• This is just too funny….the so-called “defenders” of marriage are threatening to become a bit more intellectually honest (at least superficially) by proposing to make it more difficult to get divorced. Maybe they can call it the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’. Oh….that name’s already taken…..

    Maybe they could get Larry Stickney of WA Family Values Alliance to speak about the benefits of the proposed legislation. Oh…I’d forgotten, he’s been divorced twice and is on his third marriage…

    Truly amusing

  • Laurel,
    How could you write such a piece about Mr. Stickney without his qualifications as a “family values” man?

    Thrice married and twice divorced. The divorce with number two was particularly messy. She got a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Apparently he has a bit of a temper and is a bit vindictive. Apparently number two did not fit his neanderthal expectations of how a wife should behave. Juicy court file at the Kitsap County Courthouse. I hear his number three, Pollyanna [serious, this is not a pun] is a better fit for him. Put him in any position of leadership and he will be the gift that keeps on giving.

  • It’s a piece of history and I’ll keep it. One day I will explain to my son that our state was a battleground in our civil rights movement, and that my RDP card is a relic of that.

    My spouse and I were married on Parlaiment Hill, Ottawa, 5 July 2003.
    We have a marriage certificate issued by the Province of Ontario.
    We are recognized as married in Canada. For more than nine years, mean, bigoted people, under the guise of religion, said that our marriage was no good here. Beginning 6 December that will change.

  • Erick in Seattle commented on the blog post Seattle Town Hall Debate on Same-Sex Marriage

    2012-01-06 22:40:02View | Delete

    This is a little sideshow compared to what will follow when a marriage equality bill passes the Legislature. In my dreams and fantasies I wish we only needed to deal with our local nut cases like Rev Hutcherson and Stephen Pidgeon. But I fear that the heavy-hitting national organizations will join the fray. I don’t think I’m quite ready to write off the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as a “has been” organization. The Mormon church will likely get involved. Ditto for the plethora of right wing organizations that are busy raising money these days. God knows what unwelcome national attention we’ll attract.

    And the 9th Circuit says no more spending limits during the last few weeks of a campaign.

    And in order for us to succeed, Washington voters will have to do something that has never been done before in the nation – for the second time.

  • Let me remind those too young to remember that a Washington State Senator, Patty Murray, who now styles herself as one of our supporters and claims to want to get rid of DOMA, ORIGINALLY VOTED FOR IT IN 1996. Just wanted to make sure nobody forgot.

    I sure as hell never forget anyone who stabs me in the back.

  • I’m encouraged that attitudes are changing. Have they changed enough? That’s the big question. Relying on polls is a dicey proposition, especially when it comes to our issues. There was a recent Elway Research poll that asked potential voters if they would “support legalizing homosexual marriage in Washington State.” 48% said “yes”, 44 said “no”. The rest, 8%, are presumably “undecided”. If you look back at past ballot measures on our issues, and then look at the polling that happened beforehand, you would usually get a close prediction if you added the “undecideds” to those who would vote against us. The polls leading up to the Prop 8 vote are a good example. Here, the Elway poll should be interpreted as 48% likely yes and 52% likely no.

    As for the Washington Poll asking if they would vote to keep or reject a marriage equality law in a referendum, I trust the 47% figure. I would not trust the 8% soft supporters. I wonder if they could be swayed by arguments about how marriage equality would cost state taxpayers millions of dollars at a time when prisoners are being released early and teachers are being laid off due to budget cuts. (benefit parity under the DP law does not take effect until 2014).

    The Washington Poll citing 43% in favor of full equality is also illustrative.

    I agree the polls show we’ve made a lot of progress. Enough, however, to survive a referendum? I don’t know. Will we get help from the national organizations to help fend off NOM and their allies?

    I’m not sure if this should make a difference as to whether to try to pass a marriage equality bill next term. Some people think it’s better to not to try if it might get rejected at the ballot box. Others think its better to pass the bill, even if it’s likely to get overturned, than to wait. I’m tired of trying to understand the reasoning behind each argument. I wish I could spend nine months somewhere else during the referendum battle. It wouldn’t be good for my kid to see me upset all the time.

  • I understand that a federal judge will often stay his/her ruling pending appeal. You’re right – I think PMW’s attorneys committed malpractice by not having a motion for stay ready to file. There might have been some appealable issues. (i.e. release of the addresses)

    It will be hard, though I suppose still possible, to convince the 9th Circuit to grant an emergency stay despite not having first made the request to Judge Settle. It’s hard to arguye that PMW did not allow, by its own negligence, its case to become moot, resulting in the disclosure of the lists to news organizations and possibly others.