TR I cringe at the term "ghetto" as well. Seattle does NOT have a ghetto, regardless of what many natives seem to think.

Having been to a REAL ghetto, it's got absolutely nothing to do with what people mean when they use the term. Generally the word is used to mean tacky when used in a slang sense. However, the ghettos I've been in are often full of 90-95% good, honest, hardworking people who are either recent immigrants or trying to claw their way out of poverty, or both. Like any other neighborhood, there are a small proportion of bad apples who tend to be highly visible and eff it up for everyone else.

I could write for days on the history of ghettos and how they came about and the institutionalized racism inherent in them, but it's so far off topic it's not even funny. Besides, I don't think anyone needs to read my thesis on a forum. ;-)

Bluebird, for some context, if you are interested.

Jiggers has been participating on WSB for at least two years. I honestly have never heard/seen anyone call his nom de screen into question till now. He has mentioned having worked as a bartender in the past and that's the association I place with his name.

We have had spirited discussions here in the past regarding terms that may not be widely considered as offensive in this region but apparently gravely offend others elsewhere - I seem to recall "hillbilly" being one of them.

Anyway, not that anyone has asked me for a ruling, but if anyone did, it stays, as was my decision on "hillbilly" way back when.

The one *I* have trouble with, still, if I dare to threadjack a bit, is "ghetto." It seems to be widely accepted as an adjective that no longer carries any particular racial/racist connotation, but it certainly did when I was a kid, so I always flinch a little when I see it come up.

JanS, duly noted. However, when something has a possible negative or offensive connotation, it's best to not use at all, in my opinion. For example, fagot means a bundle of sticks bound together. Would it still be appropriate to use as a 'Nom de plume' when it has been used to hurt so many?

And is it really a stretch to think a person prejudiced against one class of people is not similarly prejudiced against another? When you hear arguments such as "I'm against this because they used others as hostage", do you feel a reasonable mind is attached?

Your right, I don't know anyone here, but I can evaluate the words I read. If I've heard the slur, I imagine there are others, don't you?

bluebird, there are quite a few definitions of the word "jiggers", and I would bet you that this person using it as his 'Nom de plume" on here has nothing to do with a racial slur. I have never met the man, but we have both been posting since early on on this forum, and I somehow get the feeling that it's about the gentleman's extracurricular activities, his social life, if you will. In other words, the man likes a good drink periodically. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

I may agree with you on the need to vote yes on Ref. 71, but don't assume things about anyone on here, as you may be wrong.

FWIW, my post was in response to one that has been deleted and re-written.

MrJT, exactly!

Really, it takes nothing away from anyone. It just gives rights to those that deserve them. Why fight it.

Vote APPROVED on Ref. 71

Oh..Whatevers!! It is what it is.

That's actually not true. A "YES" vote approves SB 5688, which was supposed to become law in July (but did not, because enough signatures were obtained to force a vote). The referendum is an attempt to stop the law from becoming enacted. No rights currently in effect will be taken away, no matter how you vote.

SB 5688 will grant additional domestic partnership rights, bringing it in line to what marriage provides automatically.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Referendum_71_%282009%29

forget it. I tried to simplify and clarify but it's clearly unclear.

bottom line: you want old people and queer people to be able to write one another into their wills and visit one another in the hospital when they're sick? Vote yes.

You think that old people and queer people should not have basic rights of survivorship? Vote no.

jiggers..

you are so right.

The Christian right has "totally bamboozeld and used others as hostage in trying to get their agendas passed."

But that's why you should vote yes on referendum 71.

bluebird...your the ignorant one.

Doesn't surprise me coming from someone who uses an ethnic slur for their screen name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigger

I may be ignorant, but I'm voting no on it because they have totally bamboozeld and used others as hostage in trying to get their agendas passed. At least that's what I only understand.

Chef,

I responded to your post because of the confusion over Referendum 71...

the initiative to put Referendum 71 on the ballot was designed to oppose all of the rights that Referendum 71 gave to gay couples (and their children) and to heterosexual couples over the age of 62...

the people gathering signatures did make statements about Referendum 71 destroying the sanctity of marriage and being harmful to children... but Referendum 71 does not.

Referendum 71 is not anti gay.. it is pro rights. Thus a vote for Referendum 71.. a vote to approve... is a vote to uphold the rights of all Washington families.

I personally believe that it is essential that people understand this exceedingly important Referendum and don't end up mistakenly voting to oppose the referendum when what they oppose is the group that put it on the ballot.

You may think that explanation a lecture, but as a gay person with children i would think that you would be grateful for anyone making this subject clear.. even if you thought the poster a bit pendantic or lecturing...

I don't have to be gay to understand the importance of this Referendum... the defeat of this referendum would impact many of my friends, both gay and straight... and it could very well affect me if i were to lose my husband. At 60, any legislation that affects those 62 and older has consequence for me.. and if i were to lose him, i would be unlikely to give up the security of his pension to remarry...

i would be one of those seniors living in sin.. without the legal protections of a committed partnership.

This Referendum is important to anyone who thinks that legal rights to partnership benefits.. things like access to loved ones when ill and pension benefits and paid sick leave shouldn't be exclusive to married partners...

Off-topic personal squabbling has been and will be deleted. Thanks to those who have flagged it. It is against WSB rules. Disagreement in discussion is one thing; barbed personality conflict is another. And by the way, like many online forums, we rely on members to help informally moderate by flagging suspected rule violations - that's what the "report this post" feature is for. Doesn't mean we will agree with you regarding every post you suggest doesn't belong - but we very much appreciate members' help in keeping this a place for reasonably civil discussion. Thanks again!

Reply to post 32...LMFAO!!

Oh yeah..Tim Eyman can kiss my arse.

dawspncourt..

Yes.. your "wacko commie, socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Zionist, left-wing, progressive Democratic, rock-n-roll, hoochie-coo proclivities" are pretty apparant.. which is why i followed the link.

i like the idea behind the initiative.. but did a little digging in their forums and wasn't sure if the gay basking was real or joking.

I am not humor impaired but i find there is a lot in popular humor that i just don't get. Never have. I had an aunt like that.. she would fall over laughing a long time after someone told a story.. sometimes a day or two later.. because she finally figured out what the joke was. It's genetic.

That's my story and i am sticking to it.

Wasn't there an attempt to file an initiative to keep Tim Eyman from filing any more initiatives a few years ago?

Man needs to get himself a real job.

JoB, I would hope my wacko commie, socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Zionist, left-wing, progressive Democratic, rock-n-roll, hoochie-coo proclivities would have been fairly apparent by now.
But, yes, this is a real initiative, and the genius behind it is apparently having NO problem raising the required signatures. Oh, how many times have I thought of an anti-Eyman initiative to run. How inspiring!

I can't believe its still publically acceptable in any way in our society to discriminate against a group of people and not allow them equal rights. I literally have a hard time understanding how it makes logical sense to anyone.

Providing gay/lesbian individuals equal rights will not harm or even substantially affect heterosexuals. If a heterosexual believes in a certain definition of marriage, then seek out a ceremony that represents that definition of marriage. If a heterosexual person wants a traditional family, then marry the opposite sex and have a traditional family. Do you see how as individuals we get to make our own decisions for ourselves based on our beliefs and it doesn't affect anyone else? Well, homosexual people should have the same rights.

You said “Til death do us part.” You’re not dead yet.

I like it. If I had any cash I would order a t-shirt.

http://rescuemarriage.org/buy-a-t-shirt/

The website is real, as in the guy who set it up is actually pushing for this to go on the ballot. With the same idea you and others have expressed, if heterosexual ONLY marriage is so damn sacred, keep your vows and make divorce illegal. He's taking a swipe at all those who voted Prop 8 into law.

dawsonct

i so hope that link was the joke i think it was..

if not, my computer got cooties:(

THIS is where we REALLY need to take this issue, if we are truly interested in protecting marriage, especially from the homosexual menace.

http://rescuemarriage.org/

God & Jesus Christ, BLESS the thoughtful & righteous Californians who are behind this holy movement!

The government really shouldn't be involved in recognizing marriages. Marriage is a private, cultural and sometimes religious tradition that has nothing to do with the state.

As far as the government is concerned, it should recognize civil unions for legal reasons and issue them to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm guessing the bigotry didn't start with this referendum.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Larry Stickney, and his third wife wouldn't go for that. Last week my partner and I celebrated our twentieth anniversary. Our twenty years together did not erode one hetero couple's marriage. And I know that in my twenty two years in Washington I have helped hundreds nay, thousands of children, supported many families with hetero parents and daresay my work has preserved some of those unions.
We are not the threat that the No on Ref. 71 says we are. We do threaten/challenge their narrow scope of looking at couples and families.

Jiggers...

or intolerant? or selfish? or bitter? or????
I wouldn't make that call...

i imagine there are many who think that if they had to get married to have any legal rights then everyone else should have to as well.

If we are going to attach all rights to marriage, maybe we should attach them all to the first marriage... forfeit on divorce....

wedded fr life or forfeit your rights... I can't see many going for that :)

Todd..

i think the opposition is counting on confusion..

if you think it is a good thing that all gay couples and heterosexual couples over the age of 62 get some of the same basic rights as a couple that married couples receive...

"* the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner without losing your job,
* death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty,
* pension benefits for the partners of teachers and other public servants,
* victim's rights including the right of notification
* the right to workers comp benefits if you partner is killed in the course of employment,
* the right to adopt a partner's child without paying for a home study."

http://approvereferendum71.org/

from Lurleen's post #10...

if you think children raised in those homes should have the benefit of all of the survivor benefits from their parents that are available to other employees at their workplace..

then vote yes on Referendum 71.

If you think that anyone who wants legal rights should get married regardless of whether they are legally able to marry or whether they would be substantially penalized financially for marrying...

gay or over 62.. it doesn't matter to you... if they want to have rights they have to marry...

then vote no on Referendum 71.

So if I vote no on it am I a bigot now?

I'm confused and now my head hurts. :(

chef..

i did do my research...

the opponents of Referendum 71 collected ballot signatures on the basis of a lie. Saying no to referendum 71 will not protect children.

Saying no to referendum 71 will place children at risk of poverty and increase the state's obligations towards those children.

Referendum 71 is not gay marriage... all it does is extend the same kind of legal protection that those of us who could marry already take for granted.

Someday i hope to be able to promote a gay marriage bill in Washington.. and i hope that day comes soon.. but this isn't it... no matter how many lies it's opponents tell.

I could stand outside the local grocery store all day with a petition to ban trick or treating on Halloween on the basis that the practice promotes vandalism... but that wouldn't make my assertion true... even though that misrepresentation has been fielded more than once to try to prevent trick or treating..

the absence of parental oversight facilitates vandalism...

trick or treating in your neighborhood can be a good way to introduce your children to their neighbors... and to foster a sense of community. It was in the neighborhood i left in Minnesota.

Telling a lie over and over does not make it the truth.

the truth is that Referendum 71 protects the rights and welfare of children as well as that of their parents and that's a good thing.

Vote yes for Referendum 71.

chef...I find much of what you say on these forums well thought out, but I have a request. Could you please leave the personal snarks and comments about other posters out of it? You have done it twice now...and I suspect that the powers that be might not approve. And , frankly, it adds nothing to the conversation at hand, and lowers the impact of whatever you say, makes one wonder if you have a personal "vendetta" about people on here.

Job - uh, you got it wrong. Ref. 71 says it protects children because it upholds a traditional marriage between a man and woman. Don't forget that the Ref. is started by anti-gay people, despite the fact that voting yes for it is voting FOR gays. See it's a old political trick - frame the question in the form of a question that people have to answer and hope that people don't read the question. Voter trends on Ref's usually tend to be 'no' so you get votes from alot of people who aren't paying attention.

In this case the framers of Ref. 71 want to take away gay rights by causing people to answer 'no' to the question of whether dom. partnerships will be continued. That's why they stood outside of grocery stores with their petition stating that Ref. 71 will protect children - if you vote 'no'.

Job - why don't you do your research before you answer instead of spouting off? Geez.....

Ref 71 says it protects children because without it, gays raising children lose the survivor benefits of the working partner at death... and that has a huge economic impact on their children.

btw.. it also has a huge economic impact on our state which ends up paying for the services that would have been provided for a destitute survivor and/or children had those families had access to the benefits that were part of the deceased employees benefit package.

Yeah - but gays and lesbians are all pedophiles don't you know! That's why Ref. 71 says it protects children!

(no sarcasm here!)

i would vote for a gay marriage act in a heartbeat... but this isn't it.

This is a referendum on domestic partnership rights which were granted by our state to those who aren't married for whatever reason but are committed partners...

some people who hate gays wanted to stop people in Washington from receiving those rights so badly that they lied about what the bill was and gathered signatures to get this referendum repealing those rights on the ballot.

They are still lieing .. calling this a referendum on gay marriage... and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

Repealing this bill will hurt elders who have registered as domestic partners because marriage would reduce their income, heterosexual couples who are unmarried but raising children together and some gay couples who have registered.

This will hit those who are unmarried but raising children hardest of all.

Regardless of how you might personally feel about gay marriage, please help Washington families and vote to approve Ref 71.

Vincent, straight senior domestic partners will lose the same 250 rights that same-sex domestic partners will lose. The include
* the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner without losing your job,
* death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty,
* pension benefits for the partners of teachers and other public servants,
* victim's rights including the right of notification
* the right to workers comp benefits if you partner is killed in the course of employment,
* the right to adopt a partner's child without paying for a home study.

all these rights are rights that married people get automatically.

http://approvereferendum71.org/

Blocking equal rights for people based on how they want to live, in their own houses, is pretty harsh as well.

My domestic partner is of the opposite sex. We hope to make it to 62 so we can register :)

I support this referendum anyway but the benefits to us soon to be old farts are tangible and necessary.

Hateing is a very harsh word vincent.

re: what rights will straight seniors lose?
~
"Heterosexual seniors lost in the furor over domestic partnership"
~
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009814434_r71seniors06m.html

If the news is any measure, its totally ok to hate gays. I mean we are basically voting to see if they have rights right?

Oh man... I better keep my lip shut tight here and don't want to offend anybody.

http://approvereferendum71.org/

Above is the link to the actual web site.

Approve71.org redirects to the above which might annoy some firewalls.

Or perhaps it assumes many people can't spell referendum...

The pdf posters and cards are under "handouts"

what rights will straight seniors lose?

Domestic partners in WA, be they straight seniors or same-sex couples, will lose 250 rights that the legislature has already granted them if we don't get Referendum 71 approved by voters. It is vital that you talk to everyone you know and let them know that their vote is needed and why it is so important to preserve the domestic partnership law to protect ALL Washington families. We can win this, but only if everybody votes. Approve71.org

Don't forget - you can print out a placard for your window, donate and/or sign up to phone bank or canvass at Approve71.org!