According to an article in the Spokesman-Review this morning a ruling is expected from the State Supreme Court, before the State Legislature ends on or around March 9th and is expected regarding the unconstitutionality of a ban on gay marriage. This coincides with the State legislature which once again is going to take up adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination wording as well. Some big rulings are eagerly anticipated here and are being very closely monitored on both sides of the state. As I mentioned the other day, a prominent Repug. has changed his mind and says he will vote for adding sexual orientation, instead of voting against it, as he has done year after year after year.

[ January 17, 2006, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Hockeytom, how do you think the ruling is going to turn out?

Fan, I assume you mean the one with the State Supreme Court? I will go out on a limb here. My first and gut reaction, is that the State Supreme Court will rule the gay marriage ban unconstitutional. Thats my feeling. Will keep my fingers crossed and let you know. I would love to hear what others here in Washington State think. Mariner Duck guy? And others. I am cautiously optimistic. After 6 years of Shrub, you have to be. wink

I'm hoping that they rule it unconstitutional.

As far as the Civil Rights bill, it was very good news to hear that Republican Senator Bill Finkbeiner will switch his vote to yes since the bill lost by one vote.

For those of you outside of Washington state
the bill would add "sexual orientation" to a state law that already bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, marital status and other factors.

I know there has been a flurry of emails going on in the company that I work for today about whether the company will add their name to a list of business supporting the passage fo this bill. Companies like Microsoft (who received fal last year for having their name removed from the list), Boeing and Oregon based Nike have signed the letter.

Our former CEO will probably make a run for the Senate seat currently held by Maria Cantwell and rumor has it that we didn't sign on last year because he didn't want his name as a supporter of the bill. This is all rumor but this is what is being passed around amongst the gay distribution list.

I just have a feeling the bill will pass this year. The political environment in Washington doesn't seem as volatile as the past few years but you just never know.

The Reverend Ken Hutcherson will again ask poeple to boycott companies supporting the bill.

Washington has always seemed like such a liberal state, it was so hard for me to believe a marriage ban passed there. Good on you guys, hopefully the courts and legislature will come through for you in their decisions.

The gay rights bill has passed the House as expected. It now goes to the state Senate, where of course it has been killed time and time again, but this time as I reported earlier, a prominent Repug. who has consistently voted against the bill, this time says he is ready to change his mind on it. Its cross your fingers time.

Well then, you just might consider not calling him names if he does so, no? And surely there are some Democrats who've also voted against it?

Its my understanding that the Wash. State Senate will vote on the anti-discrimination bill this Friday in Olympia.The far right is calling and e-mailing everybody. Everyone is urged to descend in Olympia. If I could I would. I will be there in spirit. Cross your fingers everybody!

MDG - We work for the same company. LOL I figured this out when you stated our former CEO will probably make a run at state senate. you mentioned a gay distribution list. Is that a distribution list at the company where you work?

Jeffwa, yes we do work for the same company. And I actually know who you are. I used to work in the same department as you (before you were there) and I used to work with a lot of the people who now mange you guys!

GREAT NEWS!

The Washington State Senate just approved the gay rights bill, 25-23! 24 of 26 Democrats voted for it, supported by just one Republican, who reversed his prior opposition.

Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire had urged passage of the bill, which now goes back to the Democratic-controlled House, where it'd passed already.

Once it passes again, Gregoire will sign it, and gay people in Washington State will enjoy a range of civil protections!

[ January 27, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Double good news: the lone GOPer who voted for it ensured its passage. Had he'd continued to oppose it, we'd be stuck with a 24-24 tie.

Here's to changing more minds! :cool:

1 republican for
21 against

way to go!!!! good job!!!

You got it Raze! But yes, finally. This has been a long, long time coming, and there were some rather nasty letters to the editor about this bill in my local paper today. I still feel that there is a good possibility that now the Wash. Supreme Court will rule the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Big front page article in the Spokesman-Review this morning, and a pic and a nice big smile from my Governor Gregoire who said, " this is a great day. A great day," talking about the bill passing. I understand a group opposed to the bill passing, is going to try to get the 200,000+ signatures to put this on a ballot, so the fight is never over. But a big thank you is in order to the Spokane ( city) legislators, all three,(D) who voted in support of the bill, and a hearty boo! is in order for the legislators from the suburban and surrounding areas outside of the city ®,who voted against the bill.

The opposers will probably get the needed votes, but I doubt the voters, most of whom are fair-minded, will vote to rescind. Reaction on the public boards put up by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been almost entirely positive. But there will always be the loud reactionaries...

By the way, I have just sent this letter to the Post-Intelligencer:

"Two headlines on Saturday’s P-I caught my attention: “Long-awaited win for gay rights” and directly below it (I read the P-I on-line) “Nearly 2,000 sleep on the street.”

"The first headline was very good news. Ending discrimination is the sign of a strong and healthy society. Homelessness is not. I would be far more impressed with the vocal and tireless opponents of equal rights for our gay neighbors if some of the more outspoken voices, especially those that claim to be Christian, were as vocal about feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and taking steps to end poverty. But perhaps it’s just easier to fear and hate…

"It’s worth noting that the Seattle Church Council has estimated that up to 40% of the homeless youth on our streets are gay kids. There may be a lesson in that."

I urge you to write in, in support!

Nat

Your "thank you" note omitted a few names, HT/Puckman: the lone GOP senator without whose "yes" vote the bill wouldn't have passed. And you can add to your "boo list" the two Demos who voted against it.

Unless you don't believe in telling it like it is, that is.

Tell it like it is. The Democratic governor supported the legislation. Would the Republican she defeated have supported it?

One lone Republican state Senator supported the legislation, while 24 of 26 (an overwhelming majority) of Democratic state senators supported it. The overwhelming MAJORITY of Republicans were and still are against it, and are claiming the right to discriminate based on religious grounds.

In the House, 54 Democrats supported it, as did 6 Republicans. The overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Washington State House were against it.

Why are the vast majority of people in your party--at the state and federal level, in Californa, in Washington, and elsewhere--against equal civil rights for homosexuals, for people like you whose only difference is their inborn sexual orientation?

There, that's how it is.

[ January 28, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The new Republican math: 1 R vote is equivalent to 24 D votes.

Apologist, much?

[ January 29, 2006, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Seph ]

While I"m all for booing anyone who voted against this bill and quite willing to personally or publically thank anyone who voted for it, party affiliations of the people involved simply made it more stark how dangerous the Republican party is to the rights of gay people in this country. 10% of Republican lawmakers voted for this bill. Isn't it reasonable to assert that the Republican party is 90% in favor of discriminating against gay people? 3% of Wahsington's Democratic legislators voted against this measure. Again, isn't it reasonable to estimate a 93% support from the Democratic party?

Of course one case does not a trend make. Certainly in specific state and national cases the support of the Democratic party has been significantly more anemic, but I can't think of any cases at the state or national level in which Republican support of our needs has risen significantly, and I've seen many cases where their opposition has been far more vociferous.

I'm all for working from within the Republican party for change. I completely understand that elements of the Democratic party are so inimical to some people that being a member of the party simply becuase it has a better record on one aspect of your life is impossible. As I've said here before, the Republican party could make gay marriage a plank in their platform and I wouldn't be a Republican. There's too much other stuff I disagree with in their agenda. However, I cannot see how this meager show of support from a significant minority of elected Republican lawmakers can be seen as any sign of victory? Instead, it shows more starkly how very far from positive any gay relationship with the Republican party currently is.

Its nice to see someone go against their party lines for what is right, but a Republican in the Seattle Area is a lot different than a Dem in rural Eastern WA. That wacky reverend is on TV saying he's going to get his flock to buy & sell Microsoft and Boeing stock to somehow drive their prices down.

Which isn't going to work. It's so ridiculous of them to think they can afford to make any kind of dent in their stock prices. Good luck getting people to put up the money to get a good enough share of Microsoft.

Current price (end of trading Friday): 27.79

Total number of shares for Microsoft: 10.64 BILLION

A Republican from the Seattle area is alot different that a Dem. from rural Eastern Washington.
As I well know. wink

Front page headlines in the Spokesman-Review here this morning:

" Eyman wants voters to decide on gay rights".

As expected Tim Eyman who, for those of you who don't know who he is, basically a Repug. whose sole mission in life is to promote initiatives in the Wash. State legislature, and most notably ones that suck the life out of the States budget said he will file a petition to overturn the just passed anti-discrimination bill.

He will have to collect something like 225,000 signatures by July.

Proponets of the so called gay rights bill have expected someone to file a measure opposing it, but few expected it would be Tim Eyman. Most of his 14 measures, 7 of them successful have targeted taxes not social issues.

If memory serves me Mr. Eyman got into some big trouble a few years back when it was discovered that some of the money that was raised for one of his initiatives he diverted into a "compensation fund" for himself and his associates.

Governor Gregoire is expected to sign the gay rights bill today, and said she felt confident that if, and its a big if, this does come down to a vote of the people, the people of the state of Washington will reject the bid to overturn the new law.

The battle is not over yet.

[ January 31, 2006, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

No, FT, your speculations about what a GOPer governor MIGHT have done are hardly "what it is," if you'll excuse the expression. The intervening remainder of your denial-based, petulant post is just irrelevant in addressing matters that were never addressed by me. The numbers speak for themselves - new math or old, Seph - and the FACT remains that without the one GOP Senate vote this bill would not have passed and would not be about to be signed into law.

So thanks are indeed in order on this issue, as JQ recognizes, whether one agrees with the rest of what the GOP stands for or not. I never said, in apologia or otherwise, that this was any kind of great victory. Indeed, my whole point was - and remains - that changing minds one at a time within the GOP is at least as valid a way of securing our rights as is parading in streets or engaging in any of the other alienating and counterproductive in-your-face tactics that the gay left embraced and just won't let go. And that, FT, may well answer your loaded question of "why are the vast majority of people in your party--at the state and federal level, in Californa, in Washington, and elsewhere--against equal civil rights for homosexuals, for people like you whose only difference is their inborn sexual orientation?"

Its called Uncle Tom's Log Cabin fuzzy math.

Then gmginsfo you can go to work and try to change the mind of Repug. Tim Eyman, who is going to startup the petition drive to overturn the just enacted so called gay rights bill. wink

Wake up, HT - we're already on it. I wouldn't be surprised if the effort fails to gather enough signatures. Maybe your good buddy from Arkexas can find the time from his ski trip to Whistler to stop off in WA and actually do something constructive for a change.

Im on a non-stop from DFW to Vancouver.

"Inclusion wins!!"

Speaking of which, rather than harping on Bill Clinton's involvement in this, why isn't George H.W. Bush lobbying Eyman? Why isn't the Warrantless Wiretapper, who again called for a federal anti-gay marriage amendment last night, lobbying Eyman to stop his referendum? Why aren't more prominent people in the Republican Party, including closeted homosexuals like Rep. Foley (R-FL), Rep. Dreier (R-CA), party chief Ken Mehlman, and others, speaking out about this? If they weren't powerful and well-connected, they could subjected to same sort of discrimination their party so actively promotes.

Say what you will about the "gay Left," but it and its allies are the main reasons that gay civil protections are now law in Washington State and Illinois. You're gay and your boss doesn't like it? He can't fire you based on your sexual orientation. You're gay and your landlord hates gays? He can't deny you a lease based on your sexual orientation. You come out as gay, as some on this board have, after having been in a hetero marriage, and a judge can't deny you access to your children based on yoru sexuality orientation. These basic HUMAN rights that should be accorded every citizen, among other things, are what the "gay Left" fights for every day.

Had the Repuglican governor of California not decided to play politics and do the right thing, gay marriage would be law in California. Keep us posted on how you're changing his mind faster than all his failed referenda and policies, and plummeting popularity are.

[ February 01, 2006, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I applaud Washington in outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I've always thought of the state as being more liberal than many others, but I guess there are large numbers of conservatives outside the Seattle area, as WA residents Hockeytom and Sonic have pointed out.

I did a bit of research and found that only 17 states (now including Washington state and the District of Columbia) have anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect gays in the workplace (although a few others do offer protection for government employees only). Noticeably absent were states like Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and Michigan which I thought, being highly urbanized and outside the more 'traditional' conservative belt of southern and western/prairie states, might have the kind of broad protection that those 17 states do. And I thought perhaps Florida, despite being in the South and having the President's brother as governor, was more progressive than some of its neighbouring states.

I live in the most conservative province of Canada, but even here sexual orientation has been a protected ground in provincial human rights legislation for eight years now. Makes me think, that by US standards at least, Alberta may not be as socially-conservative as it is so often perceived on both sides of the border.

Are there any other states who are expected to pass similar legislation in the near future?

BTW, Nat, I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiments expressed in your letter to the Seattle P-I and I hope the newspaper published it.

A new group has formed to fight a campaign to overturn a new gay civil rights law here in Washington State. Its called Washington Won't Discriminate.

That radical Repug. Tim Eyman know for his initiatives, is seeking to obtain over 200,000+ signatures to put it to a vote of the people. As of now the new law is set to take effect on June. But, if Tim Eyman is able to get enough signatures by the June 7th deadline for the referendum, the law would be frozen until November.

If that isn't enough Eyman is also pushing an initiative that would remove " sexual orientation" from the law, and prohibit state government from requiring quotas, or other preferential treatment for any person or group, " based on sexual orientation or sexual preferance."

lets get involved!