99 Replies to "Election 2009: Referendum 71 faceoff at Farmers' Market today"

• WSB October 11, 2009 (2:20 pm)

  And with the knowledge that political discussions on issues including this one have become flame wars on sites that do not have civility rules, I want to note that WSB rules prohibit denigrating anyone for biological traits, particularly those with which people are born: That includes (but is not limited to) gender, race, size, and sexual orientation. Thank you – TR, WSB editor

• LG October 11, 2009 (2:45 pm)

  But it’s OK to publish a photo of someone calling another person a bigot.

• Kristina October 11, 2009 (2:56 pm)

  I’m a heterosexual, married woman, and I support Ref. 71. Offering others the same rights and privleges granted to me does not harm me in any way. Standing on the side of love!

• KSJ October 11, 2009 (3:03 pm)

  Well said Kristina, thank you. I don’t understand why people want to take civil rights and the opportunity for happiness away from others.

• Keith October 11, 2009 (3:10 pm)

  That was me counter-protesting, and my partner and a friend visiting from Hawaii. Not something we’d planned to be doing today, but I’m glad we did.
  .
  To the many, many people who took my picture, shook my hand, patted me on the back and thanked me for being there to counter-protest the Reject-71 people: thank you. Your encouragement and shows of support meant a lot, especially in light of the hateful, disgusting things and outright lies that were being said by the demonstrators intent on denying domestic partnership rights to all. They told me I was going to hell, they told me I was a disgusting pervert, they told me I didn’t “need” to be gay, they said my love for my partner was an abomination, and they said I was only gay because I’d probably been molested or abused or had a bad relationship with my father. For people that have such a problem with homosexuality, they sure claim to know an awful lot about it! But their claims and arguments were all based on their own particular set of beliefs, not facts or fairness. “We didn’t used to have R-rated movies,” said one. “If we allow this to happen, just think of what’s next.” Think, indeed.
  .
  And to the big guy who registered his displeasure with my presence by checking me in the shoulder in a failed attempt at pushing me away– you’ve only made me more determined to get the word out and make sure that ‘equal rights for all’ wins in Washington.
  .
  Please vote to Approve R-71, and thanks again to all you fine folks today for your support. I was really proud of my neighborhood today.
  .
  http://approvereferendum71.org/

• KateMcA October 11, 2009 (3:19 pm)

  Right there with you, Kristina. I support these people’s right to protest whether I agree with them or not, but oh how I disagree with them.

• grr October 11, 2009 (3:35 pm)

  let’s cut to the chase, shall we?-
  – It is simply a matter of certain religions and their beliefs choosing to to force THEIR beliefs upon others. Plain and simple. Take religion OUT of the equation, and there is simply NO reason not to allow gay couples the same legal benefits of marriage that the rest of us enjoy.
  –
  and, while I’m at it…the NERVE of these people giving ‘protest’ signs to their CHILDREN infuriates me. I’m sure your 7 year old really enjoys holding a sign that says ‘God hates Gays’. SHEEESH.

  (rant over..for now).

• alkikmac October 11, 2009 (4:35 pm)

  I’m completely in support of R-71, but I have a complaint. I am a single woman, straight, who has lived with her boyfriend for many years and we do not see the need to marry, expect for the rights provided by marriage. We wish R-71 could apply to all domestic partnerships, regardless of age or sexual preference. We feel it’s unfair to be forced to marry, when others of our age but differerent sexual preference would not, in order to have the same rights.

• Grant October 11, 2009 (4:48 pm)

  Keith – thanks for taking a stand! If we’d been there we would have joined you.
  .
  My boyfriend and I were just talking about R-71 today and the need for GLTB people across Washington to mobilize more and get out on street corners, over-passes, or staffing call centers to educate the voting masses. The language of R-71 has been craftily written to confuse the average voter by mentioning the polarizing word ‘marriage.’ The ballot language exploits the hang-up some religious people have about the word ‘marriage’ despite the fact that many of those same people would tend to agree with the logic that gays should at least be treated fairly with respect to visitation, healthcare, survivorship, inheritance, and other benefits the domestic partnership law provides or seeks to strengthen even if the institution for doing so (domestic partnership) isn’t called marriage.
  .
  Domestic partnerships are also an important option for straight senior couples who might want some of the rights of marriage but still have a need to preserve widower’s pensions from a deceased spouse (if they get remarried, some types of pensions are forfeited). Our opponents want to sweep these truths under the rug.
  .
  My boyfriend and I are going to try to work with friends in the area to figure out what we can do to try to make a difference. It is not enough to write a check and hope that someone else will do the volunteer work to save our rights.
  .
  R-71 is either going to pass or fail by a narrow margin. Prop 8 passed in California by less than 1%. Every fair-minded GLTB-friendly person reading this post should email their friends and family members in Washington, making sure they know to APPROVE R-71. I’ve done that with my family, and although it’s not a tidal wave, every little ripple we can collectively make in the voting pool will help turn the tide in our favor. It would be a shame for R-71 to be rejected, but especially by a narrow voting margin.
  .
  Remember the last gubernatorial election? Dino Rossi lost by something like 250 votes. There’s a high likelihood that R-71 will succeed or fail by a very close margin as well.
  .
  R-71 is also about something less much tangible than domestic partnerships. It is a step toward a larger goal of ‘normalizing’ the acceptance of GLTB people across all ages and walks of society. Every GLTB person has experienced some level of taunting or harassment as a child/teen, or has experienced a time of self-loathing brought on by their family’s religious influences. Over time, laws like the ones R-71 intends to strengthen help to normalize general society’s acceptance of GLTB people as just another one of the crowd, making growing up a better experience for future generations of GLTB youth.

• Grant October 11, 2009 (4:50 pm)

  alkikmac – R. 71 DOES apply to straight couples but they need to be senior-age to apply. I do tend to agree with you that straight couples of all ages ought to be able to apply, but for now, I believe you must be age 60-something to file a heterosexual domestic partnership.

• Matthew October 11, 2009 (6:12 pm)

  Calling someone who is intolerant towards a group of people they see as different from themselves a bigot is not a denigration, it is a definition. The reject referendum 71 group is entitled to their opinions, but they need to know what holding those signs up in public squares means to people like myself (or Keith) when they see it. Surely if we can put up with someone holding a sign in our neighborhood that says we are lesser human beings than our fellow Americans and do not deserve the same rights and protections, they can take the mental energy it requires to look inward and realize the sign says a lot more about themselves than they may like to think. Thanks Keith for calling that to their attention, and for all the other “Keiths” out there who speak back when spoken to on this issue. It’s going to take that kind of true moral imperative to ensure all men (and women!) are created equal, and not just here in West Seattle.

• fulltilt October 11, 2009 (6:32 pm)

  The holder of the anti71 sign is a bigot. Plain and simple.

• Stuart October 11, 2009 (6:57 pm)

  Yup, she’s a bigot. She’s against gay people for no good reason but her Bible tells her so. Maybe ignorant is a better word.
  Living in a bubble. Doesn’t know a gay person. Should know a gay person.

  This Ref means NOTHING to her…won’t affect her one bit if it’s allowed to stand. Her daily existence will not change.
  But, if it’s not allowed to stand, the Keiths (male and female) of this state are affected, and for the worse.

  It’s mindboggling that the public is still allowed to vote on the benefits and rights accorded others, and that goes nationwide. My brain can’t comprehend it.
  Next election cycle, I’d love to but an initiative on the ballot that puts an end to Referendums and Initiatives where people are put to a vote.

  APPROVE 71. Tell every person you know, who has but one fairness bone in their body, that this is the ONLY way to vote on this waste-of-time, waste-of-money, waste-of-energy referendum that the religious right has put on the ballot.

  And then we can all move on with our lives, in the most positive fashion possible, and with the knowlege that we have defeated the forces of evil. Because, that’s what this is.
  Pure hatred, ignorance and evil.

• disgusted October 11, 2009 (7:06 pm)

  Marriage is between a man and a woman. End of message!

• Stuart October 11, 2009 (7:31 pm)

  Hey Disgusted.
  This Referendum has NOTHING to do with marriage. NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. Should I repeat that?
  NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE.
  IT’S AFFIRMING AN EXTENSION OF BENEFITS.
  THERE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ASPECT TO THIS AT ALL.

  AND…even if Ref 71 is defeated, domestic partnerships in this state are going nowhere. Only these few extensions of the benefits accorded people that were approved by the legislature this past Spring will be affected.
  As per usual, you and yours have been whipped up in a frenzy by the religious fanatics who have nothing better to do with their time and money (of others).

  And of course, you’re entitled to your beliefs. Now, keep YOUR beliefs out of MY life.
  Thanks very much.

  APPROVE 71 APPROVE 71 APPROVE 71 APPROVE 71 APPROVE

• David October 11, 2009 (7:39 pm)

  Are we really in 2009? Or is this 1859 or 1929? WHO in their RIGHT MINDS argues that gays, Jews, blacks or inter-racial couples shouldn’t be treated like everyone else. I mean what kind of mind and person does this take? I can totally understand not like mushrooms on your pizza, or not thinking Hindu’s or Catholics are “the true” religion…everyone has stuff they like and don’t like. But going out of your way to say it should be “illegal” because YOU don’t like it? It doesn’t EFFECT you! Unless you’re gay (or planning a domestic partnership) this will have 0% impact on your life.

  You don’t like it? So what. Go away. The Amish don’t like electricity. The Muslims don’t like alcohol. The Jewish religion isn’t down on pork. So you don’t like gays or gay marriage? I don’t care. Don’t have gay marriage then, or don’t eat pork, or don’t drink alcohol, or don’t use electricity. How about we have FREEDOM in this country and get to live our lives the way we won’t. Go to Las Vegas and gamble on Christmas, or sell all your worldly goods and build barns all day with the Amish. Do whatever you want. But stop trying to FORCE your views on everyone else. Freedom should always be the default position. Unless you can show a literal (non-magical) harm caused by any action, it should be illegal.

  P.S. The state that has HAD gay marriage the longest has the LOWEST divorce rate in the nation. The highest divorce rates? In the most conservative southern states. Darn facts!

• David October 11, 2009 (7:41 pm)

  That was: “Unless you can show a literal (non-magical) harm caused by any action, it should be legal”. My bad from fast typing.

• Ashley October 11, 2009 (7:47 pm)

  Disgusted- did you even read R-71? A domestic partnership is not a marriage. It gives registered partners, both same sex and opposite sex 62 and up, rights everyone else has. The right to visit your partner when they become ill, death benefits etc. As a straight girl who a male “partner”. You can keep the “sanctity” of marriage. I don’t want it.

• Catherine October 11, 2009 (7:47 pm)

  I’d love to give you a high-five for that, Keith. Go Ref 71!

• Alki Area October 11, 2009 (7:54 pm)

  Are you KIDDING me? Marriage is a between a man and a woman? First, this isn’t marriage, second, that’s not historically true. The most common marriage form on earth for the last 10,000 years is one man and many women. The Bible is FULL of polygamist marriages, concubines, and marriage within the family (incest). The idea of one man and one woman, where the WOMAN has ANY choice in the marriage is a modern hippy post romantic movement idea from the last century. A woman 500 years ago would have little if any say in who she married, they were “property” essentially. Give me a break. Your ‘tradition’ of leaving things like they were 2,000 years ago is HORRIBLE and ugly. That wonderful period made women property and men legal slaves. You want to KEEP that wonderful ideal alive? Sometimes NEW ideas (like making slavery illegal or letting woman be full citizens) is a GOOD idea even if it goes against centuries of traditions.

• OP October 11, 2009 (8:03 pm)

  I’m a GOPer and I say YES to Ref. 71. Gay and lesbian couples SHOULD have the same bennies and legal protections. The arguments against are specious, closed-minded and bigoted. Oh, and wholly un-Christian. (And believe me, I would LOVE to have given these anti-71 d-bags a piece of my mind….)

• Catherine October 11, 2009 (8:09 pm)

  Disgusted is probably a troll.

• GenHillOne October 11, 2009 (8:09 pm)

  Keith, I’m very proud to be your neighbor.

• DC October 11, 2009 (9:45 pm)

  Keith- you rock!!!!
  Thank you!!!! I can’t wait to vote YES.
  And Stuart, I love your response

• Susan October 11, 2009 (9:58 pm)

  I’m embarrassed that the “reject Ref 71” was even in my backyard. West Seattle is a neighborhood that is full of people that show tolerance, understanding, and acceptance. NOT ignorance, bigotry and fear. I feel sorry for all of you who chose to live in a world of fear because that’s all it is.

• disgusted October 11, 2009 (10:21 pm)

  Hey Stuart
  It works both ways! Reject Reject Reject. Keep your beliefs out of my backyard!

• Ashley October 11, 2009 (10:31 pm)

  Disgusted- did you even read the bill in question?? It has nothing to with “protecting the children”, this false propaganda is everywhere. I can’t understand why you would want to deny someone basic human rights? I am truly dumbfounded.

• gary October 11, 2009 (11:12 pm)

  Disgusted – You’ve got a lot of nerve making a christian statement like that around here! WS is full of tolerant & compassionate people can’t you tell? Remember the silent majority are probabbly on you’re side. I have not read the bill or made a decision yet, I’m kinda on the fence… I’ll decide one way or the other that’s what makes the US great! P.S. -Ashley, People here already have basic human rights!

• d October 11, 2009 (11:42 pm)

  Disgusted-

  I am disgusted by your “beliefs”, which you clearly have superficially formed based on misinformation and ignorance. This is not about marriage. It is about domestic partnerships. There is a difference and it is obvious you don’t know what the details of the differences are. Your “backyard” beliefs are based on lack of education, lack of tolerance born of fear, and to me, an inability to think critically and carefully.

  You offer absolutely no compelling reason to the readers here on WSB why you think what you think. You don’t, I imagine, because you don’t even know why. It is much easier for small-mindedness to be brief. It’s too challenging and scarey to lay out for all to read your ill-considered assumptions about this Ref., isn’t it?

  This referendum is not about marriage as I think you assume. Even if it were, can you honestly say that the current statistics on marriage in this country are anything for any marriage-minded heterosexual to be proud of? Not exactly stellar, unless a 52% divorce rate is something you are proud of. But, again, this isn’t about marriage.
  This IS about conferring rights and responsibilities via legal codes, NOT religious codes or doctrines. Big difference. It does NOT make gay couples married by giving them these basic rights most married people, whether they divorce eventually or not, take for granted.

  I hope you do yourself a favor and try to get some proper understanding of this referendum. You could clearly use some clarification before you cast your ballot.

• disgusted October 12, 2009 (12:36 am)

  I have nothing against race, religion, color or creed. Same sex partners. That is what is disgusting! If a state like CA can vote down same sex marriage I hope that this state votes against this domestic partner referendum. I hope that there is a silent majority out there that will do what is right. And yes, the Bible is my guide and I’m proud to admit it.

• Smitty October 12, 2009 (6:54 am)

  I’m for 71 but find it odd that I put up with 8 years of whack-jobs protesting at the Junction about “Bush’s War” yet these folks can’t even get one day to voice their opinions without a counter protest.

  Freedom of speech, unless I disagree with you – then I will shout you down.

  Disagree with 71 – well you must be a BIGOT!

  Disagree with anything Obama proposes – well you must be a RACIST.

  The Left is sooooooo tolerant………

• Kristina October 12, 2009 (7:21 am)

  Disgusted, if you are not gay (GBLT) or a partnered senior, then this is not actually in your backyard. Assuming that you do not have a domestic partner of either sex, it does not impact you at all. It does not make a statement about marriage, and the word marriage is not in the bill. This is legislation about things like right of survivorship and other legal benefits that make our society run a little smoother.
  .
  Though I personally give full support of the GBLT community, I think that it is important to note that the R-71 legislation does not attempt to define marriage, and that is a seperate issue. This is about legal rights only, not about what constitutes a family. Whereas I personally would support gay marriage, I think that it is important to note that this legislation is careful not to discuss that issue. This legislation is about human rights.
  .
  Please remember also that this impacts seniors living in partnership. Think of widows/widowers who find love later in life but for one reason or another have chosen not to marry as one example. This legislation protects THEIR rights, too.
  .
  I feel strongly that GBLT people deserve the same basic human rights as heteros like myself. However, I think that even if you do not agree with me on that issue, there is much to offer in R-71 even for people who do not support “gay marriage.”
  .
  R-71 is a socially responsible bill, not a religious statement.
  .
  Again: I’m a woman, married to a man…and I believe that every long-term couple is deserving of the same basic rights. Standing on the side of love!

• Meghan October 12, 2009 (8:09 am)

  I am a straight woman who has been married for 10 years. My sister is a gay woman who has been with her partner for 8 years. I can’t imagine how her having equal civil protections under the law could POSSIBLY affect my marriage. Remember, this has NOTHING to do with religion. Even if this were about gay marriage (which it’s NOT; it’s about domestic parnerships, i.e. equal protections under the law), no one could ever force a church to perform a gay wedding ceremony; religious freedom is protected by the courts). So the ONLY reason to reject R-71 is to try to keep other people from having equal civil rights. Is that good for anyone?? Maybe you’ll be next!

• Lurleen October 12, 2009 (8:58 am)

  Supporters of R-71 *must* tell everyone they know how important it is that they vote to approve R_71 and mail back their ballot. If R-71 is rejected, domestic partners like me will lose 250 rights already granted by the legislature.

  Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. Vote “approved” to preserve the law and protect ALL Washington families.

• John October 12, 2009 (9:10 am)

  I agree with grr, it all comes down to someones wacky following of the Bible. Those same people that protest same sex marriage seem to have no problem eating, crab, shrimp, clams, oyster, etc., even thou the Bible says it’s an abomination.

  Leviticus 11;9-12 says the following:
  9.These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
  10. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
  11. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
  12. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

  Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
  9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
  10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

• Mike October 12, 2009 (9:58 am)

  Adam and Eve were never married… food for thought.

• Kayleigh October 12, 2009 (10:13 am)

  I personally don’t know why anybody would want to get married (BTDT; never again!) :) but I REALLY can’t understand how denying somebody else rights that I have is anything other than unfair.
  .
  I really want to hear the logic of the opposition to 71. I’m dying to be convinced that it’s *not* bigotry.

• Bayou October 12, 2009 (10:56 am)

  I have been with my partner for nearly 7 years, with the past 5 of those years spent in West Seattle/White Center. I feel more at home in this area than I have ever felt anywhere else.

  I’m not even going to waste my energy addressing the troll but I do want to take a moment to thank all my straight (but not narrow) neighbors who respect the LGBT community and plan to vote APPROVE on Ref 71. It’s the people of this community that make it such a wonderful place to live.

• Brian October 12, 2009 (11:12 am)

  Alright, everyone who’s different… INTO THE OVENS!

• Grazer October 12, 2009 (12:10 pm)

  Hey WSB-

  In respect to those who died in the the camps can you please remove the above the comment.

  I understand it’s a snark but an awful one at that…

• Stuart October 12, 2009 (12:31 pm)

  This is for Gary, because Approve needs every vote it can get.
  And maybe, just maybe, Disgusted will read this too and see what Ref 71 is actually all about.

  Gary – since you’re on the fence:

  Voting APPROVE on Ref. 71 is a vote to keep the domestic partnership law that provides LEGAL protections for lesbian and gay couples and seniors who are in committed relationships.
  To be able to take unpaid leave to care for a critically ill loved one, without being fired.
  To be able to cover a partner in family health insurance.
  To make sure hard-earned pension and death benefits protect children when a parent dies.

  Approving Ref. 71 ensures that important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so that they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis.

  There is NO religious aspect to this at all.
  The Reject folks would have you believe that Approving this will lead to same-sex marriage in WA State. Whether or not that comes to pass in our lifetime, this is NOT what you are being asked to vote for on Nov 3.

  You are being asked to vote on LEGAL benefits accorded others. That is all.

  I thank you and hopefully you (both) will come down on the side of Approve on Nov 3.

• Brian October 12, 2009 (12:39 pm)

  Hey Grazer

  Considering it was one of MY ancestors who died in said camps, I have the right.

  Truth hurts.

• jiggers October 12, 2009 (12:47 pm)

  Let’s all sing kumbaya and hold hands now.

• cclarue October 12, 2009 (12:50 pm)

  I am a christian and will vote yes for r71. Even if only for one of the many reasons being the hospital death bed visitation. I have heard of gay patients families denying visistation to the partners and that is evil as far as i am concerned. These 2 people make lives together and sometimes the blood relatives hardly have anything to do with the gay family member for years and then the person is on their death bed and here comes the “family” to take over and take charge and exclude the partner in any decisions when it is likely that that individual is the one who knows the dying partners wishes better than anyone. That to me is disgusting and evil and should not be allowed to happen. PERIOD!! So here is a vote for tolerance or love or separation of church and state or fairness or kindness …..

• disgusted October 12, 2009 (1:09 pm)

  If same sex partners is omitted from the ref 71 I would gladly vote yes.

• ray October 12, 2009 (1:25 pm)

  So, you’re basically saying that you hate gay people because they were simply born gay, no truth about this Ref will change your mind, and you would prefer to live a hate-filled life.

  Your church must be a loving one indeed.

  Clearly, you know not one gay person.

  Hopefully, your ballot gets lost in the mail.

  As the sign says, Meet A Bigot.

• Ashley October 12, 2009 (1:36 pm)

  So digusted- your issue is the fact in your mind when a wo/man falls in love with a wo/man it is wrong. But why does that mean they deserve any less rights than anyone else? I am trying to understand your point of view. It has nothing to do with marriage or children. I just don’t understand why you would want to deny rights to two people who love each enough to become partners and just happen to be same sex. How does R-71 affect you Digusted?

• datamuse October 12, 2009 (2:04 pm)

  Gary (and anyone else who’s still on the fence), you might try thinking of it this way: is there any evidence of harm to society if Ref 71 passes? After all, it would approve measures already in place to grant unmarried senior couples and adult gay couples of whatever age certain legal rights. Washington state residents have had those rights for several months, and I have yet to see any evidence of harm, personally.
  .
  Forget religious definitions of marriage for a second. They’re irrelevant here for several reasons: one, not all religions forbid gay marriage. Which would mean, if we WERE talking about marriage, specifically as a sacrament, that the enforcement of the beliefs of some Christians concerning marriage actively infringes on the religious beliefs of others. But that’s immaterial because, two, a religious sacrament is not what’s at issue. Passing Ref. 71 will not require any church to sanctify a gay union if it does not already. Three, we aren’t even talking about marriage. Ref. 71 pertains to domestic partnerships.
  .
  Entering into a state-recognized legal domestic partnership confers certain rights; that’s why this is a civil rights issue. Those rights include the right to take unpaid leave to care for a partner, the right to visit a partner in the hospital, the application of inheritance and community property laws, the application of domestic violence statutes, and a whole lot of other rights that have nothing inherently to do with marriage, let alone marriage’s status as a sacrament according to some religious traditions.
  .
  A domestic partnership is not marriage. It is a civil contract. Rejecting Ref. 71 means denying a previously established right of competent adults to enter into said contract and benefit from the rights thereby conferred.
  .
  Passing Ref. 71 does no discernible harm to society. Rejecting it because it appears to tamper with traditional marriage demonstrates that most of us don’t know our history (in the West, marriage was traditionally neither the Church’s nor the State’s business, unless, say, entire countries were at issue–seriously, go look it up) and would prefer to privilege personal discomfort and/or private belief over the civil rights of our neighbors, professional associates, families, and friends.
  .
  Approve Referendum 71.

• OP October 12, 2009 (3:57 pm)

  If same sex partners is omitted from the ref 71 I would gladly vote yes.

  As a Catholic and staunch GOP supporter, I ahve to say the views you voice here are wholly un-Christian and not following in the footsteps of Christ.

  @the rest of you: Getting married, straight or otherwise, is NOT a RIGHT guaranted under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; it’s a priviledge recognized by states. However, your inherent rights are not being violated.

• Shibaguyz October 12, 2009 (4:31 pm)

  15 years together here in our committed, same-sex relationship here.

  Approve Ref 71!

  (other partners sign in)

• ray October 12, 2009 (4:48 pm)

  Duly noted OP.

  However, this Ref has nothing to do with marriage, and is solely to allow legal benefits that HAVE being accorded by the state legislature and governor this past Spring to continue unabated.
  That these legal benefits have to be put to a public vote is absurd.

  Next year, no matter what happens on Nov 3, how about an initiative to END all initiatives where the public is allowed to vote on other people’s ‘rights’, or ‘benefits’ or what-have-you.

  And, OP, ‘we’ could use your staunch GOP vote. :)

• jennie October 12, 2009 (5:05 pm)

  Disgusted,

  I pity people like you.

  By denying equal rights you claim you are better than others because you’re “straight”. This is no worse than saying you’re better than someone because of the color of your skin or your gender.
  Why are you better? Because you were born a certain way? Really?

  Life is better when you accept people for who they are. Stop being a hater! I thought that was the Christian way.

  Nobody is asking you to agree with their opinions. We’re talking about human rights and matters of the heart. How does it change your life/make your life worse by allowing someone else the same rights afforded to you?

  I pray one day your xenophobic species is extinct and you’re only heard about in history books.

  Have mercy!

• MTM October 12, 2009 (6:20 pm)

  My partner and I are going on thirty years. We moved to West Seattle in the early 1980’s, raised kids here and now have grandkids in West Seattle schools. Thanks to the thoughtful, decent, and respectful residents of this community we have experienced very little bias in all those years. It makes me sick to see anti-gay activists on our streets. I get that they have a right, still it’s new and troubling.

  Way to go Keith!!

  Approve Ref. 71

  p.s. Anyone remember initiative 13 in 1978?

• MrJT October 12, 2009 (7:27 pm)

  8 years here same sex committed here.

  Approve 71.

• bluebird October 12, 2009 (10:17 pm)

  disgusted, “pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall”. Besides, you can’t really be too proud of that guide book or you wouldn’t hide your proclamation behind a pseudonym.

  My name’s Jaime and I will “proudly” cancel out your vote.

  I also express my gratitude to you for highlighting the ignorance, fear, and hatred behind the opposition to this referendum.

• Lamar October 12, 2009 (10:33 pm)

  When put to a vote, the gays will ALWAYS lose!!!! Just wait and see…your socalled supporters will vote against you cause they know your wrong!

• lg October 13, 2009 (12:47 am)

  BTW, LG above is not to be confused with the ref 71 supporting and occasional poster lg (lower case).

• SF October 13, 2009 (6:24 am)

  6.5 years here in a same sex committed relationship.

  Thank you Keith.

  Thank you to all of the straight but not narrow people in West Seattle for making us feel welcome here in this community. I have lived here since 1994 and my partner has lived in West Seattle since 1992.

  For anyone still “sitting on the fence” on this issue……remember, we are your neighbors, your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters, and your co-workers. Passage of Ref. 71 will NOT change any of that. Passage of Ref. 71 will NOT change your life. Passage of Ref. 71 WILL change our life and the lives of many in our community for the better as has stated above.

  Please contact your friends and relatives and let them know that passage of Ref. 71 is important and that every vote is needed. Dont assume anything.

  Approve Ref. 71

• mar3c October 13, 2009 (7:23 am)

  what disgusted and smitty should remember is that eventually they will have to rely on someone who is oriented differently.
  .
  maybe that person will be a doctor or nurse, or a fireman.
  .
  they had better hope that that mechanic or veterinarian or plumber isn’t as intolerant as the haters.
  .
  i’m happily married for 15 years (and, no, we are not having pups, so does that make our marriage “invalid” as well?) and my wife and i can’t imagine how bad it must be to be closeted and hated because of who you are.
  .
  it’s probably not a nice feeling, is it, disgusted? the difference is that you have a choice whether you’re an ass or not. gay people don’t choose to be gay.
  .
  and, no, sorry, there is no silent majority of haters.

• Pwinters October 13, 2009 (11:08 am)

  My wife and I were there on Sunday when we saw Kieth holding his sign. I initially shook Kieth’s hand (nice to meet you Kieth) and thanked him and walked away. Then I saw the big guy walk past Kieth and give him a shoulder check and mumbling something about the ‘gay lifestyle’. The kicker is this guy had a kid with him. Not sure that’s the behavior I would model for my children, but the thought rushed through my mind that I can’t just sit silent anymore.

  I approached the woman and asked her a simple question. “Why are you lying?” She seemed confused so I pointed out her sign says protect marriage, and SB5668 has NOTHING to do with marriage. It’s disingenuous at the very least and intentionally misleading. She immediately began to rant about the religious reasons behind her protest. I regret that I tried to argue religion with her, it was a waste of time.

  Then she asked me what I thought about Obama wanting to teach kindergartners about how men have sex with each other. I took two crisp clean 100 dollar bills from my wallet and offered to hold her sign for two hours while she assembled some proof of this accusation. She declined.

  This woman and her man are bigots, plain and simple and Kieth and his friends were 100% right to call her on it. They actually said nothing loud enough to be heard, and it was my wife (of 22 years) and I who did most of the arguing.

  The bottom line is, it’s time for my heterosexual friends to get off their rears and fight for the approval of Ref. 71. We can no longer sit quietly with our opinions and let other people fight alone for their civil rights. This incident and Kieth and his friend’s actions have inspired my wife and I to fight hard for this measure. You should too.

• datamuse October 13, 2009 (12:26 pm)

  Nice work, Pwinters!

• Dan Bennett October 13, 2009 (12:26 pm)

  Mike McGinn is the candidate for those supporting Ref. 71 http://www.flickr.com/photos/soggydan/4002270295/

• BigBear October 13, 2009 (12:30 pm)

  Pwinters: Thank you! I just read through the string and like a great Novel, the best was saved for last…yours.

  Oh how I wish every straight Man and Woman in this world had the insight and compassion you had. If only “Disgusted” had 1% of the insight and compassion you have, the world would be a much much better place.

  So “Disgusted”, if you don’t like “Gay Marriage” (even though this isn’t about “Marriage…but you can’t seem to get off that concept) or even “Dmestic Partners”, then my best advice is to NOT MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX OR ENTER INTO A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP WITH SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. This referendum takes Nothing away from you. Nothing.

• ray October 13, 2009 (12:36 pm)

  Going through ALL these comments, which is pretty amazing actually…OP and Smitty ARE Approve 71 folks. Just wanted to make sure folks were clear on that!

• ray October 13, 2009 (1:59 pm)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va7-nEAkxx0

  Just in case anyone has a person in their lives who isn’t sure how to vote on this Ref, send them this.

• Pwinters October 13, 2009 (4:14 pm)

  Here is what I want religious people to think about, and this is how I started my conversation with this woman after she brought up marriage. No church in this country would want the government to tell them what they can and cannot do, and what they must or must not do. If you would not want the government to tell your church that you MUST marry gay couples, then the only logical conclusion (I know logic is asking a lot) is that the government should not be able to tell your church you MUST NOT marry gay couples.

  In states where gay marriage is legal, there are bishops in the American Episcopal Church who bless gay marriages in the church. If you respect the Constitution of the United Sates, you know that the states who ban this practice are acting outside the law.

  When I pointed out the AEC position to the woman above she responded “They aren’t real christians”

  So, there you go, she doesn’t just discriminate against gays, she also does not like American Episcopalians.

• ray October 13, 2009 (5:06 pm)

  Lamar, up above somewhat…can you explain your confusing statement that ‘our so-called supporters will vote against us because they know we’re wrong’??

  Wrong about what? How we were born? Wrong about the fact that we pay taxes like you do and should be entitled to everything you are?

  Do you know a gay person?

  I’ll agree with you about one thing…it’s scary to put ANY minority up to a public vote.
  NO ONE should be put to a public vote except a politician, and I’m going to try and do something about that NEXT election.

  If anyone has any ideas about how to do that (an initiative putting an end to ‘people’ initiatives)…I’m all ears. And, I’m serious.

• Mary October 13, 2009 (9:37 pm)

  Ray,
  You are scary!
  We are so blessed to have a democratic system of government that is “Of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

  Keith,
  If your still with us…I just want to refute a few of the lying statements you made about the statements I made to you on Sunday.
  Yes, It’s me! the woman who was using my freedom of speech rights, as an American citizen, and trying to influence society.
  I never told you that you were going to hell!
  Or, that you were a disgusting pervert, and I never said that your love for your partner was an abomination.
  Maybe you’ve heard these comments from someone else!
  I did tell you that Jesus loves you, and that He understands why you are in this lifestyle.
  The only reason anyone will go to hell is if they reject His gift of forgiveness that is offered to all who repent.
  We all need to repent, none of us are without sin!

• Pwinters October 13, 2009 (10:59 pm)

  Mary,

  I was standing there when you said it was an abomination. I did not hear you say that Kieth was going to hell, but I did hear you say it was disgusting, and you absolutely insisted that the gay gentlemen around you must have had problems with their fathers or that they were molested, because that’s how gays become gay.

  I am still offering you the $200 to give me the proof to your outrageous claims that Obama and the NEA intent to teach kindergartners about how gay men have sex.

  When I asked you why their love was not natural, your exact quote was “Well… they do it up the butt … it’s not what god intended … it’s not natural”

  Finally, nobody was questioning your right to free speech. I question your right to lie. You are requesting voters reject Ref. 71 with a sign that says “Protect Marriage, Protect Children” and “Marriage = One Man and One Woman” and you know… YOU KNOW… the bill already enacted doesn’t legalize gay marriage. For christ’s sake it’s called the “EVERYTHING BUT MARRIAGE ACT”

• ray October 13, 2009 (11:19 pm)

  Mary,
  I’M scary?! I don’t want to take away YOUR benefits or rights and I’M scary??
  What I would like to take away from you and folks like you is the power to twist the referendum, initiative and proposition process to force a public vote where one WAS NOT NEEDED.

  We ARE so ‘blessed’ with a democratic system of gov’t, that is of the people, by the people, for the poeple….WE ELECTED the LEGISLATURE and GOVERNOR in this STATE to GOVERN and make laws. YOU and YOURS want to run ramshod over these elected officials because you don’t like the result of their work.

  That YouTube video I linked to of the two elderly women who served their country, raised children and just want what YOU have…what about that is SCARY, Mary??? You would actually vote to reject 71 so that these two women couldn’t live out their years with peace of mind, and I’M scary???

  Have you seen the gay-bashing video of a 48-year old man in Queens NY this week, Mary? THAT is the end result of your ‘freedom of speech’. And THAT is scary, no, TERRIFYING.
  If the religious right and churches would stop preaching AGAINST gays in this country, maybe that man wouldn’t be sitting in a hospital beaten senseless.
  And if you’d like to see that awful video, I will surely show it to you.

  And, it’s not a LIFESTYLE, Mary, that I or Keith need ‘understanding’ for. Maybe I spend too much money, or like to go on expensive trips…that’s a LIFESTYLE. BEING GAY IS NOT A LIFESTYLE. Do you live a straight lifestyle??
  I was BORN GAY, Mary. BORN GAY. BORN GAY.

  I cannot change who I am, nor would I.
  However, YOU can change who YOU appear to be: an ignorant, narrow-minded person ruled by your Bible who wants to rule MY life with YOUR beliefs and platitudes.
  And, I’m a JEW so Jesus doesn’t mean to me, what he does to you. And still, you want to have an impact on MY LIFE.

  THE NERVE of you.

  Mary, you may ‘win’ on Nov 3, by perpetrating lies and stirring up fear, but, you and yours are on the wrong side of history and this train will keep on rolling until ALL Americans have the exact same legal rights and benefits.

  And I’m scary.

• ray October 13, 2009 (11:23 pm)

  And I want every person who’s still reading this comment thread and who is on the Approve side of things, to make sure they tell EVERY person they know…EVERY PERSON THEY KNOW…to fill out their ballots to turn back people like Mary.

  It’s imperative. THEY cannot prevail.

• Keith October 14, 2009 (12:06 am)

  Hi Mary. Yep, I’m still here, floored by the massive support of so many of my neighbors. Thanks again to all of you, then and now, and for pledging to support R-71.

  .

  Mary, I don’t need to lie about what happened that day. That’s your job. You were the one holding the sign that said “Protect Marriage.” Yet R-71 has nothing to do with marriage. You’re really in no position to be calling anyone a liar, because your whole campaign is based on misleading statements and outright lies.

  .

  However, if I misheard you or your cohort in the barrage of spiteful, ridiculous things you said to me (including plenty of outright lies)… well, I certainly apologize for any errors in transcribing your hate speech and proselytizing. The way you sneered at me while shouting that I must have been sexually abused and had a bad relationship with my father… that was really disturbing, not to mention completely untrue. Your arrogance was matched only by your ignorance, and both were so astonishing that must I admit that I did eventually tune you out, kind of like when you started singing hymns instead of being able to intelligently debate your position with Pwinters and so many others who approached you.

  .

  But Mary, keep exercising your freedom of speech. The more you open your mouth, the more people who will see and hear you for exactly what you are.

  .

  It’s like what I heard a lovely older woman say to one of your fellow demonstrators at the market that day: “I’m glad you’re here, because now I know to how to vote on this.” Bad news for you, Mary: thanks to your presence that day, she’s voting for fairness and equality. She’s voting to Approve R-71.

• Mary October 14, 2009 (9:59 am)

  Untrue Keith..I didn’t sneer at you when I said that there were reasons that you sexually oriented that way.Those are 2 very common ones.

  We only sang one song.
  “Jesus Loves The Homosexuals”
  We changed the words to get our point across.

  I know it bothered you to hear that message, But it’s true! Is that hate speech?

  We started singing to drown out The Pwinters who wouldn’t leave, and who had become obnoxious.

  I think you’ll agree..It would have been hard for anyone to carry on an intelligent conversation in that arena. We were put totally on the defense from the get-go, when you yelled out at us as you went home to make your sign that called us bigots.

  Yet, you say ours was “hate speech”, and we’re intolerant?
  We disagree with you about this issue.
  We do believe it would be wrong for our society to keep moving toward homosexual marriage.
  I stand by my comment that it’s a perverse form of sexuality.
  But be clear on this…I do not hate homosexual persons, and yes I have been personally well aquainted with several. I also personally know those who have practiced this type of lifestyle, and been set free to live their life in a new way. It is possible!
  Jesus is the answer, for those who would desire a different path.
  God Bless all of you from the opposing side of this issue!

• dawsonct October 14, 2009 (12:36 pm)

  Right on, Mary! I hope, whether you succeed or not, that you contact these folks in California. Maybe you could enlist their expertise to get an initiative that will REALLY protect marriage on a ballot someday:

  http://rescuemarriage.org/

  I feel like we need to do everything we can to preserve the nach-u-ral order of things, the way God and Jesus Christ want it (even between Buddhists!), between man & woman (as long as she stays subservient, of course!), forever and ever, amen.

• dawsonct October 14, 2009 (12:59 pm)

  Keith, contact Reclamation Ministries as quickly as possible! They can save your soul as they have done for Mr. Lindeman, rescuing him from eternal damnation (sharing a room w/J. Falwell?). You never know around which corner death lurks!!
  http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/church_group_offers

• datamuse October 14, 2009 (1:38 pm)

  Last I checked, Mary, freedom of speech is a right that Pwinters and Keith enjoy, too.

  If you can’t take the heat, get off the sidewalk.

• ray October 14, 2009 (2:58 pm)

  Mary,

  You say:
  “I stand by my comment that it’s a perverse form of sexuality.”
  Do you REALIZE how offensive that is?
  That you’re calling an inate part of me and others like me, perverse?
  Like I said earlier in the comment above that you have chosen to ignore, THE NERVE OF YOU.
  .

  To say to Keith the ‘2 common ones’ (reasons) about why people are gay…what, molestation and father issues? I had neither.
  So, now will you stop repeating that offensive lie please?

  .

  And let’s talk LIFESTYLE, Mary. I don’t practice a lifestyle. I WAS BORN GAY.
  IT’S A PART OF ME LIKE MY BROWN HAIR AND FLAT FEET.
  But you, YOU practice a RELIGIOUS LIFESTYLE. You’re the one who needs curing from this particular evil.

  .

  And you say you’re well acquainted with some gay folks? Do they know that you stand on a street trying to get folks to deny them legislated rights?

  .

  I WAS BORN GAY. I WAS BORN GAY.
  What about that does not get through your skull?

  .

  And please stop telling us/me that Jesus is the answer. Leave Jesus out of this.
  I’m a JEW. Jesus means NOTHING to me.
  Yet you will try to hide behind poor Jesus to peddle your hate.
  Yes, HATE, Mary.
  Because if you could see BEYOND your beloved Bible, you’d become a much more loving person. Currently, you’re the opposite of loving.
  You hate, but are so blinded by your Bible, you’ll never realize it.

  .

  I’m not sure if you plan on peddling your lies this weekend in our lovely area, but, I may stop by to TRY and have a thoughtful discussion with you.
  Note: TRY.
  I seriously doubt you and people like you actually listen.
  And please don’t sing songs to me about Jesus Loving the Homosexuals.
  Again, the offensive of that is off the charts.

  .

  YOU’RE the perverse one.

  .

  Seriously, THE NERVE.

  .

  I’d like you to respond to EACH of my points, WITHOUT referencing your religion.
  I doubt you will, because…YOU CAN’T.

• disgusted October 14, 2009 (4:02 pm)

  Thank you to those who have been afraid to disagree with the Rays and others. It gives me hope that this ref. will be defeated! If the homo sexuals are worried about each other then what is to stop them from getting/authorizing Power of Attorney for each other? Same for senior citizens. I don’t hate anyone that lives this life style. What they do in their own homes is their right……keep it there and not in public. That (hatred) is NOT what my church teaches. And, they are not BORN that way.
  I feel quite a bit of hatred towards me on this discussion board It’s also my right to feel disgusted and Mary you are so right on with your comments. I feel only sadness for people like Ray.

• d October 14, 2009 (4:06 pm)

  Wow Mary. You are SERIOUSLY deluded. And , now that I have this unique opportunity to say it virtually, you are NOT AT ALL pretty in pink.

  Women who spew such fetid thoughts and uneducated exegesis cluelessly misrepresent themselves as like other Christians. They are, like yourself. an abberation, an utter embarrassment to all educated, discerning Christian women.

  Having said all that, you are discriminating in the Civil/legal sense of the word. For sure, you are NOT discerning. You just are NOT getting it. This is NOT even about religion. It is NOT about marriage. Why do you insist that it is? Why the desperation? Why misrepresent this Referendum? Ya’ know Mrs. Mary in Pink, if you show up on a WS street corner again, expect far more emphatic “discussion”. But ya’ better get more “facts” in hand and a little less “fiction”. Because those whom you dehumanize and you offend know you are out there and they will be ready for ya’.

  Separation of “church” and state doesn’t mean just houses of worship of Christians in this country and IN THIS STATE. It means separation of all religious belief systems: synagogue, temple, circle, sacred forest,
  nothingness and whatEVER AND churches from legislative law. You are going to get called out for your hubris, but women with martyr complexes would enjoy that. I guess.

• Adam October 14, 2009 (4:48 pm)

  Smitty:

  Freedom of speech isn’t singular to a particular side in any given moment. It doesn’t mean you’re protected from being shouted down. It means the government can’t tell you to shut up.

  Freedom of speech means the government has no say in what bigoted remarks these people are allowed to make. However, it also means that I’m absolutely allowed to be louder, and to call them out on being bigots, and to make fun of them for being bigots, and to throw back in their faces every stupid, hateful, ridiculous, terrible thing they say.

• ray October 14, 2009 (5:10 pm)

  Hey Disgusted:

  “What they do in their own homes is their right……keep it there and not in public. That (hatred) is NOT what my church teaches. And, they are not BORN that way.”

  .

  If your church does not promote anti-gay rhetoric, then what exactly is your excuse for your, yes, HATRED?

  .

  And, why should WE have to get Power of Attorney etc. DO YOU HAVE TO?

  .

  We’d LOVE to keep this in the privacy of our own homes but the religious right in this state has dragged it out in the open! That this Referendum is in the public forum is because of THE RELIGIOUS TALIBAN IN THIS STATE.

  .

  HOW DARE YOU TELL ME THAT I OR ANYONE ELSE WASN’T BORN GAY.
  HOW DARE YOU. YOU HAVE NOT WALKED A STEP IN MY SHOES.
  HOW DARE YOU.

  .

  AND. IT’S. NOT. A. LIFESTYLE.

  .

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

  .

  Hate speech disguised as free speech leads to this:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8306481.stm

  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/video_shows_brutal_attack_on_gay_PX6TNoFewPYPfHNImhkKlL

  .

  APPROVE 71 APPROVE 71 APPROVE 71

• d October 14, 2009 (5:25 pm)

  disgusted-

  Back for more are ya’? Well, I’m a little busy right now, so refer to post at 16:06 and apply to yourself, liberally, and as often as required.

  I say this knowing you may not have the cognitive capacity. Rotten, mean hearts just don’t supply enough oxygen to brains.

• Kara October 14, 2009 (5:26 pm)

  “The legal case in favor of discrimination against homosexuals is being mounted as the counter-suit against religious discrimination! (…) You can’t get away with saying, ‘If you try to stop me from insulting homosexuals it violates my freedom of prejudice.’ But you can get away with saying, ‘It violates my freedom of religion.’ What’s the difference?”

  -Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

  Conveniently, especially for people like Mary, religious text can be construed to fit any personal and selfish desires of the believer, because the nature of religion is inherently illogical. Unfortunately for your argument, Mary, reality says hate speech veiled by religious rhetoric is still hate speech. You are a hateful person and should not be lecturing anyone on love, divine or otherwise.

  VOTE APPROVE on Ref. 71

• WSB October 14, 2009 (5:40 pm)

  Hey all – Please keep to the spirit of what we posted at the start, and WSB rules of civil discussion. We are proud to host a site where we do our best to keep things from devolving to what I personally consider disgusting – uncivil verbal slugfests. Our basic rule is this: Discuss the comment, not the commenter. You can say Person X’s idea is idiotic, but not that Person X is an idiot. Thank you very much – TR

• d October 14, 2009 (6:26 pm)

  Out of respect for WSB’s rules, I apologize for the personalizing remarks I have made. However, that is SOLELY out of respect for TR and WSB, not those who seek to hurt their neighbors.

• ray October 14, 2009 (7:01 pm)

  I would like Disgusted to open his/her mind for just a moment, no name-calling on either part, have him/her forget for a minute that he/she attends church (because this Ref has nothing to do with church or religion) and tell me what about the info below is so offensive to him/her.

  .

  I’d also like to remind him/her that even if Mary ‘wins’ on Nov 3, neither domestic partnerships nor gay people in this state are going anywhere. Only the extended benefits will have been turned back.
  What you in essence are saying in your posts above is that you will vote to Reject 71 because you are solely against EXTENDING BENEFITS and I’d like to know why, WITHOUT YOU INVOKING RELIGION OR SAYING YOU DON’T CARE FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS. If you say that, you’re voting with bigotry in your heart and without fully understanding what your vote really means.

  .

  I’d love for Mary to do the same thing but that’s an admitted longshot.

  .

  “A vote to approve R-71 is a vote to uphold the domestic-­partnership bill. If passed, it gives the state’s 6,000 registered couples the right to take leave from work to care for a critically ill partner, the right for public-sector employees to share pension benefits with their partners, and dozens of other rights that straight couples enjoy—and all committed partners deserve.”

  .

  Please tell me what in that paragraph is going to make you vote against another human being’s peace of mind.

• MTM October 14, 2009 (7:57 pm)

  Nicely said, Ray.

• miws October 14, 2009 (9:34 pm)

  disgusted, I can’t speak for ray, Keith, and others, but I doubt they’d be so “public” if they weren’t fighting to have the same rights that straight people have. And it seems a bit hypocritical to be spouting religous beliefs publicly.

  .

  Also, as a straight guy, I find your splitting of the word “homosexuals” offensive. I highly doubt that it was unintentional.

  .

  Mike

• disgusted October 14, 2009 (11:03 pm)

  Mike, splitting it was not intentional. Sorry for the error. As far as the others in this debate. For me it’s very simple…. domestic partnership is and will always be for me ….ONLY between a man and a woman. That is all I will ever recognize. Get power of attorney if you need it. Don’t force same sex issues. Lead your lives the way you want to but keep it behind closed doors. It doesn’t mean that we are bigots by not wanting to accept this kind of behavior.
  I have never said that Jesus or God hates homosexuals (he doesn’t) and the church does not teach that. Because I don’t care for this behavior does not make me a bigot. I know a number of people who are homosexual. I don’t treat them any differently than my straight friends. I treat them with respect but I cannot recognize them in a same sex partner situation. It does disgust me and I will never believe that they are born that way. You choose to be even though it has not been socially acceptable. I feel very sorry for them but do not say things like condeming them to hell in the after life. If they are true Christians and they believe that they are sinners , they ask for forgiveness (I ask for forgiveness daily in my prayers) and they have faith in Christ they will have eternal life.
  Obviously it is a sensitive subject or there wouldn’t be so much heated discussion about this issue. I agree with WSB, we shouldn’t be calling people names…….you can disagree with the content but keep the anti comments to the issues and not the person expressing them.

• Keith October 15, 2009 (1:09 am)

  Hey disgusted,

  The next time you see you those gay people who you know and respect and don’t treat any differently from your straight friends, why don’t you tell them to their faces that you find them disgusting? And that you reject! reject! reject! the idea that they could ever be in a loving, legitimate relationship. Make sure to remind them that they chose to be gay, since you apparently have expert knowledge in that area. And let them know that they do not deserve the same rights and protections as yourself. Then see how much they respect YOU.

  .

  And if you don’t want to be called a bigot, you might want to rethink statements like “domestic partnership is and will always be for me ….ONLY between a man and a woman. That is all I will ever recognize.” By definition, a bigot is “one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.” If you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t talk/think/act/vote like one. No wonder you ask Christ daily for forgiveness! Clearly, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

• disgusted October 15, 2009 (1:30 am)

  I’m not going to waste anymore time with this subject. You will never change and neither will I. Hopefully the silent majority will prevail!!!
  Peace be with you.

• ray October 15, 2009 (2:13 am)

  Hey Disgusted,

  .

  If you believe that its a choice, a choice that everyone who was ever born can make at some point in their lives…a choice that can be turned on and off at will, does that mean that you chose at some point to turn it off and be straight?
  Did someone say to you, at age 11 maybe, or even age 20 or 40, it’s choosing time, come be gay with me, and you said, nah, I’m choosing straight?

  .

  Why don’t teenagers, the ones who chose to be gay by your beliefs, just turn back into straight kids instead of committing suicide after that big choice put them through a living hell in some high school?

  .

  Or the ones whose family disowns them because they chose the gay path, why don’t they just say, nah, I was kidding Mom and Dad, I’m straight, can I come home now?

  .

  THINK ON THAT THE NEXT TIME YOU’RE SITTING IN YOUR CHURCH.

  .

  You finally said one thing that made perfect sense…Keith will not change. He can’t change. I can’t change.
  But YOU can.

  .

  And nope, I don’t accept your Peace Be With You wishes.
  Peace will not be with Keith or myself until folks like you ALLOW us to have peace, because unfortunately, YOU get a SAY in how WE get to live our lives.

  .

  And that, Disgusted, is the ultimate sadness of this whole comment thread: that this Referendum is even on the ballot to allow you to pass judgement on me, Keith and every other gay person in this lovely state we have the unfortunate fortune of sharing with you, Mary and all like you.
  Because that’s all you’re really doing…passing judgement thinking you’re superior to me. And boy oh boy oh boy, are you wrong.
  Disgusted, I’m a much much much better person than you can ever PRAY to be.

• dawsonct October 15, 2009 (2:47 am)

  Pretty certain this referendum won’t force you into an intimate relationship and cohabitation with another person of the same whatever sex you are, disg.
  BTW, it is now socially acceptable to fall in love with whomever you like. Times, they are a-changin’! The Stanley Kowalskis of our world can come out now and be honest, happy.

• datamuse October 15, 2009 (10:10 am)

  If you vote to reject Ref. 71 then you are voting to impose your personal beliefs upon another person’s way of life.

  This is not about belief. It is about the right of consenting adults to enter into a legal contract and derive certain benefits therefrom.

  Vote to approve Ref. 71.

• dawsonct October 15, 2009 (12:39 pm)

  And no, disg., this is NOT the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually allow you to marry your pet goat. No need to try THAT silly argument.

• JTM October 15, 2009 (5:07 pm)

  I hope you will take a minute to read this opinion piece. Its so perfect I wish someone else had published it.

  http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_god_had_wanted_me_to_be

• Lisa October 15, 2009 (10:25 pm)

  Hey Mary…the protester…

  What happened to the rest of the law? Why are you sooooo focused on homosexuals? Go read Proverbs. I hear there is a list of things that your God hates and one of them is an abomination. Have you ever read that? You should.

  Another question for you Mary. Are you a Christian, a follower of Christ or are you a disciple of Paul? I might be wrong, but it seems that a lot of Christians have forgotten what is contained in the first 75% of each of the four gospels and have given up on the actual teachings of your Messiah to become followers of Paul.

  One more thing…why are you not standing in front of Red Lobster with protest signs. The same passages that “condemn” me, also condemn shell fish. Do you have children? Did you stone them to death when they talked back?

  And don’t forget what Paul asked all believers to do – “Be ready to give an answer to whoever asks.”

• petenice October 17, 2009 (8:26 pm)

  I support domestic partnership laws. I support same sex marriage. It’s not a big deal to me.

  But then again, I’m under 40, and my demographic overwhelmingly agrees on this issue.

  So eventually, we’ll win, no matter what happens in this election.

  Simple.

• rewinn October 18, 2009 (5:33 pm)

  I was happy to see the “meet the bigot” people exercising their right to free speech. Well done – your positive spirit was an inspiration to me that day!
  ====

  We need R71:

  1. Because without it, a doctor can keep you from your dying partner, and your children from their dying mother, as actually happened to the survivors of Lisa Pond
  http://asknicola.blogspot.com/2009/10/trembling-with-rage.html

  2. Because saying that you don’t hate gays, you just want them to live without sex means that, yes, you hate gays … or else you hate sex. Take your pick.

  3. Because I, personally, am a greater threat to marriage than most gay people; I am a straight man who has been divorced; I have actually destroyed a marriage. Shouldn’t opponents of R71 have stopped my divorce if they want to ‘protect marriage’ ?

  4. Because when you apply to the government for a license outlining rights and responsibilities between you and your partner (both adults of sound mind), it’s just creepy for the government to require a look-see at what’s in your pants.
  ===
  P.S. petenice is right. The haters are a dying minority. We who love freedom and equality for all will never stop; no matter how much money from hate groups pours into our state, eventually the haters will die out.

Sorry, comment time is over.