and other legal issues then? You just have a “primary wife” or “primary husband.” The benefits to a “poly” couple err… “group” would be things like insurance, the right of a family member at the hospital, etc.

  59. 64

    Dubyasux spews:

    toolless @ 55

    Gee, I didn’t know you were so sensitive! We’d all better be careful what we say around Toolless because s/he is SENSITIVE! and we don’t want to offend, do we? (Uh, well, yeah that was sort of my intent, but let it go, let it go …. )

    The fact is, proportional analysis is a fool’s errand, because the state supreme court won’t go for it; but if you insist on going that route all the way down to precinct level, answer this: How do you do proportional analysis when there’s only 1 illegal (or uncounted legal) vote in the entire precinct?

  60. 65

    Dubyasux spews:

    Mark @ 57

    Let’s start with one at a time, to keep things manageable, and worry about your other 76 virgins later.

  61. 66


    Mark @ 57
    I don’t see how one would “do away” with the legal concerns. There can only be one chief of the tribe, so to speak.
    If you’re suggesting a legal situation similar to ancient China, where you had a designated “first wife” and everybody else was subordinate–if that would pass, I wouldn’t have a problem with polygamy.

  62. 67

    Mickymse spews:

    Jeez, people…

    Get a clue or two before flapping your gums in a public forum!

    HB 1515 has NOTHING to do with affirmative action or special rights. It doesn’t grant any new rights to anyone. It doesn’t rank any group of people over any other group. It simply deals with the DENIAL to a particular group of people of rights which are inherent to all citizens of our state.

    HB 1515 also has NOTHING to do with the definition of marriage. It is specifically written to cover issues of discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, lending, and insurance.

    It was even amended to allow for some exceptions, such as when renting a space in one’s own dwelling. In other words, a conservative Christian would be allowed to deny renting a room to a gay couple because s/he finds such a pair living together offensive.

    Furthermore, while the law is obviously written to address issues of discrimination against gays and lesbians in Washington state, it does not outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians. It outlaws discrimination BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or perceived orientation.

    It doesn’t matter what someone does or does not choose to label themselves. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s by birth or by choice.

    Finally, if some trolls here don’t believe we should outlaw discrimination for lifestyle “choices,” then I would be more than happy to remove from the law books ANY REFERENCES to prohibiting discrimination based on creed or religion.

    Clearly, many people in this state and many of the cowardly Republicans in our Legislature have no problem CHOOSING to claim to be “religious” Christians who preach hatred, ignorance of Scripture, and a basic denial of the love of Jesus for ALL mankind.

  63. 68

    Don is an even bigger indoctrinated tool spews:

    Donsux @ 58

    Logic would say it would work like the Electoral College, the most voted for candidate in that precinct would get it. That is to say that we are intend on being logical in this case, are we?

  64. 69


    tooldon @ 62
    What kind of logic would that be? Do you go to the polls and vote the way your precinct did, automatically? The purpose of reviewing illegal votes is to find out how those votes were tabulated. The process is necessarily at the individual vote level.

    In any case, precincts and counties don’t HAVE an electoral college for statewide office. So what logic suggests applying a vote-tallying theory with no relevant basis to the election at hand?

  65. 70

    Mark spews:

    Dubya @ 59

    I’m sorry, Dubya, I didn’t mean to overtax your limited mental resources.

  66. 71

    skinny spews:

    Mickymse @ 61

    While you’re removing the prohibition against discrimination based on religion, you can remove the one based on marital status, too. Last I heard, that was purely a choice (for a majority of people, anyway).

    I just want to see it on record that 23 WA Senate Republicans and the 2 DINOs believe it’s OK that a gay couple in Wenatchee is kicked out of their home for no other reason than for being gay. In whose world view is this acceptable? In 25 Senators’ views, apparently. Despicable.

  67. 73

    Mr. X spews:

    “…but seriously, is it a choice, a learned behavior or a birth defect?”

    Wow, just when I thought you couldn’t be any more stupid. If you really wanted someone to take your question seriously, you might have added “innate” to your list of choices, considering that homosexuality has occurred in every civilization in known human history. Or are you one of those flat earth types who thinks the earth is 6000 years old?

    I still think the level of homophobia expressed here can only be explained by my suggestion in an earlier post – the wingnuts are all self-loathing closet cases.

  68. 74

    Liking it spews:

    Are there really people that think that creed is a behavior? You might as well say that North is South, and Night is Day. I will have to check the Thesaurus for the antonym of belief. I expect it to say something like behavior.

    Goldy, do you really believe that creed is the same as behavior?

  69. 75

    Goldy spews:

    Liking it @74,

    I would say that creed, like sexual preference, is something that determines behavior. But I think the difference between creed and the other protected classes, is that creed is a matter of choice. Since the anti-gay crowd argues that sexuality is choice, creed was brought into the discussion to suggest that if homosexuality should be denied protection because it is a matter of choice (and I don’t accept that it is) then the same could be said about creed.

    It was a rhetorical point.

  70. 76

    Dubyasux spews:

    Toolless @ 68

    Oh — are you one of those people who says the candidate who wins the most counties should be president? Figures.

  71. 77

    Dubyasux spews:

    Mark @ 70

    Even in my stupidest moments, I know Florida doesn’t have common law marriage.

  72. 78

    Mark spews:

    Dubya @ 77

    “Even in my stupidest moments, I know Florida doesn’t have common law marriage.”

    But you apparently don’t know how to read. My comment @ 70 referred to your comment @ 59 (later bumped to 65), which referred to my comment @ 57 (bumped to 63). At no point in that thread was there anything about Florida or common law marriage. Or was it simply a matter of getting confused when you run out of fingers and toes?

  73. 79

    Dubyasux spews:

    Mark @ 78

    lal said in 40 (later bumped to 42) that Michael Schiavo had a “common law wife.” TJ responded at 44, “There is no common law statute in Florida.” lal @ 47 retored, “Wrong, again.” I replied to lal @ 54 by quoting the Florida statute declaring common law marriages void. I was attacked by tool @ 57 and responded @ 59, then tool accused me of name-calling @ 61 and I replied to him @ 64, then you butted in @ 70 which is fine, and I don’t see where I attacked you or called you names anywhere in this thread.

    Or did I? If you were posting under the name “Don is an even bgger indoctrinated tool,” then yes, I did!

  74. 80

    Mark spews:

    Now you’re saying that you’re Don (who posted @ 59)? Have you inadvertently let the cat out of the bag? Dubyasux = Don? Is one personality aware of the other?

    Here’s where you’re confused… and I’ll use the NEW (post-bump) message numbers to keep things simple.

    Torrid & I had been discussing the legal aspects of gay marriage, etc. You similarly commented at (NEW) 62 about property rights, etc. So, at (NEW) 63, I commented to both you and Torrid about the legal issues and asked the polyamory question. You replied at (NEW) 65 that you wanted to “keep things manageable” and I commented at (NEW) 70 that having to deal with multiple issues/partners/etc. was taxing your limited mental resources. At (NEW) 77, you referred to my (NEW) 70 and talked about common law marriage.

    I’m wondering if your multiple personalities got things mixed up.

  75. 81

    zip spews:

    Nice try twisting this around to a rant against the senate Republicans. Your beef should be against the two democrats who would not go along with the bill.

    The result of any “employment discrimination” prohibition such as HB 1515 is to provide more ammo to laid off or fired employees for wrongful termination claims. Things are already at the point where termination of any employee is risky because they can easily find an attorney to help them sue the employer.

    Open questions, Goldy: Why should a business owner who does NOT discriminate be put at risk of wrongful-termination lawsuits by HB1515?

    Where are the statistics proving that gay people are being discriminated against in hiring (pretty tough to know that a person is gay during the application or interview process/good employees are hard to find: both reasons why such discrimination is counter-productive for the employer).

  76. 82

    zip spews:

    Goldy, I’ll repeat my self here: “anybody who disagrees with them or does not do what they want, for any reason, is accused of ENDORSING discrimination or bigotry.” That is how you are playing this issue and it is a losing argument. It is a loser because the majority of citizens do not discriminate and resent being called “endorsers of discrimination” (or worse) for not suporting this bill or the rest of the gay rights agenda.

  77. 83

    Dubyasux/Don/Bob/Tom/Jill/Betty/Jack/Whoever spews:

    Mark @ 80

    The notice of my screen name change was openly posted on HorsesAss. Where were you? Sleeping? Hey, call me anything you want — Bob, Tom, Jill, Betty, Jack — just don’t call me a “Republican.” “lal” was full of it when she/he/it posted about Michael Schiavo’s “common law wife.” M.Schiavo doesn’t have a “common law wife” and never did. If you want to butt in that issue, welcome! Are you disputing the fact Florida has a statute that declares common law marriages void in that state?

  78. 84

    Chee spews:

    zip@82. Takes two to tango! FUTURE ORANGE ALERT: THEY CAN’T TANGO, END IS NEAR.”Homosapians have been placed on endangered species list due to rise in homosexuality and homosexual unions. :-) A kit is available to seal your house.

  79. 86

    Mr. X spews:



    f**k off jerk

    Comment by zip — 4/9/05 @ 9:22 am

    Erudite and witty, to be sure. Quality discourse from a top notch mind – NOT.

  80. 87

    Liking it spews:

    Creed is nothing like sexual preference. I honestly don’t understand the comparison. No religious person I know of states their faith in terms of preferences. “On Mondays, I prefer to worship the God of Baal, but on the Sabath, I go with the more traditional religious preference of Judaism according to the culture in which I was raised.” How silly is that? Even if you still believe religious belief to be merely a preference of one brand of religion, it still isn’t like sexual preference. Sexual preference is what sexual “behavior” you favor. It is not based on any religion and beliefs. Just whatever makes you feel good.

  81. 88

    zip spews:

    Mr X and Chee: you idiots call Chee’s “it takes 2 to tango” comment “quality discourse?” What a couple of loser hacks.

  82. 89

    zip spews:


    I resent you calling me a homophobe you a**hole: go back and read my comment 82 again and tell me where I’m a homophobe.

    You ilustrate my point precisely: anybody who dares to question the gay rights political agenda is labelled a homophobe or as Goldy puts it “an ENDORSER of discrimination”. That behavior is pretty standard among lefty jerkoff a**holes like you.

  83. 90

    Chee spews:

    ZIP@89. You zipped through my sardonic post, missed my irony. I also question the gay rights political adgenda, and made no implication towards you having a phobia about gays. The slogan gay protestors have used, “Were In Your Face America” and want more and more special rights. They can live under same rule as others do. They made the choice to go against nature and I don;t want them in my face about it. I am not sold on the born homo clause either.

  84. 91

    Chee spews:

    Liking it @87: “Sexual preference is what sexual “behavior” you favor. It is not based on any religion and beliefs. Just whatever makes you feel good.” Yup. Like they say, whatever turns your crank. Just cause somebody prefers Lady Five Fingers instead of Lady Ten Fingers does not give that somebody anymore rights than any other somebodies. In fact, oddly enough, religion and the Bible ties in here. If you doubt it check the DIRECT quote that refers to jerking off. It discusses whether it is better to spew your wad on the ground or lay it in the belly of a whore. So much for rules on sexual preferance and whacking the willy.

  85. 92

    zip spews:

    I never said I wasn’t sold on the born gay possibility. It may very well be true. It seems that we agree that the Gay Rights activists are just power hungry whiners trying to create another protected class. And the fact that they lash out against anybody who does not support their agenda is why they will never gain public support until they change their tune.

    What I’m not sold on is the need for this legislation which will just create more lawsuits. I’m not sold on Goldy’s over the top statements that those Senators who don’t support this bill are ENDORSING DISCRIMINATION. I’m also not sold on Goldy flinging BS towards the Republican minority when this bill fails rather than the Democrats who are in the majority and can do whatever they damn well please in Olympia right now. Turning the failure of this bill into a “Republicans are bigots” rant is a low blow shot and way off the mark.

  86. 93

    Chee spews:

    Zip@92. Gay issues fall into the social and moral issue catagory, one which both Democrates and Republicans as well as other parties hold some strong views about. Based on majority rule, bill proposals will be passed or fail to pass and unless put to a vote of the people, we have little control and power. The option open to us may or may not shift the sand but we can attempt to lobby our reps.