Sunday afternoon outing

Ken Vogel has a thoughtful piece in today’s Tacoma News Tribune, discussing the ethics of outing closeted gay politicians who actively oppose extending civil rights legislation to the gay community. The recent controversy was sparked by a letter WA state Sen. Ken Jacobsen sent to NY Times The Ethicist columnist Randy Cohen… and I freely admit that I have intentionally fanned the flames in my posts here on HA.

I was interviewed for the article, and Vogel quotes me accurately and in context. I stand by my comments.

David Goldstein, a liberal Seattle-based blogger, disagreed. He wrote on his blog,, that he’d consider outing a specific Republican state senator who opposed the gay rights bill if it would help pass the legislation next session.

That senator “should think twice before casting another hypocritical vote in opposition,” warned Goldstein’s post, which did not name the senator.

The post prompted a spirited debate among his readers in the comments field of his blog. Some accused him of blackmail or of practicing the type of intolerance advocates say the gay rights bill would outlaw.

Others asserted that aggressive politics by Republicans, mostly at the national level, justified outing gay Republican politicians at the state level.

But in interviews, Goldstein and Jacobsen said they’d rather not be involved in an outing


  1. 2

    christmasghost spews: about hypocrites. look in the mirror.
    i really am saddened by your comments…even though you take ‘liberal’ to the next level i never thought that “the end justifies the means” was your mantra.
    that’s just really disappointing.just remember…what goes around comes around, so when someone discovers some of your skeletons [and we all have them] don’t expect any sympathy from anyone. you won’t deserve it.

  2. 3

    christmasghost spews:

    goldy says….”Perhaps outings are never ethically justified… I’m still ambivalent.”
    appalling…truly appalling that you would even make a statement like that. mainly because you don’t seem to have any idea of just how revealing it is…….

  3. 5

    christmasghost spews:


    something in the closet, cg?

    Comment by antidote— 7/24/05 @ 1:44 pm

    i just knew it wouldn’t take long for some yutz to take the bait.
    behold the typical liberal ass…..if he doesn’t like you …you MUST be gay.
    and you guys are worried about the gay rights legislation….WHY? you show your true colors yet again…boringly so……it’s all about you getting power. you don’t care about gay rights anymore than bin laden cares about palestinians.
    it’s just a tool for tools…….

  4. 6

    Dr. E spews:


    Your post is utterly illogical. Either that, or I have no comprehension of your political philosophy. Please, I beg you, describe what you think liberalism is as a political philosophy. Maybe then I (or someone else) can set you straight as to why your penultimate sentence is completely off-base and, well, just downright wrong.

  5. 7

    christmasghost spews:

    dr.e…you don’t get out much do you? either that, or you are new to this forum as well as other liberal forums. i do know the definition of ‘liberalism’ thank you very much. maybe you should try to explain it to goldy and his ilk…they are the ones that seem pathetically out of step.
    and i believe you mis-used the word ‘penultimate’….

  6. 8

    Dr. E spews:


    Um, no, “penultimate” is an adjective, here modifying the noun “sentence,” i.e. your next-to-last sentence. I would have thought that to be perfectly clear.

    Still, I find your previous post to be riddled with illogical statements—four, to be precise—and your last post did nothing to clarify. Those would be the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences of your post at #4.

    To get back on topic: when is “outing” ethical, then?

  7. 9

    Goldy spews:

    Ghost @2,

    Yeah… “what goes around, comes around.” Exactly that.

    Sometimes I think what really angers people on the right about people like me, is that unlike a lot of others on the left, we’re willing to fight back in kind. What goes around, comes around.

    So tell me, you’re so outraged at me talking about outing somebody… where is your outrage at Karl Rove actually doing it?

  8. 10

    Charmin (formerly known as dj) spews:

    Goldy @ 9

    What is so interesting here is that some of your readers are outraged by this discussion (here and in previous posts) even though you have not outed the person. If you wanted to out that person, you could well have done so.

    Apparently the outrage is over discussion itself. Yet, acutally outing someone is an acceptable political tactic.

    It sort-of reminds me of the joke: “Why do Baptists not have sex standing up? Because that’s the kind of thing that leads to dancing.”

  9. 11

    christmasghost spews:

    goldy…that is completely illogical. you are not talking about a war here. you are talking about people’s lives. and you are doing it to get attention, to get your own way…basically to hurt someone else for your own gain.
    do you not have any gay friends that don’t believe in this type of legislation? because i do…lot’s of them. that does not make them either hypocrites or fair game for your games. and that’s all this is to you.
    and karl rove??? oh please…if what he did really angered you…would you be doing it too? unless of course you hadn’t thought that through.
    so now…you are just like karl rove…except without the power, money etc.
    how does it feel?

  10. 12

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy, why don’t you just go ahead and SAY it? The more you beat around the bush, get articles in the paper about whether or not you are going to do it, and make numerous postings on HA about it, the less people are going to believe it or care about it when you finally SAY it.

    And there is a difference with the Valerie Plame situation. It was ILLEGAL — or at least strongly appeared to be illegal — for whoever to say that she was a secret agent. You won’t have this same kind of scandal if you reveal the (alleged) private personal life of some state legislator. There is nothing illegal about saying this, nor is there anything illegal about what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

    This story will be about as interesting as, let’s say, Maria Cantwell’s romantic life. Nobody holds it against Cantwell that she is 46 years old and has never been married. Nobody is concerned about who she is dating, how serious she is involved (or not) with anyone, or even what gender (if any) she is interested in.

    I predict that there will be a similar lack of interest in a hypothetical Republican state legislator, of whatever gender, who has never been married. Nobody is really going to care. And it will simply generate sympathy for the target of the “outing” and increased opposition to the legislation intended to be promoted by the “outing”.

  11. 13

    christmasghost spews:

    charmin…outing someone is never an okay thing to do. it’s immoral, and it’s definitely not your place.
    so goldy hasn’t ‘outed’ anyone yet? really……
    but he has everyone wondering and fishing and soon he will just blab. that’s what he does. offer him an op-ed column and he will blab.
    do you realize that if all the legislation passes what goldy is “talking” about doing will most likely be the crime it is……
    i expect goldy to never bitch about karl rove again.
    and you know…unlike mind-numbingly dense liberals from seattle…i know the difference between right and wrong.
    so here for all of you that don’t know the difference is a rule to follow.
    “it’s not who’s right, it’s what’s right”
    if you follow that you won’t go wrong.that way you don’t just side with your “tribe”….you can actually do the right thing.
    i know, i know…a difficult concept for some to grasp.

  12. 14

    Robin spews:

    Cause that’s different, Goldy, all poor little rover did was jeopardize our national security, perhaps for years. Do you all really think the r’s wouldn’t out somebody if they were from a district where it might swing enough votes? God help the poor gay d from some rural district.

  13. 15

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Baseball rules — if your pitcher hits our batter, our pitcher will hit your batter.

    Mafia rules — you whack one of ours, we’ll whack one of yours.
    But don’t take it personally; it’s just business.

    Rogers said it all: “If you want to play hardball, we’ll play hardball.” So take that, Republicans! If you don’t like it, fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in, too.

  14. 16

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I can hardly wait to see the statistics on how many covert agents were compromised, how many operations were abandoned, and how much human intelligence we lost because of Rove’s and Libby’s revenge-motivated treason.

  15. 17

    christmasghost spews:

    okay roger…are we now talking about valerie plame…the CIA ANALYST? operative word…analyst. that’s all.and it was a reporter along with plame’s own power hungry husband that did more damage than anyone else.
    you are so transparent. not only do you not care about abandoned operations or covert agents…you are supporting someone doing EXACTLY what you are complaining about rove doing. does the end justify the means?

  16. 18

    reggie spews:


    I’m tired of your hypocognitive blather.To me the only thing worse than outing the “butt-ranger” is your idle threats. Trying to dictate public policy from your little blog is total bullshit. (if you don’t vote my way i’ll tell on ya…pure childishness)

    did you stop and think for a minute that the district he serves might not want hb1515 passed. gee imagine that, an elected official that votes the way his district wants not for his personal gain. I know that can’t be good for politics…(for reference see I-912)

    So why don’t you go down to this guy’s district… against him using hb1515 as your main platform and see where that gets ya. in otherwords…shit or get off the pot.

  17. 19

    K spews:

    There has been considerable reference in multiple sources that in her prior assignment, before going into DC as an analyst, that Valerie Plame was an operative in an undercover capacity. She had a non-government cover in a front company. The fact that she was outed no doubt has intellegance agencies in any country she was in interviewing anyone she was in contact with. To downplay the improtance of this is sheer ignorance.

    And if you disagree, see what 11 former CIA intelligence officers have to say

  18. 20

    Carl Ballard spews:

    I’m actually surprised that whoever’s been sending you info (especially if it’s the same person who sent me info) hasn’t posted something in the comments. I mean it wouldn’t be too tough to disguize the IP address. Or send something from an internet cafe. Post annonimously and with a fake email. Or hell, start an outing Washington Republicans site of their own. I guess the only thing then would be belevability.

    I can’t stress enough that there is someone willing to send this out to a web page that at the time was getting a couple dozen hits a day (although when it was really the only lefty blog focused primarily on Washington politics). Now there are dozens, and probably at least one willing to There is no way in hell that this story doesn’t break. The question is when and how?

  19. 21

    Goldy spews:

    Ghost @11,

    you are not talking about a war here. you are talking about people’s lives.

    Did you really mean to say that? Since when is war not about people’s lives? Sheesh.

    Richard Pope @12,

    I won’t go ahead and say it because a) I don’t particular want to out anybody, and b) the threat is a much more useful tool for effecting policy than the act itself. All Finkbeiner needs to do is free the GOP caucus to vote its conscience, the bill will pass the senate by a handful of votes, and the issue will likely go away.

    This story will be about as interesting as, let’s say, Maria Cantwell’s romantic life.

    Right… like Rick White didn’t subtly make that an issue in 94.

  20. 22

    christmasghost spews:

    yes, goldy, i really did mean to say that. and of course REAL WAR is about people’s lives….yours just isn’t a “real” war now is it?
    it’s more like a tattle-a-thon.
    goldy have you ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right?”
    i have always thought of you as a delusional[oh…i’m teasing you], but very decent guy…and i’ve got to tell you….what you are hinting at doing is wrong. it’s beneath you.
    it’s just the kind of crap headless lucy or….HMMMM, KARL ROVE[boogie man alert] would do.and you know what they say about laying down with dogs….
    fleas meet goldy, goldy meet fleas…….

  21. 23

    Donnageddon spews:

    Rove and Libby’s traitorous acts have a profound effect on the political dialogue.

    Most interesting to me is the Neo-Con apologists like Xmasghost, spouting the repeated lies, and refusing to condemn the real traitors to America; Rove and Libby.

    Noe-Con is just another name Facist Death Cult.

  22. 24

    Dr. E spews:

    Wow, Don, you sure don’t mince words. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call it a fascist death cult; I think death is more a byproduct of their dangerous ideology. As for neo-con apologists, unless they have something personal to gain (i.e. politicians, punditry, etc.) from so doing, it’s got to take a huge amount of willful ignorance to endorse such a hideous agenda — and to fail to see the connection between this latest maglignant manifestation of conservatism and its other manifestations over the centuries.

  23. 25


    As far as I am concern if you are called a traitor by a lefty you are doing something right. Remember these are the people you run to the terrorist side when anyone one of them yell torture. Rove and Libby are patriots.

  24. 26

    Donnageddon spews:

    RUFUS @ 25 “Remember these are the people you run to the terrorist side when anyone one of them yell torture.”

    Your plain spoken style notwithstanding, you continue to make absolutely no sense.

    Do we need a decoder ring?

    Never mind, I really don’t care what you are attempting to say.

  25. 27

    Donnageddon spews:

    Dr E. @ 24, I appreciate your comment. I feel much the same. Any person who is not wealthy and has their finger in the pie and stands to make a ton of money of the Neo_con policies, is willfully ignorant. They are only hurting themselves along with the rest of us.

    But those who do stand to gain from the Neo-Con policies at the cost of our Democracy, the lives of our children, and the bankruptcy of America and still support these Neo-Con policies, must be a member of a Fascist Death Cult.

    They may not use that name, they may not even know they are a member, but a member they are.

    Scary people.

  26. 28

    Dr. E spews:


    You exemplify precisely the type of ignorance of which I speak. I don’t know if it’s lack of education or general incuriousness, but beliefs like yours actually ARE dangerous to the long-term health of this nation.

  27. 31

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 17

    Bullshit! She was a “deep cover” operative, and when Novak blew her cover, he wrecked an operation that had existed for 25 years.

  28. 32

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    I believe an awful lot of Republicans (especially young ones) are millionaire wanna-bes who haven’t figured out yet they’re just being strung along … nobody gives away either money or power … and not much of either will come their way simply for being Republicans.

  29. 33

    K spews:

    Rufus @25

    See my post @ 19. How can you discount Rove’s actions? They undercut the security of our country. And please don’t tell me what someone else did. Respond to what they did.

  30. 34

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy @ 21

    Go ahead and make your accusations public. I don’t know whether a lot of people are going to believe them, but I think they will make a difference to almost no one (even if some folks actually believe it).

    I don’t think it would make a difference, even in a GOP primary. Back in 1998, GOP state representative Ida Ballasotes of the 41st district in King County voted against a bill to outlaw gay marriage. She was challenged in the GOP primary by a fellow named Del Parker, who campaigned stridently on that sole issue. Parker managed to collect a whopping 15.2% of the primary vote — a lot less than he would have gotten by simply keeping his money shut, putting his name on the ballot, and sitting on his ass during the entire campaign.

    So even if an incumbent GOP state senator publicly admits to being gay, it is highly unlikely that he or she will face a credible primary challenger. If someone does run, they will get even fewer votes by campaigning on the anti-gay issue than they would have otherwise. Being gay will not cost the senator any votes in the general election, and may even increase their vote totals.

  31. 35

    Donnageddon spews:

    RP @ 34 you describe an example of a King County.

    ]Do all State Representatives/Senetors come from King County?

    Or do you just assume if they are gay they must be from King County?

    I am having a real problem with your logic.

  32. 36

    christmasghost spews:

    Fascist Death Cult???
    oh, god, don….stop. i am still take yourself so seriously, don’t you?
    the people of whom you speak are merely other americans with a different point of view from you….don’t be such a hysterical ninny for god’s sake.
    accent on ninny……..
    valerie plame is a joke and so is her husband …that’s why they are trying to become the center of attention as fast as they can.
    apologist? no, i am a realist.
    if you want to see what a real fascist death cult looks like why don’t you pull up a picture of the al qaida and other fascist islamic groups.
    only fools make up boogie men when there are real ones at the door.
    the self loathing american schtick is so old…….and a telltale sign that you have never been anywhere else.

  33. 37

    Donnageddon spews:

    Xmas ghost, so much of your reply @ 36 is so repulsive, ignorant and anti-American that it derserves no reply. But:

    “the self loathing american schtick is so old”

    No self loathing here. I am patriotic American, who cannot wait until these assholes who stole the Republican Party are sent to Prison.

    We will get America back, despite your delusional denial of reality.

  34. 38

    K spews:

    christmasghost @ 36

    OK, I’ll try with you. See what others from the CIA say about the outing of Valerie Plume:

    How can you minimize the importance of that act? You make it clear you have no interest in the truth, just smearing your opponents. And that smear is more important than the security of our conntry.

  35. 39

    christmasghost spews:

    oh my god….you just get more silly by the moment.okay… are just a hysterical idiot, that’s pretty trot out anti-american???? oh god…if you only knew how funny that really you want the @#$%^#$#$$@ that “stole” the republican party put in jail, hm?
    yeah…that would be at the top of my list too if it weren’t for the fact that we are at war with REAL BAD GUYS.
    and K…..the only thing i am minimizing is valerie plame’s importance. and i’m not even doing that…just stating the fact that she was nothing more than a run of the mill analyst. was it wrong she was outed? yes? but do you actually KNOW who really was responsible?
    no…you do not.that’s painfully obvious.
    and using CNN as a reference is so ludicrous as to be amazing. why in the world would you do that? sources…you have to have good sources and then double check them. try it…it works.

  36. 40

    Donnageddon spews:

    Xmasghost, you are much more willfully ignorant than I could have ever imagined.

    How does it feel to be so blind from reality?

  37. 42


    Why would anybody listen to you donks after the Delay fiasco. The donks proved to be more quilty then who they were accusing.

  38. 43

    Donnageddon spews:

    RUFUS your posts are like a breath of fresh fog. Coldly immpenitable, and essentially without form or substance.

  39. 44

    zip spews:

    First it was “I’m told there is at least one senator who should think twice before casting another hypocritical vote in opposition.”

    Then it was “when a politician makes a career out of appealing to family values conservatives, it is hard to argue that his or her non-traditional lifestyle is not germane to the public debate.”

    Now it’s “Rove will make me do it”!!???

    Get it together Goldy this outing plan has got you twisted into a whiny little knot.

  40. 45

    Gary spews:

    Have you ever considered that there just might be a gay person who does not want special rights and benefits for gays, a group that can only be defined by thier behavior?

  41. 46

    k spews:

    There is proof that Rove, a senior official with highest level access in the White House was talking about a CIA empoloyee. There is proof that she was, at one time undercover. Do you think that perhaps the fact she has young children is thr reason she came in from the cold? Do you believe that every source she had is no longer of any importance? Or is the defense “they did it first” the best you’ve got.

    My source was a CNN pick-up of an Associated Press story. It directly quoted a group of former CIA employees weighing in on this situation. And I’ll match their reasonableness with Fox News anyday. And did you read your own link?

    “Valerie was an undercover officer … the reality is, Valerie has no cover anymore,” said Mahle, the author of “Denial and Deception.” “When you’re an undercover officer, you nurture that undercover” status and the contacts you make during the job, she added.

    “It’s not so important what she was doing that moment in time because your career is linked by all of your activities and if you were exposed by beig a CIA officer, bad guys are going to start looking at what you were doing before and backtracking.”

    Now try reading mine.

  42. 47



    Did you even read the link to the post. Here is a quote

    Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago,” Luskin said. “And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation.”

    Republicans argued Friday that the latest information exonerates their man.

    “Karl Rove wasn’t the leaker, he was actually the recipient of the information,” Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told FOX News on Friday morning.

    If the above is true than the CNN article you posted is moot.

  43. 48

    zip spews:

    k, you might want to hold off on placing that letter from the ex-CIA officers on too high of a “crediility pedestal”.

    It appears that many of the former CIA employees “weighing in on this situation” had an axe to grind against Bush even before the Plame article. Check this out, that Mel Goodman does not sounds like he’s very well grounded.

    As for Larry Johnson, author of the letter, check this out:

  44. 50

    K spews:

    So it’s fine for a high White House Official to trade speculation, regardless of who started it, about CIA employees with the press? Cut through the BS and address that issue.

    He was engaged in an effort to discredit Wilson, and did not care if he treaded on national security. THere is no doubt he did engage in the conversation. Spin out of that.

  45. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Gary, an awful lot of reputable scientists disagree with your assertion that homosexuality is only a “behavior.” Could you explain to us why homosexuality is relatively common among wild animals living in their natural environment?

  46. 53

    K spews:


    If the press did tell him, the appropriate response in no response. He used the conversation in an effort to discredit Wilson, when the facts Wilson presented, though correct, were at odds with the White House line. And it is not clear the press started it.

  47. 54



    How in fuck can anybody be accused of leaking something to the press when it was the press who initially came to him with the story. What did Rove do wrong first… can you tell me that.

  48. 55



    But you are accusing him like he got caught red handed. Doesnt the report I posted mention a third party witness that the reporter mentioned that Wilson wife was working for the CIA? I believe it did. Where is your proof he did it?

  49. 56

    Gary spews:

    Roger Rabbit: I did not offer an opinion on the cause of homosexuality, only on the ability to identify homosexuals. How can you give special rights to a group that can not be reliably identified? Unlike animals, we can choose not to behave in a particular manner.

  50. 57

    Obiter Dictum spews:

    Can a public official vote against a bill that is contrary to his/her personal beliefs and support the supposed position of their constituency? Must the electorate peruse every aspect of a candidates private life to understand how their public official would vote?

    Randy Cohen makes a point when he says “Is a single vote on a single bill enough? My guideline is this: the more aggressively, the more centrally, an official participates in a policy struggle, the more reasonable it is to out him.”

    So has the state legislator in question just voted against HB 1515 or is there more to his/her opposition?

  51. 58

    Captain Pike spews:

    It was the neo-cons who turned politics into war. War is Hell. If outing a hypocritical gay legislator is what it takes to get a good law passed, then do it.

  52. 59

    JR spews:

    If you & Mr. Jacobsen are so hell bent on outing an allegedly gay Republican, then put up or shut up. Where is the proof? This is an old rumor whipped up by a few crackpots.

    Perhaps the next crusade will be outing Democrats who have a little “something” on the side during session and forget they’re married.

    If you open this Pandora’s box, everyone had better start looking over their shoulders in Olympia. Cameras will be out to “out” all behavior…

  53. 60

    Dr. E spews:

    RUFUS @ 52
    You are either incredibly dense or have been totally duped by the GOP propaganda machine (of which Fox News is a reliable conduit). The entire rationale behind the story you cite is risible.

  54. 61

    Gary spews:

    JR: Your strategy is no good, liberals expect thier representatives to have no moral standards, therefore there is no way to out them. Anything about thier lack of moral integrity will only get them more votes.

  55. 62


    Dr E–

    Do you think CNN will be coming out with a memo soon to once and for all convict Rove. You know page 131 out of your playbook. he he

  56. 63

    Goldy spews:

    JR @59,

    I would never out somebody based simply on rumors. You’ve got no idea what I have, on whom I have it, and for how long I’ve been sitting on it. As for Sen. Jacobsen, I’ve never spoken with him, so I have no idea what information he might have… there is, apparently, more than one closeted member of the legislature.

    As for a legislative affair, I’ve been fed information on one of those too, but it doesn’t seem relevant.

  57. 64

    enough_of_this_bullshit spews:


    it’s only because there aren’t any cute penguins on your little island.

    Goldy I will lose what little respect I have for you if you “out” this person. Outing should only be done by the closeted individual. it is not your place.

    maybe you should confront him personally to ask him why he won’t vote for hb1515 instead of speculating about his reasons. Then when you threaten him, he could have his body guard kick your ass.

  58. 65

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy @ 63

    I think that you and Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D – Seattle) have lost all credibility by the way you are handling this — and doomed the cause you are trying to promote for the forseeable future.

    The best way would have been to discretely bring the issue up personally to the allegedly gay state senator. If the senator didn’t change his or her voting position, you could then put up or shut up — either “out” them by releasing the information (and see if anyone really cared), or not do anything whatsoever.

    The way you folks have done it, no one will believe and/or care about this information if and when it is released. And a public threat has absolutely no value, and a private threat will not be taken seriously.

    Republicans aren’t the only folks outraged. Most Democrats are decent folks, and don’t approve of your tactics either. I believe that HB 1515 (and anything similar) is now dead in the current legislature. It simply won’t get voted on again, and will be dropped like a hot potato until at least January 2007.

  59. 66

    windie spews:

    To step back a bit, do any of you righties ever think about the kind of bizarre mentality would make a closeted lawmaker not only vote against their own interests, but also virulently rant against essentially… themselves? Theres some crazy pathology there… or maybe just a desire for power over all other concerns.

    So far our posterboy for closeted-gay-rightwing-hypocrite-politicians is a violent, position abusing (hoorah jobs for sex!) pedarast. Thats not a good start.

  60. 67

    Mr.X spews:

    Hypocrites who live one way and vote and advocate the opposite way in their public life are fair game for outing – you Rethugs are the biggest pussies in politics today. W was a cokehead, yet he advocates a failed war on drugs – same fucking deal.

    You want war – you got it. Ironically enough, the people who probably outed Jim West were the conservative owners of Spokane’s daily paper, but hey, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

  61. 68

    Mr.X spews:

    Reggie at 18

    “did you stop and think for a minute that the district he serves might not want hb1515 passed. gee imagine that, an elected official that votes the way his district wants not for his personal gain.”

    Gee, if that’s the case, don’t his hateful bigoted constituents have a right to know who they are electing?

  62. 71

    windie spews:


    maybe not ‘hateful’, but most likely ‘bigots’. I’ve never heard a rational argument against this kind of civil rights legislation not couched in anti-gay rhetoric.

    Heres your chance though… prove its not bigoted!

  63. 73

    pbj spews:

    Is this Dejavu all over again? I thought this same thread (or a very similar one) was created a while ago.

  64. 74

    windie spews:

    @73 your point being?

    1) The issue getting MSM attention is worth noting

    2) Someone can post on whatever they damn well please, on their own blog!

  65. 75

    christmasghost spews:

    windie@66………you said….”To step back a bit, do any of you righties ever think about the kind of bizarre mentality would make a closeted lawmaker not only vote against their own interests, but also virulently rant against essentially… themselves?”
    do you realize the error in your thinking yet?
    they are not elected to VOTE THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
    this is the problem with most liberals …they vote for people that will serve only them, not the greater good.
    and aren’t you the people that keep saying about clinton, for example, what he does in his private life is just that…private?

  66. 76

    windie spews:


    you have a point, so let me reframe slightly:

    If their constitutients are against gay rights, its a fairly safe bet that they wouldn’t vote for a gay legislator, and that their votes were gained under false pretenses.

    Why would someone run for office on a platform against their best interests, at the same time lying about what they are?

    Regardless of how you put the question either these people have serious problems, or they only care about power and position.

  67. 77

    Puddybud spews:

    Windie: Did this person advertise “I’m Gay Vote for ME”? That should be the quest you should undertake regarding your question back to Ghost.

  68. 78

    windie spews:


    If, like West this supposed person campaigned on a family-values/anti-gay platform, would that be enough?

    You party-loyalty types always amaze me.

  69. 79

    Gary spews:

    It is possible that a gay legislator can recognize that HB1515 was bad law that would be impossible to administrate and financially crippling to both business and government. In other words he may have voted the best interests of the all of the people instead of special privelidges for a group that is already financially above the state average.

  70. 81

    Puddybud spews:

    @80: You asked “Umm… damn. Where do you get this stuff?” We read the left wing crap and translate it to horsesass speak from the Moron.Org web site.

  71. 82

    windie spews:

    you get your info from “”? Geeze.

    Theres not much I can say to top that. But it would be like using ‘Horsesass’ as your primary source of information…

  72. 83

    Dr. E spews:

    this is the problem with most liberals …they vote for people that will serve only them, not the greater good.
    and aren’t you the people that keep saying about clinton, for example, what he does in his private life is just that…private?

    Hmmm, where to start. How about “the problem with most liberals”… Two things: you are generalizing about the supposed voting habits of liberals, and you have not explained what “the greater good” is. (BTW using a phrase like “the greater good” makes you sound like a liberal. Is that what you intended?)

    “what he does in his private life is just that…private?”
    I’m gonna be a little shocked here. Isn’t such support of things like gay rights a liberal cause?

    Problem here is, you can’t extend such an argument about “private” matters of heterosexual behavior in a blanket fashion here to include homosexuals, even if it’s well intended. Let me explain.

    There are private and public aspects to any sexual relationship. Even though we might like to keep those private matters private, the public aspects of any such relationship, hetero- or homosexual — you know, the hand holding, kissing, etc. — are visible to society at large. If we really were equitable as a society in these matters, then these public aspects would be equally recieved.

    Problem is, they aren’t. That’s one reason why such legislation can be useful. There are, I’m sure, plenty of “they-can-do-whatever-they-want-in-the-bedroom-so-long-as-I don’t-see-gays-holding-hands-on-the-street” people (pardon the extended compound adjective), but even if their motives are well intentioned, an unequitable treatment view of the public side of these relationships is what can start causing problems.

  73. 84

    christmasghost spews:

    windie@76….you said “Regardless of how you put the question either these people have serious problems, or they only care about power and position.”
    of course they do…they are politicians. and i will always trust the people of this country before any politician.
    and dr e…why would you be shocked? human rights are everyone’s issue. at least every thinking person’s.but i can understand what you are saying. i am a conservative….not a super religious right wing zealot.and, here’s a shocker for you…..those people annoy me even more than they probably do you.but you have them too…we all know these people [and most of us wish we didn’t]. extremists are always dangerous to individuals and society in general.
    i agree completely that people do have the creepy attitude that “they”[gay people] can do whatever they want as long as they don’t have to see it.and it’s not a healthy attitude.and it cuts both ways….how many times have you wanted to yell “get a room” to a couple of teenagers that are just way out of line in public?
    i think it comes down to having respect for others. when you do, you don’t impinge on their rights in any way if you can help it.
    if “greater good” makes me sound like a liberal…so be it.personally i just think it makes me sound like a decent human being. and isn’t that what we should all be shooting for?

  74. 85

    christmasghost spews:

    dr.e……you are absolutely right about generalizations. i try not to do that…and yet i did. sorry about that! maybe we would all be better off if we didn’t do that. for instance….because i am conservative and a republican alot of people assume that i am against gay rights, anti-environment, and always pro big business. wrong on all three.
    i leave all of those things to the far right which is in the same boat as the far left. they are extremists…and extremists are never good for individuals or society as a whole.basically they are zealots/nuts. just my opinion. but we all know them…and usually wish we didn’t.
    and i am going to surprise you even more when i point out that gat rights are not a liberal issue…but a human issue.
    perhaps as rational people we can all remember that just like the far rightwing religious kooks scream that homosexuality is a crime [bah!] the first thing that the far left kooks do in an argument is question your sexual preferences….as in “you must be gay” i’m not…but so what if i was?
    see? aren’t they both just the same people ….just in different masks?
    as far as the public side of relationships goes….i wish EVERYONE would remember that that sentence starts out with ‘private’.i, for one, am sick to death of having people fish for each other’s tonsils while i am standing in line somewhere…..aren’t you? it just comes down to having manners. remember those?
    and windie….sadly most politicians are just out for themselves. that’s just reality.sad but true……but i know that just because someone is gay does not automatically mean they will want the legislation. and if they are in a district that doesn’t want it then they shouldn’t vote for it. it’s not their place to do so…they are supposed to be representing the people.
    out of all my gay friends there is only one that wants this bill passed….but then he blames everything that goes wrong on the fact that he is gay. when, really, the things that go wrong are because he is just one of those complete screw-ups that we all know.
    when you are living with your mommy at 43 maybe you have more problems than being gay, hmm?
    nyuk nyuk nyuk……..

  75. 86

    angryvoter spews:

    I have credible information that Goldy and Ken Jacobsen were seen near Enumclaw with a livestock trailer full of stallions and a video camera, is it ethical to “out” them?

  76. 87

    enough_of_this_bullshit spews:

    Mr. rabbit @72

    Penguins (yes probably even Tennessee Tuxedo) engage in homosexual activity. That’s a fact i won’t dispute.

    i guess I shouldn’t have made a joke about such a serious subject. Now if we were talking about your pink parts….well that’s a joke no one can get serious about.

    so tell me do boy bunnies boink boy bunnies too?

  77. 88

    Dr. E spews:

    xmasghost @ 85
    “i point out that gat rights are not a liberal issue…but a human issue.”

    Point taken (as well as in your post at 84). I must have been generalizing, no offense intended.

    I guess my point previously being that, if American society were, in fact, more open-minded and civil, we wouldn’t need laws like HB 1515. I don’t see this law as being frivolous; instead, it seeks to rectify symptoms already manifest in society at large.

  78. 89

    zip spews:

    windie @ 71

    Every small business owner whose sole reason for being against this bill is their fear of more wrongful discharge lawsuits is not a “hateful bigot”. Bills like this don’t help people get hired, but make it easier for them to extort or sue when they get fired.

    Why don’t you do a little research and figure out the unemplyment rate of gay vs. straight in this state, try to prove there is a “need” for a bill like this. If the gay rate is much lower, as I suspect it is, where is the “need” for this bill?

  79. 90

    christmasghost spews:

    dr.e..well, it would have been better without my typo though wouldn’t it? heh heh heh
    i meant to say gay rights of course.
    although i’m sure that “gats” wherever they are need them too……
    ‘ if American society were, in fact, more open-minded and civil, we wouldn’t need laws like HB 1515′
    wow….no kidding. from your lips to god’s ears…huh?
    sadly…i think there are too many people that really enjoy [or make their living from] this level of hostility continuing.
    what say you?

  80. 91

    W. spews:

    Why don’t you do a little research and figure out the unemplyment rate of gay vs. straight in this state,

    Because we’re not talking about the unemployment rate of “gay” people vs. that of “straight” people…we’re talking about people that are fired BECAUSE they are homosexual or BECAUSE they are heterosexual. Cripes, pay attention.

  81. 92


    You’ve really got a charming collection of trolls here, Goldy. Do you suppose they’ve been assigned?

    Anyway, anyone who’s such an enormous hypocrite deserves a little daylight. The Republicans made a huge deal about Clinton’s affair, but when push came to shove, their leadership was riddled with adulterers who resigned or confessed to step out of the spotlight.

    Republicans poison public dialogue by denouncing gays and condemning their existence as immoral, a toxin dissolving all bounds of civic society. They fuel and enable homophobia, suggesting to bigots everywhere that their bias is perfectly fine, because even senators and congressmen can be bigots without repercussion. And then they accuse Democrats of the very homophobia they spread when we point out that they don’t follow the moral code they seek to lay on everyone else.

    Also, though they’d like to make private medical decisions for women, they also want to have their own pecadilloes remain secret forever.

    It’s not about the sex, it’s about the hypocrisy. I’d love to live in a world where private, consensual sexual relationships weren’t considered anyone’s business. This isn’t that world, and the biggest obstacle to it is Republicans who want to scare people over gays and ‘morals’ because they can’t win on economic policy. If they want to have an honest debate and stop hurting millions of gay people, then I’d quit caring what they did in private. And without so much fuel on the fire, it would be very difficult for an outing to ever again make a political difference.

  82. 93

    Goldy spews:

    Angry @86,

    Absolutely… considering the public stink Sen. Jacobsen and I have made over this issue, we’ve certainly made ourselves fair targets for outing. So if you have credible information about me engaging in bestiality, or some other perverse act, by all means come forward with it.

  83. 94

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    When Goldy’s a celebrity-
    It’s adios reality.
    Goldy acts just like a fool
    And people think he’s cool.
    Just cuz he’s on a blog.

    Goldy throws a major fit
    When his latte isn’t just how he likes it.
    They say Goldy’s gone insane
    Goldy blames it on the fame
    And pressures that go with.
    Bein’ a celebrity.

    I’ll bet you have pictures of yourself in every nook and cranny of your house just so you can remember how a true celebrity looks. Some people say you really are gay. Frankly, I don’t care. But it is a bit suspicious what with wearing the eye mascara and rouge!!!!!!!
    I’m happy to be back from Montana and glad to see that, as usual, you have accomplished nothing of value!!

  84. 95

    zip spews:


    Your fixation on Hb1515 and invention of assorted reasons/excuses for the planned outing is indeed in credibly perverse. The bill will have a “feel good” effect but will improve life not one iota for gay residents of this state and will actually hurt small business. The wierd distortions of day to day life by your lefty posters above proves that they have not a clue that this bill will accomplish nothing. But they sure do support it! Woo ha!

  85. 96

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Goldy is about to come out of the closet….after he puts on his dress, high heels and make-up!

  86. 97

    Goldy spews:

    Cynical @96,

    I haven’t done drag in twenty years, and don’t intend to again. Size-11 high-heels are hard to find, and damn uncomfortable to wear.

  87. 98

    Dr. E spews:

    Mr Cynical must have been out there in Montana “raisin’ his lonely dental floss”. Ya know what I mean?

  88. 99

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Dr. E–
    Good one…but inaccurate.
    I was out there fishin’, golfin’ and floatin’ on the rivers taking a well-deserved break from all you LEFTIST PINHEADS. What I missed most was insulting Seattle-brand LEFTIST PINHEADS but I did manage to gather some new material I will share with y’all over time. I met lots of people who were very intrigued by our Governor’s Race. They all know the LEFTIST PINHEADS stole the election!! Perfect.

    Are you trying to impress us with your manhood by claiming Size 11 feet??? Whadya do, stuff a sock in the end of each shoe??? And a crotch sock while yer at it!!! Goldy…. we hear your “far from soothing voice”, there is a certain gayness to it. Silly yet shrill.

  89. 100

    thor spews:


    small business (8 emplyees or under) is already exempt from the state’s anti-discrimination law. in places where similar anti-discrimation laws have been passed there has been no increase in lawsuits.

    1515 is basic. it simply adds “sexual orientation” to our state’s laws against discrimination. that’s good for business. and good for all the people of the state, gay or straight. that’s why microsoft and a host of other businesses, large and small, support HB 1515.

    there’s much more than “feel good” involved. i’ve been in this state for a very long time and its pretty clear to me that gay people have been discriminated against. things are getting better. but the problem remains. and its a harmful and divisive.

    if people on the right and left would simply pay attention to the content of the proposed law – and not the hype – HB 1515 would pass handily.

  90. 101

    Puddybud spews:

    Oh Norwegian “God” of Thunder: How many other states have enacted this type of legislation? IF you find them, how many of them are “them thar blue states”?

  91. 102

    thor spews:

    Thanks for asking puddybud.

    In a quick – but by no means complete – search of states that have antidiscrimination laws including sexual orientation I find: Maine, California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Nevada, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, District of Columbia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maryland and Wisconsin.

    Red or Blue? Looks like mostly Blue in terms of the Bush/Kerry race. But GOP governors are upholding these laws in California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland – perhaps others. Plenty of Republicans support these laws. Just none of the Republicans in the Washington State Senate.

  92. 103

    thor spews:

    Correction – None of th GOP Senators in Washington voted for HB 1515 this year, even though some supported the bill and one – their leader – had voted YES in the past.

  93. 104

    zip spews:

    thor @ 100

    Ok so a small business owner with 9 or more employees is still entitled to be against this bill on the grounds that he or she will be at greater risk of wrongful termination lawsuits if it passes.

    If you have stats on your claim that “in places where similar anti-discrimation laws have been passed there has been no increase in lawsuits” I will be surprised. Since even 1 lawsuit on the grounds of this new bill would be an increase over zero with no bill how can you make such a claim? And thanks in advance for addressing the true lawsuit risk which is wrongful termination.

    Thanks for pointing out another unintended consequence: an employer with 8 employees will be less likely to hire the ninth, wouldn’t you think.

  94. 106

    thor spews:

    hey zip

    any person is “entitled” to be against the antidiscrimination bill for any reason – but the ones you list 1. greater risk of wrongful termination lawsuits (which you brought up, not me) and 2. an employer with eight employees would be less likely to hire a ninth, don’t seem to be very logical or reasonable.

    it is already illegal in Washington to fire or refuse to hire a person based on sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status or physical disability. the law also includes access to public accommodations, real estate transactions, insurance and commerce. HB 1515 adds two words – sexual orientation – and defines sexual orientation.

    if you agree a. that people in our state have different sexual orientations, b. that discrimination happens because of sexual orientation and c. the state should not condone discrimation

    isn’t that a pretty reasonable proposal?