The Gay Curmudgeon

Hutch: Upgrading from Lying to Extortion

2008-11-20T01:03:00.001-08:00

Wow, just… wow.

Warning: Lies, scare quotes, race and religion baiting, fallacious logic, narcissism, child exploitation, and outright extortion ahead.

After what I can only guess was a deep psychotic break, Pastor Ken Hutcherson put out a “Press Release” to his Prayer Warriors titled “Microsoft Supporting Intolerance?” I can’t find any sign of it anywhere else online and this begs the question – if you put out a press release and you don’t send it to the press, is it really a press release at all?

Here’s the awesome craziness. All emphasis is mine:

Redmond, WA -November 19. Dr. Ken Hutcherson challenged Microsoft and the board today at the annual stockholders meeting by asking how Microsoft in their charitable giving can continue to support the group that has been proven to be intolerant, hateful and prejudiced toward those who do not think or vote the way they do. Since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the homosexual community has stated publically that they believe that the 70 percent of African American people who voted for Proposition 8 are ignorant and discriminatory because they voted for traditional marriage. They have publicly called African Americans the ‘N’ word and have been seen on TV attacking Christians verbally and physically for voting for traditional marriage.

Dr. Hutcherson pointed out that since the board and Microsoft have voted to continue their process of charitable giving to organizations that promote and support the homosexual agenda, “One can only conclude that the board and Microsoft are also intolerant, hateful, prejudiced and think that it is acceptable to call the African American community the ‘N’ word.” “The Microsoft company must think it is okay to give millions of dollars of funding to groups that have been proven to be haters and intolerant toward anyone and any group that does not think the way they do,” he said. Dr. Hutcherson, representing thousands of stockholders, does not believe that Microsoft has thought through their charitable contributions policy. Dr. Hutcherson believes that Microsoft is very hypocritical in their stand. As an example, he cited the fact that he has helped reform the adoption laws in the state of Washington and founded an adoption agency which provides homes for orphans at no charge to the adoptive families. Yet Microsoft, located in the same state and right down the street from Antioch Adoptions will not contribute even one dollar to defray the costs to place children in loving homes because the founder has been labeled intolerant and hateful. “The fact of the matter is that Microsoft withholds support from children because I have been ‘labeled’ intolerant but ironically gives millions upon millions of dollars to the proponents of homosexuality who have been ‘proven’ to be intolerant,” said Dr. Hutcherson.

Since I’ve addressed the initial lies and misrepresentations in my earlier post, let’s focus on what’s new.

1. Talking about “The Homosexual Community” like they are one monolithic group is about as credible and useful as talking about “The Black Community” in the same way. If a single person does something the entire “group” did it? Any rational person would object to painting millions of blacks with the actions of just a few. Why is the standard different for lesbians and gays? Oh wait, it isn’t.

2. Implying that Microsoft thinks it’s acceptable to use the “N” word because they allegedly send “millions and millions” (Carl Sagan lives!) of dollars to “Teh Gays” (They don’t) when a few gays got upset that their Civil Rights were stripped from them is almost the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t you guys read back the text to see if it makes you sound completely insane?

3. Anyone who voted for Proposition 8 and clearly understood that it would take rights away from a minority was discriminating against that minority. That black people would do this given their journey is shameful and hypocritical in the extreme. I feel for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the black community and I begin to understand how their challenges are different from my own.

4. Stating that Microsoft doesn’t give money to Hutcherson’s adoption organization because Microsoft thinks Hutcherson is intolerant and hateful, and he is, is so wildly narcissistic that it doesn’t pass the red face test. The most important question people should be asking is why does Hutcherson think everything, even objectively charitable work, is so entirely about *him*.

5. Attempting to bulldog Microsoft into supporting one of Hutcherson’s pet projects by stating that Microsoft is “withholding support from children” and that Microsoft is spending “millions and millions” on “homosexuals” rather than placing children in homes is laughably unsubtle and sophomoric. It also ignores the fact that Hutcherson and all those like him who oppose marriage equality are withholding far more crucial support from children who are being raised by same-sex couples (nationally 18% of same-sex couples are raising one or more children) by preventing their parents from being married and providing them the rights, protections, and security that it confers.

6. Finally, the inept use of the scare quotes. You are either claiming to have been labeled intolerant or you’re not – either way it makes no sense to place it in quotation marks. And when you are clearly struggling to make the case that oppressed gays and lesbians are actually the oppressors, it helps when making your accusation if you don’t say they “…have been ‘proven’ to be intolerant…” You are challenging your own credibility (integrity at last?) by placing proven in quotes.

Are their any people with messaging or PR skills working with Hutch at all? It certainly doesn’t appear so.

Hutcherson Scam is DOA

2008-11-19T15:37:00.001-08:00

Today is November 19th and Microsoft’s Annual Stockholder Meeting was held at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue. As promised, Reverend Ken Hutcherson turned up to speak his truth challenged and barely coherent piece in favor of Thomas Strobhar’s Shareholder Proposal No.3 (Proposal 7) which would require that Microsoft “list the recipients of corporate charitable contributions of $5,000 or more on the company website.”

In contrast to previous outings he seemed more in command of himself but he didn’t make any clear argument that spoke to the proposal. Due to some, err, “logistical challenges” I only have a partial transcription of his remarks from today’s meeting until the official transcript comes out later today (UPDATED with full transcript):

Mr. Hutcherson: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to speak towards this. We believe that there is an opportunity, ah, to correct a process that this company is not, should I say, not being very open minded to who we support, why we support because we are supporting the issue that we believe, especially as an African American, that there are problems in where you are sending your charitable gifts towards the homosexual community. I do not believe our company would ever support a group of people that is very prejudicial in their views, that is very intolerant in their views, that is very hateful in their views and I think that you gentlemen and the rest of the stockholders if you watch television have seen the example […] of many of the homosexual, ah, groups and activists that this company is putting millions of dollars in supporting and, ah, I don’t think this company and the stockholders, and myself, is pretty excited about a group of individuals that will run around and call the African American community, especially 70% of the traditional black church that voted to help pass proposition 8, have been called the “n” word on national television. This company is saying that we will continue to support groups like that. Have attacked groups - you’ve seen it on television, if you have a television, if you watch the news at all, what has taken place towards the African-American church, ah, what has happened to evangelical churches that has stood and just voted, and exercised their freedom in voting and they have been attacked by these groups. One old lady was taken and a cross was taken out of her hands, stomped, and she was pushed around, one woman had her bible taken out of her hand and was hit across the head and knocked down and if it was a white supremacy group that was doing exactly the same thing, this company would be the first to stand up and, ah, and deny that we’re going to support any group that was doing such things. Yet still I’m asking this company to make sure we vote down putting this kind of money, millions of dollars, in a group that is not good for the family, millions of dollars in a group that is proven intolerance (sic), millions of dollars in a group that has proven that they - do not - like - anyone - that does not think the way they do. And I think this company has a right and a responsibility not to put millions of dollars in an intolerant, hateful, group such as this. That is why we are having this resolution, that is why we would like for the stockholders to vote it down and the board not to support this group. Thank you.

Mr. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Hutcherson. The board recommends a vote against this proposal for the reasons set forth in the companies proxy statement.

Here is what Hutcherson said, and what it really meant:

Hutch-Land: Microsoft gives millions of dollars to gay groups!

Reality: I call bullshit. Microsoft gives money to many different community groups but I don’t know of *any* that get “millions”. Corporate Risk Management means that companies like Microsoft have a very narrow set of things that they can fund. Political contributions are just too risky.

Bottom-Line: Put up or shut up, Hutcherson, you pathetic liar. What specifically is Microsoft funding and for how much and how is it “anti-family”?

_______________________________________________

Hutch-Land: Teh Gays called Teh Blacks, especially Black Churches, the ‘n’ word.

Reality: Err, no, that never happened. A distraught individual who was angered when the right to marry was stripped from us used the taunt at an otherwise peaceful and orderly protest. Perhaps they were overcome with the injustice that calling someone the “n'” word is a taboo considered so terrible that we don’t repeat it, but calling us hateful names like “fag” and “dyke” is so normal and accepted that it’s regularly used in every city and town in this nation. Hardly a week goes by when we don’t see and hear “God Hates Fags” or something similarly hateful being flung at us.

Bottom-line: Until you shut down the entrenched homophobic speech and violence in your religious communities, spare me your faux f*cking outrage at isolated incidents like these.

_______________________________________________

Hutch-Land: The African-American Church is under attack by teh Gays.

Reality: It’s the Mormon Church who has been on the receiving end of peaceful and positive nationwide protests since the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Black Churches didn’t have as great an impact on Proposition 8 – Mormons did. Don’t get me wrong, the rampant homophobia in the African-American community is a big problem but it’s not just isolated to churches.

Bottom-line: Get your community on the right side of history or get out of the way.

_______________________________________________

Hutch-Land: Millions of dollars are going to teh gays and they are not good for families.

Reality: There are no millions. Gays and Lesbians come from families and they want to create their own families. You, and people like you, are making it harder for gays and lesbians to be accepted by their original families and to create their own families.

Bottom-Line: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

_______________________________________________

Hutch-Land: OMG! Teh Gays are just like White Supremacists!

Reality: Voters in California, including a majority of voters over 65 and African-Americans, just voted to remove rights from a minority group. Congratulations to your minorities for this minority gutting precedent! Unless the gay and lesbian minority submits meekly to the tyrannical will of the majority without protest, they are exactly like white supremacists. Except that they aren’t trying to take anything from anybody. And the protests are overwhelmingly peaceful and many of the people marching aren’t even gay or lesbian. Can’t we all just get along?

Bottom-line: You don’t get to take rights away from a minority group and get to make them the bad guys for not liking it.

_______________________________________________

Hutch-Land: Millions and Millions and Millions of Dollars for an intolerant hate group! ZOMG!

Reality: A description better used to describe groups that use their fund raising, tithing and other activities to remove minority civil rights rather than expand and protect them. Gays and lesbians cross all ethnic, religious, social, and economic boundaries so we are no groups natural enemy. Take your primitive Jets vs. Sharks thinking somewhere else.

Bottom-line: No Millions. No Hate. No “Us vs. Them”.

_______________________________________________

There was no great suspense in the outcome, as the Board of Directors opposed the Proposal.

At the close of voting Shareholder Proposal 3 failed to be adopted with only 4.5% of shareholders voting in it’s favor. Hutch didn’t seem too phased by what he has known from the beginning would be the outcome.

Perhaps he was comforted by all the money he got from scamming the faithful. They probably don’t even know that in typical Hutcherson style, his much ballyhooed proxy scam web site AGNFINANCIAL.ORG quietly fell of the internet sometime after the end of August.

He showed up at the Product Fair after the meeting (see above photo) looking very interested in Microsoft’s Surface and Zune hardware and software products. He asked for cards from some of the demonstrators so he can’t be that opposed to all things Microsoft.

It just goes to show that shameful shilling and shopping go together just fine.

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

2008-11-05T11:02:00.001-08:00

In the wake of this historic election there is a new story that many children will begin to hear from their parents, their schools, and the community from this morning.

It’s a story that tells them they really can be anything they want to be, even the President of the United States. They can point to the example of President-Elect Barack Obama as a resounding proof.

While I rejoice in the reaffirmation that any child can reach for the very highest office in these United States, I’m sobered by other consequences of this election season.

Other children are learning that much more ordinary goals remain bewilderingly beyond their reach. They won’t be able to marry the person they love and adopt children, they won’t be protected from bullying at school and hate crimes in the streets, they won’t be delivered the full measure of their citizenship promised in the constitution.

All because they are different.

Other children are finding out that their parents marriage is no longer legal, or that their parents wedding has been cancelled or indefinitely postponed. They are finding out that their parents can’t adopt them, they are learning once again that they are unequal and stigmatized.

All because their families are different.

So many children are hearing a reaffirmation of the American promise in the refrain “Yes, you can.”

But so many others are hearing the hollow sound of that promise denied to them in the echo “No, you can’t.”

Senator McCain invoked the turbulent racial history of America in his gracious concession speech:

“A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to visit -- to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters.

America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States.

Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.”

It’s exhilarating to be reminded of the significance that this advance holds for black and biracial people in America, but the backbeat of this election is a harsh rebuke for a freshly minted citizen like me.

At the same time we are exhorted that this country is “a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time” and that there is “…no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth”, gay, lesbian and bisexual people are grappling with the freshened reality that they are still denied the full rights of citizenship by the cruel and prideful bigotry of this time.

While we celebrate the election of Barak Obama and the narrative that any child can become President of the United States, spare a thought for the children who are hearing louder than ever that simple things like falling in love, getting married, and having children are unacceptable and out of their reach.

Voting at Meany Middle School

2008-11-04T17:44:00.001-08:00

We headed on down to our Polling Place this morning at about 8:15am and found a moderately long line.

Everyone came prepared this year with reading materials and technology to pass the time.

People seemed in fine spirits and waited patiently for their turn in the voting booth.

And it didn’t hurt that these spanky fellows were handing out cookies, granola bars, and water to the intrepid voters.

HWMBO was surprised by the line as he’s never seen one here when he’s voted in previous elections.

We had a chance to chat with a neighbor who has lived in our neighborhood for 31 years and she said that she has never seen lines like those first thing this morning to vote at Meany Middle School.

She has family in Alaska, her daughter, which explains the sweatshirt, and a nephew who is a survivor of a fishing vessel (The Katmai?) that sank recently which claimed the lives of other crewmen. We’re a chatty neighborhood, don’t you know.

Ignoring the challenges some of us faced when we finally got to the voting booths, it was a very neighborly affair and seemed well organized if you ignore the voters who were surprised to find they were not on the voter roll and would have to take a provisional ballot.

If only the Spanky Boys had been serving coffee it would have been perfect.

Clusterf@ck to the Polls

2008-11-04T11:54:00.000-08:00

On the day I was naturalized and became a U.S. Citizen, we came home from the citizenship ceremony and I registered to vote online.

I’d researched what I needed to do online, bookmarked the registration site, and called the King County Elections office to confirm that, as a first time voter, I was doing what I needed to to ensure I’d be on the voter roll for this crucial election.

It seemed so simple and straightforward. I register online at the state site and the registration is sent to my local county office where it is checked and then added to the voter database.

With the voter registration deadline approaching I checked each day to see when my name appeared in the voter database. After 13 days checking the online site and no sight of my registration, I called the King County Elections office. They checked the voter registration system and sure enough they hadn’t seen my registration. They recommended that if I wanted to vote in this coming election (duh) I head down to their office in Renton to register in person tout de suite.

I left work early that same day and headed down to Renton, anxious that I not miss my chance to vote in this most extraordinary election. The place was humming with activity and I spoke with a pleasant but clearly overworked woman about my situation.

I told her that I’d just become a citizen and had registered to vote online the same day. I explained how important is to be able to vote in person since this is the last chance I’ll get given that we are transitioning to mail only voting. She took my drivers license and confirmed that I was not in their system and told me I’d need to fill in another voter registration form.

I filled in the new registration form and returned it to the counter and was told that I’d get an absentee ballot in the mail. I reminded the elections official that I didn’t want an absentee ballot and was told that I didn’t have a choice. The Poll Books had already been printed so I was just too late. Disappointed that I wasn’t going to be able to vote in person I shrugged my shoulders and consoled myself that it’s the vote that counts, no how you make it.

Having already had my registration go missing once, I asked for some kind of paperwork to show that I’d registered before I’d leave their office. The elections official looked at me with an exasperated expression normally reserved for recalcitrant teenagers and conceded to print me a Voter Registration card which would take 20 minutes. I agreed and, I think, annoyed that the additional wait didn’t deter me, she set about getting me my voter registration card. In the fullness of time, and card in hand I headed home.

In a few days the absentee ballot arrived and a few days after that I received another Voter Registration card. Comparing them I noted that they had the same registration number, so it wasn’t a duplication, but some of the details were different. Not wanting to leave anything to chance, I called King County Elections to check.

The woman I spoke to took told me that my original (online) registration didn’t get into the King County system until 15 days later – just a few days after I trekked to Renton to register in person. I wasn’t registered twice as they had matched the two registrations up but I was still down as an Absentee Voter despite my preference to the contrary.

I explained the whole tale and she said that I didn’t have to be an absentee voter for this election and could have voted at the polls. The other elections official had given me incorrect information. According to her, the poll books hadn’t been printed at that stage and even if they had been my name would turn up on the supplemental sheets.

She updated my voter registration to show that I was voting in person at my local polling place and told me to shred the absentee ballot I’d been issued telling me that the changes she had made had invalidated it. I checked one more time, asking if she was sure that I’d be on the voter roll and able to vote at my polling place – I didn’t want to be stuck with a provisional ballot. She assured me that I would be on the roll.

I thanked her, hung up the phone and took a deep breath… and exhaled trying to expel the disquiet I felt.

Time passed.

This morning I presented myself at my polling place and after a pleasant wait of 30 minutes or so the line snaked forward and I checked in with a decidedly cranky woman in a knitted cap (cause and effect?) to find … that I was not on the voter roll and would have to cast a provisional ballot.

You have . to be f*cking . kidding me.

After spending 7-8 hours of my time to ensure that I’d be registered to vote by today, it appears I may not be.

According to the Elections Division of the Secretary of State I am registered, but I have to take it up with King County.

Now I’m left to wonder if my vote will be counted at all.

Vote NO on Prop 8 in California

2008-11-04T11:46:00.001-08:00

Because this isn’t who you are…

Mormons Against Marriage

2008-11-02T10:20:00.001-08:00

This is what some married couples in California are facing this November 4th…

While the physical home invasion is (hopefully) hyperbole, the invasion of privacy and the actions depicted show exactly what Proposition 8 will do to same-sex couples and families. It also shows the one group who is most focused on doing it – the Mormon church.

I thought that the Courage Campaign showed great restraint not showing the impact of a home invasion in one of the 32% of same-sex households in California raising children under the age of 18.

What it doesn’t show is the impact that eliminating the right to marry in California will have on same-sex couples who hope to marry in other states. California is a bellwether for civil right progress throughout the United States and is the 6th largest economy in the world.

If you have family, friends, or colleagues who are in same-sex relationships or just hope to be, whether they want to marry or whether they think marriage isn’t for them, I think we all agree they deserve the right to choose for themselves.

Please call everyone you know in California and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8 and donate any amount you can to support the No on Proposition 8 campaign.

And for those of you wondering why you should care, perhaps paraphrasing the Reverend Niemoller is appropriate:

First they came for the Gays,
and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t Gay.
[…]
Then they came for the Californians,
and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Washingtonian.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

Adapted from Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Just as Niemoller’s original rationalizations for inaction failed the test of history, so does any justification for doing nothing at this pivotal moment in the history of this country.

Call. Donate. Volunteer.

Skyhooks alum Red Symons country music ode “Palin”

2008-10-17T09:34:00.001-07:00

While I certainly wasn’t expecting to see a country music ode penned for Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin…

…I have to say I’m much more surprised to see it put together by Red Symons who I remember best from Skyhooks and “Hey Hey It’s Saturday”. Man, saying that makes me feel old.

It’s a pretty slick effort seamlessly merging debate visuals and audio with a country groove. I shouldn’t have been surprised. Apart from his music and media resume, he also studied pure mathematics and computer science at university.

Hat tip to Joe My God who has no idea the wealth of Australian cultural context Red carries with him.

Waiting for Hutcherson’s Flameout…

2008-10-11T14:28:00.001-07:00

If it’s Autumn, it must be time to check in on Pastor Ken Hutcherson’s loopy Microsoft Proxy scam.

As expected, the Microsoft Stockholders Meeting has been scheduled for November 18th 2008. The big questions were whether Hutcherson, Strobhar and company had submitted a Shareholder Proposal and pulled together sufficient Proxy Votes to pass it at the meeting. Based on the Proxy Materials on the Microsoft web site they have lodged a proposal but have veered away from attacking the benefits of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees benefits directly and instead are looking to highlight corporate support of anything that doesn’t agree with their Christianist ideology.

Proposal 7 (Shareholder Proposal No. 3) on the Proxy document proposes “that our company list the recipients of corporate charitable contributions of $5,000 or more on the company website [sic].”

The supporting statement is vintage Strobhar insanity – part plea for self-serving transparency and part ideological tirade dressed in it’s Sunday Best:

The more people know of our support of philanthropic activity the better it is for our company. For example, if we should decide to give money to the American Cancer Society we might garner good will from the millions of people touched by cancer. Similarly, should we decide to give money to Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion performing organization, we might be expected to win sympathetic praise from many who support the choice of abortion. Possible contributions to organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation or other organizations that focus on the interest of people who choose to define themselves by their interest in homosexual sex, would likely engender positive feelings among potentially millions of people who enjoy engaging in sex with members of their own sex or simply those who support same sex marriage. If we gave money to the Boy Scouts of America we might expect the plaudits of potentially millions of their past members, even though they refuse to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders. Contributions to the American Heart Association or a myriad number of other worthwhile cultural and educations charities could be a source of ongoing public approval. Proper disclosure of charitable contributions would cost us little and should only serve to enhance our corporate image. For these reason and others we urge your support for the above resolution.

It almost goes without saying that the Microsoft Board of Directors recommends voting AGAINST this proposal.

While we all remember what a dada barn-burner Hutcherson’s last Microsoft Stockholder Meeting performance was, we also know that there is no chance of their proposal being successful. What will be interesting to hear is how many proxy votes Hutcherson, Strobhar et al. have mustered in support of their proposal.

Anyone willing to bet that number is never disclosed?

It’s still curious that Hutcherson was driving his supporters to acquire MSFT stock and Proxy votes based on a mid-March deadline rather than the actual deadline during the first week in September. I’m looking forward to seeing the annual report for AGN Financial, the non-profit that Hutcherson established for this doomed scheme, to see how effective the March deadline was and whether the shares are still being held by the non-profit.

When Hutcherson ultimately fails in each of his schemes, he always has a new definition of success or another project he’s been working on that is much more important to distract from his failure. At the close of my Hutcherson 2007 Year in Review post I wrote:

I'm going to be keeping an eye and an ear out for Hutcherson's "Oh, no! I have something *much* more important that I'm doing" excuse for failing to follow through on his threats to Microsoft.

Perhaps we should take odds on what it will be when the Microsoft Shareholders meeting rolls around again in November 2008. I think he'll say he's "focusing on getting pro-traditional family candidates elected".

It's got to be better than his tired "The dog ate my boycott" canard, surely.

Hutcherson has been very quiet on this scam for several months, no doubt excited by this month’s cruise with the faithful.

Now it seems that the web site he and his supporters launched with such self-congratulatory fanfare earlier in the year, AGNFINANCIAL.ORG, has quietly fallen off the Internet. It still appears in Google’s August 24th search cache but the site is no longer live.

His failure is a certainty and the disappearance of this web site is most likely a step in a plan to make us forget he ever even engaged in it.

Architectural Voyeur

2008-10-10T14:20:00.001-07:00

There is something fascinating about seeing under the skin of buildings.

Peering into a narrow space that contains their internal life.

This is why demolition as part of restoration is so cool.

Families Northwest on Facebook

2008-09-07T10:54:00.001-07:00

Families Northwest is now on Facebook selling it’s own brand of softer, gentler discrimination and, unlike teh gays, they really are recruiting!

I started a comment thread on their page. Let’s see what happens to the comment and thread. Here’s the text:

While I applaud any organization that has a goal to make families stronger and healthier, any organization that actively advocates against the best interests of some children and their families as Families Northwest does are not worthy of your attention or support.

Children are already being raised by 18% of same-sex couples in Washington State and on average couples are raising 2 children per household. 8% of Washington’s adopted children live with a lesbian or gay parent. As of 2005, an estimated 7,249 of Washington’s children were living in households headed by same-sex couples.

All these children are denied the protections and stability of having married parents by Families Northwest opposition to marriage equality and legal protections in Washington State.

If Families Northwest really wanted to foster the expansion of marriage and support all families with children it would support marriage quality. This would provide equal protection to the children being raised by same-sex couples and lead to an expansion in marriages in Washington State.

From the fiscal and efficiency perspective this organization is rated at only two stars by Charity Navigator who compare them to other similar organizations providing services to families at the maximum of four stars.

N.B.: Families Northwest (also known as “Marriage Builders”) was previously known as the west coast affiliate of “Family Values Alliance” (now know as Focus on the Family run by Dr James Dobson) the name was changed in the mid-1990s, it was also previously known as the “Washington Family Council” and the name changed again in 2001.

Families Northwest is a “Family Policy Council” under the banners of the “Family Research Council” and “Focus on the Family”.

Hey, but even Jeff Kemp understands that it’s “an insult to humanity” to just focus on raising children as the single reason and context for marriage.

I’m sure a mature and reasoned debate that doesn’t discount the rights of children of same-sex couples will ensue.

Who is harassing people that have the Washington State Registered Voter database? [Updated]

2008-09-02T16:17:00.001-07:00

Someone is making intimidating calls to people who have purchased the Washington State Registered Voter Database (VRDB) and there have been at least two cases today.

The caller claims to be doing a satisfaction survey and pumps them for information about how and what they use the data for. If that fails, they claim to be an auditor and insist on having the information. Here’s my first person account:

At 12:40pm on Tuesday (September 2^nd) I received a call from someone claiming to be from the Washington State government. The caller ID information was blocked and showed as “unknown”. I didn’t hear the man’s name because the cell phone connection was patchy, but he said that he was doing a “satisfaction survey” about my use of the Washington State Voter Registration Database. I replied that the data was fine and that I was satisfied even though I didn’t move ahead with the project that had originally been planned.

The man then identified himself as an auditor and insisted on knowing what my purpose was in using the Registration data. His tone shifted to become officious and intimidating. Suspicious with the shift in original purpose and tone, I said that I wasn’t comfortable disclosing my planned use of the registration database to someone who hadn’t presented me with any credentials. I informed the man that I would be happy to respond if he would send me a request in writing.

Hearing my accent, he asked me if I was Australian or a New Zealander. Concerned about switches from business to personal, I replied warily that I’m originally from Australia. He then asked me if I still lived at [address redacted] in Seattle and told me “Don’t worry, you’ll be seeing me in person” and hung up abruptly. At the end he sounded angry and threatening.

I called the Elections Division of the Secretary of State’s office and reported the incident. They informed me that they had received an almost identical complaint only five minutes prior to my call. They also told me that the Elections Division doesn’t employ auditors, recorded my name and phone number and said that they would be getting back to me.

I also called my phone carrier to report the call and ask if there was any data on where it had originated. They indicated that the state government could contact their legal department who would share the call origination data with them.

There are several questions that this incident provokes:

Who is doing this?
1. A disgruntled WA State employee
2. A partisan political Operative/organization
Why are they doing it?
1. Because they are unhappy.
2. Because it’s an election year and they want to know who might be running voter turnout operations.
3. For money or profit.
How did they get a list of people with the database?
1. From a WA State Employee with access
2. By cracking the online order system’s records
3. By cracking the physical security of paper records
4. From some public record sources that I haven’t been able to find yet

While they are all interesting questions, I’m going to start with the one I’m most urgently interested in - 3.

I don’t believe the list of people who purchase the Washington State VRDB is public. Theoretically, the only people who should know who has the VRDB is the staff of the Elections Division and those in IT who administer, maintain and secure the online VRDB order system. I’m led to wonder what other information these people have apart from my name, home address and phone number. Perhaps the credit card information that I used to pay for the VRDB?

There is no direct money is stuff like this, so my money is on some kind of election year political flim-flammery.

UPDATE: After some checking with the Secretary of States office, it seems that it is possible for someone to obtain information about who has purchased the Washington State VRDB by making a public disclosure request to the Office of Public Disclosure.

One individual has made such a request and I’m now seeking Public Disclosure of information about that person, their request, and the information that they were provided as a result.

The Revised Code of Washington indicates that telephone harassment is a crime (RCW 9.61.230) as is criminal impersonation (9A.60.040) but so far I haven’t been able to find anything that specifically refers to impersonating a government employee or public servant.

Our Neighborhood isn’t your cutting garden

2008-07-14T17:56:00.001-07:00

Last night really was a perfect summer evening in Seattle. It was the kind of warm soft evening that encourages us to spend as much time outdoors as possible before the long gray clouds descend once more.

Lazing in that idyll with a neighbor I was startled to see a man and woman pick a bunch of flowers from the traffic circle that we maintain. Now, this isn’t a complete surprise as each spring we catch a few people harvesting the daffodils when they bloom.

What did surprise me is that the couple felt quite entitled to pick flowers from neighbors yards too, as they walked back to a house on 20th Ave E.

This year we’ve noticed that people have been picking flowers from our yard also, leaving behind bare and mangled plants in their wake and robbing us of the pleasure of their blooms just as they are reaching their peak

After this latest incident we sighed, set aside our disappointment and watched the setting sun. Only thirty minutes later I went inside and, as I looked out at the street, I spotted two women and a man in the traffic circle. The two women had scissors or shears and were cutting themselves some pretty summer flowers.

The same flowers that come from plants that other people buy, water and care of (not the city) to make our neighborhood beautiful. Not their house or table.

Is there any reality where this isn’t considered stealing?

Unable to contain myself this time, I called out to them and explained that the traffic circle is planted and cared for by the neighborhood. They apologized and claimed “We didn’t know” and walked away towards 23rd Ave E.

Apparently stealing something is fine provided you don’t know or care who owns it.

It’s getting so disheartening and dangerous to tend neighborhood traffic circles these days that it’s a wonder anyone still does it. On Thursday last week an elderly man was assaulted and killed after an altercation while he was trying to water the traffic circle near his home in Rainier Beach. Pointless and tragic.

Those responsible for his death must go to jail for a long time. I’m hoping that the Irony Fairy will intervene and see that they are tasked with maintaining the prison gardens and grounds.

As for our local miscreants, we’ve been trying to think of a positive way to get them to stop stealing neighborhood flowers. The favorite so far is sending them a few packets of flower seeds and a note encouraging them to grow their own next year.

Hutcherson is a White Pride Poster Boy

2008-06-23T10:44:00.001-07:00

In this bizarre world I guess it had to happen sooner or later.

Following Reverend Ken Hutcherson’s comments that Black conservatives were voting for Senator Barack Obama just because of his race, White Supremacist groups and individuals have picked up on his comments as support and justification for their own racially biased viewpoint in supporting only white candidates.

My entree to this thread was a comment post on the Vanguard News Network web site (I won’t link to them) which was launched in 2000 by it’s founder Alex Linder, an anti-Semitic and White Supremacist former researcher for CNN. A profile of Linder by the Souther Poverty Law Center can be found here.

The comment titled “Have your lemming friends read this” quoted extensively from a post on a blog titled “Color of Crime: Exposing today's racist double-standard that today's media doesn't want you to know. REMEMBER: Truth is NOT Racism!” (I won’t link to this site either) said, in part:

Two black conservatives are being blasted for stating that blacks should NOT vote for Obama because of his race. If this doesn't say it all, nothing does.

Two black conservatives -- one a pastor, the other a leader of an urban ministry -- say they can't understand why a number of black Republicans have publicly said they are considering voting for Barack Obama this election. It should be about character, they say, not skin color.

Ken Hutcherson, an African-American pastor in suburban Seattle, says black conservatives who are supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama must remember what they have been saying about race for decades.

Several prominent conservative African-Americans have said they are at least considering supporting Obama because of his race. The list includes talk-show host Armstrong Williams, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Congressman J.C. Watts (R-Oklahoma). But Pastor Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church cannot believe what the purportedly conservative leaders are saying.

Hutcherson says he understands being proud of a black man, but he notes that for years black conservative leaders have screamed that it is not about color -- it is about the content and character of one's heart. "... [A]nd some of these same guys seem to be forgetting that that's what we're supposed to be doing now," says Hutcherson.

White people say it's "racist" to not vote for Obama because he's black. Well, isn't it just as "racist" to vote for him because he's black?....

The post linked to another post titled Black 'Conservatives' Blasted for Obama Remarks on the Western Voices World News, the web division of European Americans United which styles itself “an ethics-based activist organization dedicated to the exaltation of classical European values”, (they are tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center and I won’t link to their site either) . Originally, however, the text came from a OneNewsNow story.

How has it come to this?

Ken Hutcherson and OneNewsNow - the Poster Boy and Preferred News Source for white supremacists.

“And the waters will run red…”

2008-06-21T16:26:00.001-07:00

Well, orange at least.

The water in our house, and I’m guessing many of the houses around us, has been running various shades of orange for the last few hours.

I called the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) consumer hotline to report the problem and got a call back from one of their Water Quality Specialists.

The problem we are seeing is rust dislodged from the interior of the pipes. This normally happens when a main or a hydrant is opened creating a very high pressure movement that dislodges much of the rust that has built up in the old iron pipes that distribute water on the hill.

Her advice was to turn off your cold water taps as and use as little cold water as possible. The rust will settle if the water disturbs it as little as possible. Running the cold water tap only exacerbates and prolongs the problem. She told me to avoid running any cold water for several hours so that the particles have time to settle.

Don’t wash or cook with the water as the rust will stain fabrics and make any food or drink containing it taste like ass.

When I mentioned to the SPU Water Quality Specialist that we saw the Fire Department opening the hydrants on the North-west corners of E Roy and 20th Ave E and E Roy and 21 Ave E a few hours ago, she confirmed that as the probable cause. I’m sure that they opened many other hydrants on the hill today also.

Of course the Fire Department doesn’t tell SPU when they are going to do this so there is no way to warn householders that they won’t be able to use their water for 3 to 6 hours.

I’m really feeling for my neighbors with young children and babies. As we have all seen they have a tendency to explode at both ends and having no water to wash and clean up those explosions is no picnic.

So everyone turn off your cold water and chill out for a few hours.

UPDATE: 6:30pm and the water is still murky as hell. It’s pretty gross when you flush a toilet and it was cleaner before the flush. Gack!

What is “morally acceptable”? Part II

2008-06-19T11:37:00.001-07:00

I just noticed that the Gallup “Values and Beliefs Survey” for 2008 has been published. I commented on the 2007 survey results in a previous post so it makes sense to see what has changed since then.

“Homosexual relations” (they don’t mean Uncle Arthur) are still rated 7th out of the 16 issues for consideration as “morally wrong” with that measure declining 1% to 48% and morally acceptable rising 1% to 48% for a net movement of 2%.

And the news isn’t so good for the “sacredness of marriage” crowd:

In 2008 the number of people who think unmarried sex between a man and a woman is morally wrong declined 2% to 36% while those that think it is morally acceptable increased 2% to 61% for a net shift of 4%.

Similarly, the number of people who think divorce is morally wrong declined 4% to 22% while the number that think it is morally acceptable increased 5% to 70% for a net shift of 9%.

It still bugs me that Gallup is using “Homosexual Relations” against “Sex between and unmarried man and woman” and “Sex between married men and women having an affair”. With marriage now legal in two states and domestic partnerships and civil unions in many others, why aren’t the questions becoming more similar for same-sex and opposite sex couples?

I wonder how many people hear the question on “Homosexual relations” and respond thinking more about the very topical same-sex relationship recognition issues rather than sex between same-sex partners.

So, just to recap:

Divorce net movement +9%
Unmarried hetero sex net movement +4%
Baby outside of marriage net movement +2%
Gay and Lesbian sex net movement +2%

Please start your timers to track how long it takes for some bazootyhead to blame same sex-marriages, relationships and parenting for these changes in the numbers on morality of divorce, adultery, and unmarried fornication.

Yours, Mine and Ours

2008-06-18T13:47:00.001-07:00

Back in April of 2007 I took a beating from quite a few people for having the temerity to question how comprehensively the Capitol Hill Seattle blog covered all of Capitol Hill.

I found it odd that a blog who nominally purported to cover the gayest neighborhood in the 2nd gayest city in these United States never had much to say about gays and lesbians and I said so.

j/k were using the moniker “Capitol Hill Seattle” for a blog where they were interested in covering only the “Fancy Pants” part of Capitol Hill. When CHS responded to my post on their blog the comments thread revealed that I wasn’t the only person who found the mismatch between their name and the scope of their coverage problematic.

Other people took me to task for “attacking” CHS and for the scope of my own blog being too expansive and claiming to speak for all gay curmudgeons. Really? You didn’t think having "The” in “The Gay Curmudgeon” was clear enough?

In the discussion that followed I proposed that they either more clearly define the sub-neighborhood they cover and re-scope their blog name or expand their scope to the entire Capitol Hill area and invite other posters to help provide more complete coverage of Capitol Hill. To bring the discussion to a close I said:

I’m satisfied with having raised the issue and, although I’m disappointed that there wasn’t much in the way of mature and reasoned debate, I think the jury is still out on the issue.

Fast forward to 2008 and it seems the jury has finally come in with a verdict.

The original CHS blog has been replaced by a new CHS site that has expanded its focus to take in all of Capitol Hill and include site members as correspondents.

What a great idea. I really wish I’d thought of… Oh, wait. I did.

We can stop debating what’s mine and what’s yours and focus instead on what is ours. Now that sounds like a real community to me.

I really hate it when I’m right

2008-06-03T13:55:00.001-07:00

You may remember a month ago that the Australian government, acting to fulfill a campaign promise, began working to remove anti-gay discrimination from over 100 laws.

My attitude when discussing was “That’s great, but I’ll wait to celebrate when a) the laws are changed and b) it becomes clear how my man and I are protected by them”.

It seems that was absolutely the right approach to take. From The Age:

CONSERVATIVE MPs have attempted to thwart moves to recognise gay partners in the same way as married couples in public sector superannuation laws.
Labor wants to pass laws by July 1 to give gays and lesbians the right to inherit a public service pension or death benefit if their partner dies.
But the Coalition yesterday resolved to delay the move with a Senate inquiry, and try to broaden the issue beyond gays to cover other interdependent relationships.

Now Brendan Nelson has allowed his pack of slavering curs, led by Bronwyn Bishop and Scott Morrison, to derail the first anti-discrimination changes affecting superannuation (similar to 401(k)) arguing that “…the Coalition must be seen to be defending the institution of marriage.”

Political punch-line and coward, Peter Costello, chimed in of course:

Former treasurer Peter Costello contributed several times to the debate, with colleagues saying he warned that it was a slippery slope and reminding MPs they risked a backlash if they were seen to be supporting any watering down of marriage.

What seems to be lost in all this discussion is that people in same-sex relationships are dying and their partners are left without any entitlement to their superannuation benefits. What is most alarming is that the Coalition is trying to make the issue so broad that acting to remove discrimination will be critically delayed and paint our relationships as less real and valuable and more like the “interdependent” relationships that are their latest distraction:

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said it would be unacceptable to reclassify same-sex de facto couples as interdependents as if they were merely "long-time companions" or "good friends".

With more dying and their partners losing access to entitlements, same-sex couples are being told they must wait yet again:

The Senate inquiry is not tipped to report by the end of June, delaying the bill until the September session of Parliament.

John Challis, the Convenor of the COMSUPER Action Committee doesn’t seem very impressed either (underline and bold is my emphasis):

AT A MEETING WITH MYSELF AND OTHER COMSUPER ACTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON SEPTEMBER 21ST.2007, MALCOLM TURNBULL TOLD US THAT IN FORMULATING ITS RESPONSE TO THE HEREOC REPORT FOR THE AUGUST 21ST.CABINET DISCUSSION, THE COALITION GOVERNMENT HAD HAD TO ABANDON THE INTERDEPENDENCY MODEL FOR GRANTING SAME SEX ENTITLEMENTS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY OF CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF OTHER INTERDEPENDENT COUPLES AND THE FINANCIAL COST ENTAILED.

BECAUSE OF THIS IMPRACTIBILITY THE GOVERNMENT HAD REVERTED TO THE MODEL OF GIVING SAME SEX COUPLES EQUAL ENTITLEMENTS TO HETEROSEXUAL DE FACTO COUPLES.
THIS INFORMATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD IN A LETTER TO BRENDAN NELSON DATED 12TH.DEC.2007, COPIED TO MALCOLM TURNBULL.

NOW, AS AN ACT OF EXPEDIANCY AND OBSTRUCTION, THE OPPOSITION IS REVERTING TO THE INTERDEPENDENCY MODEL AS A MEANS OF DELAYING THE SAME SEX ENTITLEMENTS REFORMS.

SO MUCH FOR BRENDAN NELSON AND MALCOLM TURNBULL DECLARING THEMSELVES TO BE SUPPORTERS AND CRUSADERS FOR GAY RIGHTS !!

The move by the opposition is cynical, calculated and cruel. But it is oh-so-very-much Coalition politics as usual.

California Court rules Same-Sex Marriage ban Unconstitutional

2008-05-15T12:36:00.001-07:00

How cool is this? I haven’t seen any legal analysis of the majority opinion (Author: GEORGE, C. J., Concurring: KENNARD, J. WERDEGAR, J., MORENO, J.) yet, after all it is 172 pages long , but if you are not interested in the details, here is the important part:

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

It sounds like the California Supreme court just told plaintiffs (same-sex couples) that after they file a writ of mandate same-sex couples can legally marry in the state of California!

For anyone interested in the points that were made in the opinion, I extracted a few of them that I found significant below:

Calling same-sex relationships by another name than marriage impinges on right to marry:

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

Find that there is no compelling state interest in treating opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently:

Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

Their reasons were many, but the last seems most compelling:

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

It’s good to see that in California they read the issue broadly as the “right to marry” and not narrowly as in Washington State as “the right to same-sex marriage”:

Instead, plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples.34 For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriage.”

It sounds like they court is saying that the legislature can’t make the right to marry go away without changing the constitution:

If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.41 Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.

The right to marry includes all couples:

In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.44

Talking about the unjust history and how society learns over time:

There can be no question but that, in recent decades, there has been a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples. California has repudiated past practices and policies that were based on a once common viewpoint that denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. This state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation,46 and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and raising children.47

Acknowledging the fallacy of the procreative ability argument as a litmus test for marriage:

The Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Campaign agree that the constitutional right to marry is integrally related to the right of two persons to join together to establish an officially recognized family, but they contend that the only family that possibly can be encompassed by the constitutional right to marry is a family headed by a man and a woman. Pointing out that past cases often have linked marriage and procreation, these parties argue that because only a man and a woman can produce children biologically with one another, the constitutional right to marry necessarily is limited to opposite-sex couples. This contention is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons. To begin with, although the legal institution of civil marriage may well have originated in large part to promote a stable relationship for the procreation and raising of children (see, e.g., Baker v. Baker, supra, 13 Cal. 87, 103 [“the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation”]; see generally Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (2007) pp. 23-125), and although the right to marry and to procreate often are treated as closely related aspects of the privacy and liberty interests protected by the state and federal Constitutions (see, e.g., Valerie N., supra, 40 Cal.3d 143, 161; Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 527, 541), the constitutional right to marry never has been viewed as the sole preserve of individuals who are physically capable of having children. Men and women who desire to raise children with a loved one in a recognized family but who are physically unable to conceive a child with their loved one never have been excluded from the right to marry.
[…]
The personal enrichment afforded by the right to marry may be obtained by a couple whether or not they choose to have children, and the right to marry never has been limited to those who plan or desire to have children. Indeed, in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S. 479 — one of the seminal federal cases striking down a state law as violative of the federal constitutional right of privacy — the high court upheld a married couple’s right to use contraception to prevent procreation, demonstrating quite clearly that the promotion of procreation is not the sole or defining purpose of marriage.

Expanding the right to marry and create families to include same-sex couples and their children:

Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.52

Blowing a hole in the argument that calling our relationships “domestic partnerships” would be fair and equal with the obvious example:

Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. As observed by the City at oral argument, this court’s conclusion in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, that the statutory provision barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional, undoubtedly would have been the same even if alternative nomenclature, such as “transracial union,” had been made available to interracial couples.

Laying the “but you can marry – only a person of the opposite sex” argument to rest and calling it what it is – discrimination:

A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. (Accord, Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, 533, 541, fn. 7.)
[…]
The issue is one of first impression in California,61 however, and for the reasons discussed below we conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision.

Rebutting the old canard of immutability and sexual orientation with my favorite argument - religion:

We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that it is appropriate to reject sexual orientation as a suspect classification, in applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].) Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.
[…]
In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Access to Domestic Partnership isn’t good enough:

Plaintiffs contend that in the present context, the different nomenclature prescribed by the current California statutes properly must be understood as having just such a constitutionally suspect effect. We agree with plaintiffs’ contention in this regard. Although in some contexts the establishment of separate institutions or structures to remedy the past denial of rights or benefits has been found to be constitutionally permissible,65 and although it may be possible to conceive of some circumstances in which assignment of the name “marriage” to one category of family relationship and of a name other than marriage to another category of family relationship would not likely be stigmatizing or raise special constitutional concerns,66 for a number of reasons we conclude that in the present context, affording same-sex couples access only to the separate institution of domestic partnership, and denying such couples access to the established institution of marriage, properly must be viewed as impinging upon the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

The court accepted that the right to privacy argues against separate but equal solutions:

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

In addition, plaintiffs’ briefs disclose a further way in which the different designations established by the current statutes impinge upon the constitutionally protected privacy interest of same-sex couples. Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship is that — in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” — an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question.68

Because the constitutional right of privacy ordinarily would protect an individual from having to disclose his or her sexual orientation under circumstances in which that information is irrelevant (see, e.g., People v. Garcia, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1280; Urbaniak v. Newton (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1140-1141), the existence of two separate family designations — one available only to opposite-sex couples and the other to same-sex couples — impinges upon this privacy interest, and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large.

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the classifications and differential treatment embodied in the relevant statutes significantly impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples, and accordingly provide a further reason requiring that the statutory provisions properly be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard of review.

Acknowledging that tradition hasn’t prevented us from addressing injustices in the past:

Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,71

No compelling state interest in limiting access to marriage:

After carefully evaluating the pertinent considerations in the present case, we conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes. To begin with, the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children.
[…]
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.73

Congratulations to folks in California! Now the battle moves to opposing the ballot initiative that would modify the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Building Sold: Monsoon to leave 19th?

2008-05-12T14:00:00.001-07:00

I normally leave things like this to the neighborhood blogs, but I’ve known about this for several weeks and still none of them have said a thing so….

The building that houses neighborhood favorite Monsoon has been sold to a large development company. The word is that the developer will be redeveloping the site when the current brace of leases expire in little more than a year.

Apart from the regular concerns about architecture and the size of the building, neighborhood impact of construction, and what it will be used for (more condos, additional ground level retail), it means that Monsoon will be homeless while this happens, and will likely be forced to move out of our neighborhood altogether.

From what I’ve heard, the entire building has been sold (the area below in red) and Monsoon (shown in blue) is just one of the tenants that will be affected.

It’s a tough situation for Eric, Sophie and the rest of the Banh family who own and run Monsoon. The expense of moving and getting set up in a new space is significant and no business wants to do that more often than they need to. Unless the developer’s plans make allowances for Monsoon and find a way to work around them, in a little over a year we’ll lose Monsoon to some other location.

If it looks like that will happen I think people in the neighborhood will be even more keenly interested in the plans for the project and it’s long and short term impact on where we live.

Anti-discrimination now. Equality when?

2008-05-03T17:44:00.001-07:00

The Australian Government has finally set a timetable for when it will remove anti-gay discrimination from more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. Legislative changes will begin their passage through parliament in May 2008 with the goal that all the planned changes will take effect by the middle of 2009.

The announcement signals that the Rudd Labor Government will keep it’s election promise to remove financial and entitlement discrimination against same-sex couples. This occurs after some scare tactics on budget funding from some quarters stating that the proposed changes might carry a price tag as high as $500,000,000. The sub-textual argument being that cost would be an acceptable reason to derail these changes.

There have been so many stories written on this move by the government that it is hard to wade through them all. For a sample, I recommend ”Gay rights a critical first step in ending discrimination", this Rodney Croome Op-Ed piece, and ”Reforms for gays are ‘incomplete’ ” as a good start.

I'm pleased that the Australian government has finally addressed the “back-office” component of discrimination. I think of this as the largely financial kind that same-sex couples fret about in private over the kitchen table doing financial planning, monthly budgets and at tax time.

It’s disappointing that the government missed the opportunity to address the equally vital “front-office” elements of discrimination. These are the things that affect how same-sex couples are permitted take part in society, present themselves in the human family, and how they are treated by society.

They aren’t considered legitimate couples or families because they can’t be married, can’t adopt, and can’t get access to IVF technology like everyone else.

I read the following from a Reuters article covering the changes with some shock, but little surprise:

"The government believes that marriage is between a man and a woman so it won't amend the marriage act," Attorney-General Robert McClelland said on Wednesday in announcing the changes.
"But in all other areas that we've identified, the issue of discrimination against same-sex couples will be removed," McClelland told reporters.

Stop and read that again because, like the Purloined Letter, the truth is hiding in plain sight.

The Australian Attorney-General publicly recognized that by failing to change the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, Australia still discriminates against same-sex couples.

He doesn’t seem quite as aware that discrimination on adoption and access to IVF technology also remains.

As an Australian living abroad who has been in a same-sex relationship for almost 10 years, I want to know if an existing marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership from another jurisdiction means that's I'm covered.

I’ll take these rights, as soon as it’s clear how I get access to them, but it’s plain that even once these changes are enacted I’ll still be discriminated against.

And according to Prime Minister Rudd and Attorney-General McClelland, that’s just they way they want it.

Aussie Footballer Champions a fair go for Gay and Bi players

2008-05-03T11:06:00.001-07:00

Former St Kilda captain and current director of the St Kilda Football Club, Nathan Burke has joined forces with activist Rob Mitchell and the Victorian Minister for Youth and Sport, James Merlino to propose that the Australia Football League (AFL) ban attacks on gay and bi-sexual players.

But the proposed changes go further than just addressing discrimination in Australian Rules Football.

From the Melbourne Star:

A group of experts from the RJM Trust, set up by former local football club president Rob Mitchell to lobby for anti-discrimination guidelines, met the Minister for Youth and Sport James Merlino last week.
The group successfully securing the introduction of anti-discrimination measures on the grounds of sexual orientation in all sports in Victoria.

Experiences in the recent past of racial and religious vilification on the paddock raised more general awareness of discrimination in sport. But over the long haul, awareness won’t be enough:

Burke also stressed the need for a system of sanctions and penalties, saying that some people would change as a result of education but others would need disciplinary measures before they would take notice.

That was how measures to combat racial and religious discrimination had worked, he said.

“They went down a three-pronged path: one was that they put in regulations, then they had a couple of high profile Aboriginal players like Nicki Winmar and Michael Long to keep it front of mind. And thirdly they had education,” he told bnews.

“Eventually through the education process it started to change attitudes and then over 10 years new players came in and they saw that attitudes had changed, and it wasn’t OK to call someone a racial or religious name. So that’s how cultural change happened, slowly, over 10 years.”

It’s great to see that Victoria is going after not just the biggest sport in the state, but all sports. With efforts like this, perhaps we’ll see more professional athletes coming out. If that happens, many young sportsmen and women will come out earlier in their sport as well.

After all, Ian Roberts can’t be the only gay man in Australian football.

Footballers, Gays and Sperm

Hutch opposes disruption by creating chaos

2008-05-03T08:24:00.001-07:00

The Day of Silence as come and gone at Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie, Washington.

I decided to sit out the denouement of this manufactured drama and didn’t write about it. I made a conscious decision in this case not to add to the ego stroking column inches that Reverend Hutcherson needs to thrive.

That doesn’t mean I haven’t read just about everything that has been written about it. It was while reading this blog post over at Through a Glass Dimly that I realized the lurking irony of the whole scene.

I captured the thought in a comment that read, in part:

It amuses me that Hutcherson and the "Coalition to Defend Education" used the argument that the Day of Silence disrupted the school day when kids should be getting their education. After all, education is the point of attending school, right?

Yet in reality, students at Mount Si High School participating in the Day of Silence were required to speak if called on in class. Their commitment was to avoid only unnecessary talking.
Look, no educational disruption!
But then again, maybe not. In response to urging by Hutcherson the parents of between 500 and 600 children kept them home from school on the Day of Silence. Some as a protest, but some because they didn't want to be at the school and forced to take a position on the controversy.
If the meta-point Hutch and Co. wanted to make was that events like the Day of Silence shouldn't be allowed because of the alleged "disruption" that they cause, then creating an actual disruption and causing more than 500 kids to miss a day of school seems like a mammoth failure and more than a little hypocritical.

But, as we have all come to learn, failure and hypocrisy are Hutcherson's chief stock in trade.

Christian Evangelists Target Jews for conversion in Advertisement

2008-03-31T13:14:00.001-07:00

On March 28th 2008 the World Evangelical Alliance ran an advertisement in the print version of the New York Times.

Now I’m not Jewish (as far as I know) and I’m not a Christian evangelical, so I’m no expert. Just the same, I think I understand why this ad honked off people like the Anti-Defamation League.

You should go and read it for yourself here, but this is a summary based on my own reading:

Hey Jewish people,

We know that our religions are a part of the church history which unleashed the overt anti-Semitism and violence of the Inquisition, the Third Reich, and ultimately the Holocaust. But, hey, what are ya gonna do?

Don’t get me wrong, we’re not apologizing. If we apologized that would mean taking responsibility for our actions and boy, does that go against Christian tradition.

We love you guys, but it’s like this… Your religion is wrong and you’re all gonna burn for eternity if you don’t become Christians. Yeah, we know your religion is older than ours but the bible is pretty clear - its open season on converting Jews. So we’re coming for you, okay?

Oh, and we’re going to encourage Christians who have converted from Judaism to still call themselves Jews, even though they aren’t. That way they can convert other Jews “from the inside” by pretending they’re still Jewish. All the better to convert you with!

Hey, we don’t want to offend you, but the bible tells us we kinda have to. We have nothing but respect for you guys, and we kind of believe the same things, except the whole Jesus-thing, but you’re all gonna burn if you don’t listen to us.

Bottom line: Without Jesus Christ you’re pretty much screwed.

Is is just me, or do the people who signed on to this “advertisement” come across as prideful, insulting, and insensitive dorks?

With that said, you can hardly be surprised at my next revelation.

Unaccustomed as he is to resisting having his name in a newspaper, our own equal opportunity offender from Antioch Bible Church signed on along with 43 other “academics, clergy and journalists”.

I find myself wishing he and his colleagues would keep some of their “salt in their shaker”.

Curry Leaves are in short supply

2008-03-29T14:56:00.001-07:00

I went to buy the makings for more Green Curry Paste today and couldn’t find the fresh curry leaves anywhere.

The problem is “citrus greening” also known as “yellow dragon disease” and “huanlongbing" which is an incurable bacterial disease that ruins the fruit and results in the decline and death of citrus trees within a short number of years.

It seems that the USDA found the Asian Citrus psyllid, a carrier of this disease, in host plants from Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and 32 Texas counties. From the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Citrus Greening FAQ:

Plant parts, such as curry leaves, intended for human consumption must be treated with methyl bromide in accordance with the APHIS treatment manual prior to interstate movement. EPA has approved methyl bromide as a safe treatment for plants and plant materials intended for human consumption.

Uwajimaya, Viet Wah and Hop Thanh haven’t had any for some time. I’ve tracked down a place that has a shipment of curry leaves which has arrived and should be in store later this week.

Curry paste making will have to wait until they arrive.

Chasers on Biblical Literalism

2008-03-28T18:47:00.001-07:00

“There’s no place for Poofters in our Holy Pews!”

Same Shoe, Different Foot

2008-03-28T18:44:00.001-07:00

For reasons surpassing divination this clip from “CNNNN”, done by the folks from Australia’s “The Chasers War on Everything”, is making the rounds of the tubes.

Ingredients: Gays. Christians. Scientists. Genes.

Method: Mix well. Subvert expectation.

Old news to Australians, but it seems fresh to people in the US who are so starved of cutting political satire in this format.

Christ on a Cruise Ship!

2008-03-28T17:58:00.001-07:00

Now I’ve seen everything.

The Bigot Who Must Not Be Named isn’t content with local efforts like taking over Microsoft and his daughter’s school district, now he’s diversifying into bamboozlement on the high seas…

With the Easter Season only just having passed I’m compelled to observe:

Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ is on a cruise!

Hold onto your wobbly bits as we explore the topics that will be covered on this biblical bon voyage:

“This time together will be an outstanding opportunity to stand for righteousness and renew our commitment to God as individuals, as couples, and as a group.”

Provided the weather is good and no pesky ho-mo-sex-shuls sneak aboard:

“God has called us to be salt. Do you know what that really means? During our time together I will help you understand through the Scriptures what it really means.”

Err, salt. Doesn’t it dissolve in sea water and isn’t there already plenty of it in the ocean? Hmm, it increases buoyancy, too doesn’t it. Ooh, ooh, maybe they’ll be trying to walk on water.

Me? I think God wants me to be Lemon Wasabi Sabayonne.

“God wants to make sure your salt doesn’t stay in the shaker so let’s get shakin’ for Christ! Let’s run the race and reach for the prize.”

I don’t know why, but suddenly I’m thinking of Onan. Didn’t he get dealt some righteous deity death because he didn’t keep his salt in his shaker?

It really doesn’t take a degree in Double Entendre from the Carry-On University to see “reaching for the prize” as a metaphor for attaining orgasm or capturing someone’s virginity.

It is as though he’d never heard about the dangers of Rum, Sodomy and the Lash…(*Link NSFW*)

Summary of changes to Domestic Partnerships in Washington State

2008-03-18T18:18:00.001-07:00

I know that a lot of people are trying to understand what changes have been made to Washington State Domestic Partnerships.

There is an already existing plain language guide to the first wave of DP rights and responsibilities in our state available from the Northwest Women's Law Center web site. I know there are working on an update and as soon as it's available I'll add the link here.

If you are already in a DP you can expect to get notification about the changes to the rights and responsibilities for your Domestic Partnership both 60 days and 30 days prior to the law taking effect on June 12th 2008.

Until either of those things happen, I've extracted this list from the Senate Bill Report for 2SHB 3104 for your enlightenment and edification:

Summary of Bill:

Rights and Responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities granted to spouses in various areas of law are extended to state registered domestic partners. The amended statutes generally involve: dissolutions; community property; estate planning; taxes; court process; service to indigent veterans and other public assistance; conflicts of interest for public officials; and guardianships. The following is a list of the broad categories and a summary description of some of the changes made in each category.

Dissolution, Parenting Plans, Child Support. Procedures for dissolution apply to domestic partners. Child support, maintenance, and parenting plan obligations, and procedures for enforcing such orders, apply to domestic partners.

Community Property and Other Property Rights. Property of domestic partners are subject to community property, which applies from the date of the parties' registration. A domestic partner's property is obligated to family expenses and education of the children. The slayer statute prohibits inheritance by domestic partner perpetrator. Homestead may consist of property owned by domestic partners.

Judicial Process and Victim's Rights. A domestic partner may sue on behalf of the community, and contributory fault of a domestic partner is not imputed to the other domestic partner in civil actions. Testimonial privilege for spouses applies to domestic partners. A domestic partner is a "family or household member" for purposes of the domestic violence laws.

Taxes. Property assigned from one domestic partner to another under dissolution decree is exempt from real estate excise tax. Property tax deferrals for eligible persons, such as senior citizens meeting certain criteria, extend to the person's surviving domestic partner.

Public Officials. Appointed and elected officials must disclose financial affairs of domestic partners. Gifts received by an elected official's domestic partner are subject to public disclosure reporting requirements. A domestic partner of an elected official may not be a member of the State Commission on Salaries.

Public Assistance. The Department of Social and Health Services must consider hardship to a person's domestic partner, to the same extent hardship is considered for spouses, when filing a lien against a person's property as reimbursement for receiving medical assistance. Domestic partners who are residents in long-term care facilities or nursing homes may share the same room. An abused same-sex domestic partner is considered a "victim" for purposes of services provided by domestic violence shelters.

Veterans. State colleges and universities must waive tuition for domestic partners of deceased or disabled veterans if certain conditions are met. Services for honorably discharged indigent veterans, such as residency in veteran's homes, are available to veterans' domestic partners.

Guardianship and Powers of Attorney. Procedures under guardianship laws, including who is entitled to notice, apply to domestic partners of incapacitated persons. Domestic partners may file a petition to determine effectiveness of power of attorney.

Probate and Trust Law. Domestic partner not named in a will that was created before registration of the domestic partnership is an omitted domestic partner for purposes of intestate distribution. Letters of testamentary go to the surviving domestic partner to administer community property. Procedures under probate involving transfer of community property apply to domestic partners. The court may award a certain amount from the estate to decedent's domestic partner for purposes of family support and the award is exempt from creditors.

Notice to Registered Domestic Partners. Sixty days before the effective date of the act, and again 30 days before the effective date, the Secretary of State must send a letter to the mailing address of each registered domestic partner notifying the person that Washington's laws will change. The letter must state that persons who do not wish to be subject to the new rights and responsibilities must terminate their domestic partnership before the effective date of the act.

Termination of Domestic Partnership. To terminate a domestic partnership, a domestic partner must file a petition for dissolution in superior court and follow the same procedures applicable to dissolution of marriages. Once a month, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics must submit a list of persons who have dissolved their domestic partnerships to the Secretary of State. Parties may use a non-judicial termination process by filing a notice of termination with the Secretary of State if, at the time of filing notice:

both parties desire that the domestic partnership be terminated, and both have signed the notice of termination;

neither party has minor children, whether born or adopted before or after the domestic partner registration, and neither party is pregnant;

the domestic partnership is not more than five years in duration;

neither party has any ownership interest in real property, and neither party leases a residence (except a lease of a residence occupied by either party that terminates in a year, and does not include an option to buy);

there are no unpaid obligations over $4,000 incurred by either or both parties after the domestic partnership registration, except for debts on a vehicle (this threshold amount will be adjusted for inflation every two years);

the total fair market value of community property assets, minus any encumbrances, is less than $25,000 and neither party has separate property assets in excess of $25,000 (adjusted for inflation);

the parties have executed an agreement establishing the division of assets and debts and have executed any documents to effectuate the agreement; and

the parties waive any rights to maintenance by the other party.

A domestic partnership is no longer automatically terminated if the parties enter into a marriage recognized in this state with another person.

Reciprocity. A legal union, other than a marriage, from another state that is substantially equivalent to a Washington domestic partnership must be recognized in this state, regardless of whether it is called a domestic partnership.

It's not short, but it's a hell of a lot shorter than the 196 pages of the complete bill.

Of course, we know that we still fall very far short of all the rights we need and are entitled to. I look forward to the progress we can make in the next legislative session.

Seasonal Baked Goodness - Part II

2008-03-18T07:44:00.001-07:00

With Easter approaching it's time for the traditional (at least on the east coast and in my native Sydney) Hot Crossed Buns. Once again HWMBO comes up with the baked goodies. Commercially produced HCBs in Sydney are excellent so people don't generally go to the effort of making their own at home.

After sampling a few of the commercially baked options in Seattle there is no question that home made is the only way to go. For extra credit and taste edification make your own organic peel to include in them. As I learned when I make my yearly Christmas Cake and seasonal Ginger cookies, home made organic peel makes a huge texture and flavor difference.

We'll have another batch of these coming up to Easter Sunday. Served warm, torn in half and buttered. Perfect.

Seasonal Baked Goodness - Part I

2008-03-18T07:29:00.001-07:00

I've mentioned that He Who Must Be Obeyed (HWMBO) is a gifted cook in general, but it's been a while since I've shared his undeniable baking chops. This is a batch of Super-duper Double Dark Chocolate Cup Cakes he made for Valentines Day.

What made these extra special was the "experimental" rolled fondant he made to decorate them with. I'll let you in on a poorly kept secret - I'm not a fan of sweet things as a rule. You see, I can smell the sugar in them and just smelling them makes me all achy in the brainpan.

Imagine my surprise when my sugar sensor didn't go off on the rolled fondant. Even better, eating them the dark chocolate was on that knife edge balance of bitter and sweet which meant I could enjoy them without a subsequent decline in higher brain function followed by what might be politely called "low productivity".

And how cool are the checkerboard cup-cakes? I ended up smuggling my Valentines Day treat into work to avoid the food moochers. With the cup cakes long gone, now it's finally safe to share.

Why is Senator Cantwell MIA on UAFA?

2008-03-16T11:02:00.001-07:00

I've called Senator Cantwell's office several times asking her position on the Uniting American Families Act 2007 (UAFA, H.R. 2221, S. 1328).

The UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples by permitting permanent partners of US citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

Like so many others, I don't understand why the Senator has not signed on as a cosponsor for this bill. At the very least we need to know how she intends to vote on it.

I cannot find any statement from Senator Cantwell outlining problems she has with the bill that would prevent her from cosponsoring or voting yea.

Spending some time on Senator Cantwell's web site, you really begin to understand where she is coming from.

On the Civil Liberties page there is a "Civil Rights" section that mentions race and religion but not a word about civil rights for GLBT people and same-sex-couples. Cantwell makes much of her support for legislation apologizing to victims of lynching and their families for the Senate's failure to pass anti-lynching legislation in the past.

Apologizing for wrongdoing can be important, but acting swiftly with conscience so no apology is ever needed is vastly preferable.

I wonder what future Senator will have similar text apologizing for past inaction on the injustices and hardships forced on same-sex couples who must chose either to leave their family, friends, careers and businesses in the United States and become refugees in other countries, or to give up on being together because of insurmountable bureaucracy and injustice.

On the Homeland Security page there is little about Immigration and Citizenship that isn't about securing US borders.

A search for "same-sex" on Senator Cantwell's web site returns no results. Searches for "gay" and "lesbian" and any variation of "GLBT" also show no results. It's as though in Senator Cantwell's world same-sex attracted people, singles, couples and families, have no problems requiring the help of our U.S. Senator.

I expect much better from you, Senator, than a straight-washed web site that pretends we don't exist.

UPDATE: …Senator Maria Cantwell finally signed on to co-sponsor Senator Patrick Leahy’s Uniting American Families Act. The only remaining question here is: “What took you so long?”

Can't see the forest for the trees - Part II

2008-03-15T18:40:00.001-07:00

In another comment on the same post that I responded to previously regarding the latest Pastor Ken Hutcherson fracas regarding his MLK Day speaking engagement at Mount Si High School there was a comment that I could not let pass...

“THEwaytodochurch” @ #100316

It is not clear to me to whom you are responding, but at the outset I must say I find your tone of address in your comments much more insulting and juvenile than the “incident” we are discussing. Let me address your points:

All I have to say is that if you consider yourself an adult, you should be able to reason that getting up and booing at an assembly, or interrupting a guest speaker, is no way to get your point across. The students even know that, because THE GUIDELINES ON HOW YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF IN AN ASSEMBLY ARE WRITTEN OUT IN THE MOUNT SI HIGH STUDENT PLANNER!

The guest speaker was not interrupted as the booing occurred during Hutcherson’s introduction. In formal environments like this, the most acceptable way of communicating disapproval is to boo. If you have been involved in debates and public meetings you know that booing is one of the mildest forms of making one’s displeasure known at such an event. Continual booing to drown out a speaker is boorish in the extreme, but I find it hard to muster outrage for a short boo during the introduction and not at all while the speaker is addressing the group.

If booing didn’t manage to get someone’s point across we would not know about the principal’s decisions or the teacher’s objections. In short, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Yet here we are. Ergo, you are demonstrably wrong; it was an extremely effective way of getting a point across.

Let ALONE the fact that the delivery on such an issue was just plain WRONG! McCormick and Potratz want to shove their political agenda down the throats of their kids by showing them how WHITE people have the audacity to boo a BLACK preacher on MLK Day?!?!?! I'm not trying to pull a race card folks...it's called COMMON SENSE! Pick up a serving spoon and dish yourself up a plate of it!

You make no cogent argument why any action the teachers took was wrong so there is nothing here to rebut. Stating something doesn’t make it so. The motivation for them speaking out was the impact Hutcherson’s invitation and presence as a speaker has on students, especially the young gay and lesbian students that were attending this compulsory assembly. It is entirely germane to ask why someone who is an anti-civil rights crusader today is qualified to speak about their pro-civil rights past. Your argument that white people shouldn’t have the audacity to boo a black person on MLK Day is ridiculous. It ignores the substance of Hutcherson and the teacher’s positions and boils them down to their skin color. Your suggestion asks us to wallow in our separateness and in our historical and mutual fear, anger, and shame around race and let it blind us to the burning truth at the core of MLK Day:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

In my opinion there is no better day to call out hypocrisy on civil rights issues than MLK Day. Isn’t helping students understand the living core of MLK Jr’s message of equality and fairness for all people exactly the point? You can’t teach the message without addressing how some messengers deliberately dishonor its spirit.

You want to talk about gay rights, do it in an appropriate environment [sic]. Control your emotions and be an example. Isn't this what America is all about? Are we not supposed to take our beliefs all the way to the voting booths? Since when did a difference of opinion turn into a bad thing? So should we just wipe away the Republican party too, since you don't like them either? Let's just get rid of all things that might-kind-of-sort-of-if-looked-at-with-squinty-eyes MAY BE offensive to ONE group of people. Everyone the exact same with no balance to anything [sic]. Yeah, that's it. Oh wait, that sounds like the start of Marxism.

From my reading about the Suffragette and Black Civil Rights movements it seems like there was a lot of counter-argument about their being an “appropriate time and place” for addressing women’s equality and racial equality too. The goal of this argument was, and always has been, to slow and ultimately stop the progress of these civil-rights movements. Just as I surmise yours must be. But like the members of those preceding movements, people know that the appropriate place is wherever we live, work and study and the appropriate time is right now and every single day until people are treated equally.

As a student of history, I have to agree that people have always taken their beliefs into the voting booth. But I must also point out that it would be those self same beliefs that, if put to a popular vote, would have prevented just about every civil rights advance in American history. Powerful majorities find rationalizations to avoid empowering minorities of any kind.

I won’t comment on your other statements above since, without the context of knowing what you are replying to, they seem incoherent and impenetrable. Still, in your comment about Marxism it is hard not to hear the echo of white segregationists who accused the Black Civil Rights movement and MLK Jr. himself of being part of a Communist conspiracy to destroy the “white United States”.

Grow up, vote, petition, picket. Getting angry and calling names is a bit easy don't you think? Fight your fight like every good American does...with the vote and a little elbow grease.

I think you are probably both fighting for your ideals in the same way, by putting forth your positions and arguments, such as they are, in the marketplace of ideas. Yet, I suspect we differ in our understanding of how change is achieved. It is a fallacy that minority rights are arrived at through a shift in opinion validated by a majority vote. If this were so, mixed race marriage would likely still be illegal. In 1968, a year after the Supreme Court struck down Anti-Miscegenation laws (preventing mixed-race marriage) as unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, a Gallup Poll showed that only 20% of Americans were accepting of mixed-race marriages. As recently as 2004 a Gallup Survey showed that 73% of Americans approved of mixed race (specifically white and African American) couples.

With that in mind, here are a few things you should know. According to a University of Washington Statewide Voter Survey conducted in October 2007 the majority of Washingtonians (59.4%) think that gay and lesbian couples should have exactly the same rights as straight couples. The vast majority of Washingtonians (73.5%) think that gay and lesbian couples should have some or all of the benefits and protections of marriage.

If majority voting did hold sway then same-sex couples would already have all the same rights as opposite-sex couples in Washington State. We all know that same-sex couples are far from that goal because powerful lobby groups are working to thwart justice and prevent it from happening.

What does it say to you that it took 27 years after laws banning mixed-race marriage were overturned for public opinion to reach 73% acceptance of mixed race marriage, yet same-sex couples in Washington have 73.5% acceptance but they are still waiting for their own justice?

Sometimes people need to be guided into communion with the better angels of their natures.

The history of this country shows us that sometimes it takes the leadership of a President, the courage of a Legislature, or the clear-headed wisdom of a Court to see justice done.

If we expect the leaders of tomorrow to do better than others have done, then children like those attending Mount Si High School will need to understand more than just the dry and narrow cant of civil rights as people like Hutcherson tell it.

They’ll need to know its full history and be touched by its motivating spirit of equality and fairness.

Beware the Ides of March...

2008-03-15T18:32:00.001-07:00

Shortly after Pastor Ken Hutcherson and company announced his plan to change Microsoft's support for pro-equality workplace legislation by lodging a shareholder proposal at the November 2008 stockholders meeting, I noted several reasons why the plan was doomed to failure.

In another post I was surprised that Hutcherson had given his followers a very short timeline to acquire the stock they needed. From the AGN Financial web site:

As I noted in the same post, the deadline that Hutcherson set was for right about now:

On the AGN Financial site, Hutcherson has set out a deadline for getting the 100 million shares he wants for mid-March 2008. A full nine months prior to the likely date of the ballot in mid-November 2008.

I can't find any credible reason for today's deadline. According to the Microsoft Bylaws you need to be a shareholder of record by the first week in September.

It remains a mystery why Hutcherson has been driving his followers to donate by mid-March. My bet is on funding his church or a campaign of some kind.

What is not a mystery is whether Hutcherson's instructions have been more beneficial to him or his followers. From the day this effort was announced until today MSFT stock has declined from $33.45 to $27.96.

Assuming, if one can, that he has been sent any stock at all, Hutcherson has incurred no loss. Only the gullible and misguided people buying and donating MSFT shares have felt that pain.

Beware the Ides of March, indeed.

Clock is ticking for DP opponents

2008-03-04T18:18:00.001-08:00

With the passage of a major expansion to Washington States Domestic Partnership law the clock is running.

Who will be first to begin a mean spirited campaign to repeal or otherwise scuttle the law before it takes effect?

Will it be the Rabid Reverend who has never seen anything that helps gays and lesbians that he didn't hate and oppose with every incompetent fibre of his being?

Will it be the serial initiative geek whose singular flair for frolicsome stunts and failure has made him such a press and public favorite?

Or will it be some dark horse bolting from relative obscurity to champion this divisive wedge issue in a key election year?

Tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tick.

Domestic Partnership Rights Expanded in Washington State

2008-03-04T17:52:00.001-08:00

A few moments ago the Senate of the Washington State Legislature voted by a margin of 29 to 20 to expand the rights provided under Domestic Partnership legislation by passing 2SHB 3104. The bill had already passed the House on February 15, 2008 by a margin of 62-32.

It expands the rights and responsibilities for domestic partnerships, including provisions that address notice, public officials, public assistance, judicial process, veterans, community property, taxes, guardianship, probate and trusts, dissolution, and reciprocity.

Republican Senator Swecker stood to oppose the bill claiming that "This bill provides most of the rights of marriage" and that "It would take little to achieve gay marriage other than a name change."

Senator Murray stood in support and, as always, spoke eloquently on the importance of these rights where the political becomes personal.

Congratulations to our legislators, advocates and citizens who made their voices heard!

Hutch: God Hates Soft Men - let's kick ass

2008-02-25T11:48:00.001-08:00

I don't know Valerie Tarico, but if the quotes she relates from attending one of Reverend Ken Hutcherson's services on her blog are accurate, Hutcherson has proved himself a liar yet again:

While I was there, Mr. Hutcherson’s sermon was about gender roles, essentially sanctifying traditional stereotypes. At various points he acted out a woman cooing over a poopy diaper and a man calling his child to jump off a table, then pulling his arms away and kicking at the child to get up. The gist was, “What are you gonna do? God just made us that way.” He derided a biblical character for raising a weak soft son (who in the story died in her arms). At one point he said, “God hates soft men.” and at another, “God hates effeminate men.” But the quote of the day was this one: “If I was in a drug store and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end!”

One might argue that Hutch isn't referring to gay men here, and I certainly know a lot of gay men who are more masculine than many of their straight counterparts, but if he is talking about all men (gay or straight) when he claims to channel God's feelings of hate, then that makes his statements even more reprehensible.

Either God Hates Gay Men or God Hates Weak or Effeminate Men. Any way you slice it, God Hates someone and Hutch is totally down with that. Anthony B. Robinson spoke to Hutcherson about his comments in an illuminating opinion piece in the Seattle PI:

"That was a joke," Hutcherson said Friday, when I asked him about the comment. But it's not really funny, is it?

No, indeed. Let's review a sampling of Hutch talking about hate in this context and in his own words:

The Watchmen is a Christian movement that doesn't teach hate or seek out violent followers, says Mr. Hutcherson, who is a pastor in Washington State. "God's word does not allow us to hate. It tells us to stand up for righteousness and call a sin a sin," he says. He rejects, however, the idea of loving the sinner while hating the sin. "The Bible says when a sinner will not separate himself from a sin then he is condemned with it. The one thing I'm trying to do is get heterosexuals out of the closet. We are the majority," he says.

Ah, so God doesn't allow people to hate. Then there is this:

"I believe that God’s word is the final word. I believe that mine is not. And anything that God say is wrong, I say is wrong. And anything that God says is right, I say is right. I do not hate homosexuals. That’s the worst lie that’s ever been told about me. I hate homosexuality because the bible does."

Hutcherson doesn't hate homosexuals, just what he interprets as their sin. And this:

"If they keep coming back, we're gonna expect them to change," Pastor Hutcherson said in May about gays and lesbians coming to his church. "And if they don't change their lifestyle when they keep coming back to be a part of this church, we're gonna do like we do anyone else that's sinning and won't repent. We're gonna bring them before the church and we're gonna kick 'em out."
"Oh, they call me a bigot, Kathi," he sa(i)d when I sat down with him recently. "That's worse than discrimination. I'm supposed to hate them."
I asked if he is a bigot. He said, "Well, if it means believing in God's outstanding truth, you could probably say yeah. But if you're talking about hatred -- thinking I'm better than someone else -- no not at all"

Confused yet? Hutcherson certainly seems to be. And yet his followers don't seem to recognize hate when they hear it pouring into their own ears:

"He's not a pastor of hate," said Dan Kreft, 32, Adair's husband and a software engineer. "He preaches the word of God."

It may be that this is all as simple as telling people what they want to hear. That is one simple reason for Hutcherson saying one thing to the press and another to his congregation. That is behavior that must at best be called an evasion and at worst an outright lie.

It is always easier to feel good about behaving unjustly when a pastor tells you God is flying air-cover.

Moral of the story: If you were raised to be polite and open doors for people as everyone in my generation was, give it up if you want to live.

Suck it up, Mrs Hutcherson

2008-02-10T15:36:00.001-08:00

I'm a firm believer that people who choose public life or take public actions incur public scrutiny. As a rule that scrutiny should not be applied to the families of those in public life.

But what happens when a polarizing public figure agrees to speak at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event at the school where his daughter attends. And what if this public figure has argued in public debate that MLK Jr's civil rights movement for African Americans and the present day civil rights movement for GLBT people are not at all related. What if this public figure opposed every advance in civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

Wouldn't you expect that on MLK Jr. Day the focus would be on the ideal of equality and equal treatment for our fellow human beings? Would it be outside the spirit of the day for people to question the choice of a speaker who so completely opposes applying MLK Jr's ideals of equal treatment to GLBT people? Can such hypocrisy be allowed to pass unchallenged?

I think not.

By agreeing to speak at the MLK Jr. event, Hutcherson chose to bring his public positions to his daughter's school.

The result is a public discussion about who are appropriate speakers for such events, what kind of vetting they should be subjected to, and what degree of freedom of speech principals, teachers and students should be allowed at such events. A worthwhile debate, I think.

In a story that has since been removed from their web site, KOMO 4 reported on a Mount Si School Board Meeting but focused more on the family of Reverend Hutcherson than on the welfare of the children attending Mount Si High School. For a more balanced report on the school board meeting, take a look at this article in the Seattle Times.

At the meeting Pat Hutcherson, a stay-at-home mother of four children, complained about the "harassment" that their family is suffering in the wake of her husband's speech at the school assembly:

It was standing room only at the school board meeting as Pat discussed the harassment that has followed the couple and their four children since her husband spoke at an assembly at Mount Si High School on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
“My family is boldly called names like 'bigot', 'homophobe' and we’ve been permanently branded in the valley,” she said.

I don't know whether Pat Hutcherson or her children share the views of her husband, but they are not public figures and it is unfair for them to be called bigots or homophobes because of the views Reverend Hutcherson expresses. If they share his views then they, like all of us, are accountable for their own choices.

It remains perfectly legitimate to call Reverend Hutcherson a bigot and a homophobe for his positions taken as a public figure. Reverend Hutcherson must accept responsibility for agreeing to speak at the assembly - he crossed the line that separated and protected his family from his public positions and actions. Now he has compounded his error by turning the issue into one of his public causes.

At the school board meeting Pat Hutcherson made the observation that:

"In the three weeks since the assembly our life has been anything but back to normal.

It is unfair if they are incorrectly being called "bigots" and "homophobes", but I find it incredibly difficult to feel sorry for their current situation.

What they are experiencing is the smallest taste of what it is like to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in this country - and it is so much worse when you are in high school.

GLBT adults and children don't have to take a controversial position to be called "faggot" or "dyke" or "homo" or "lesbo" or "trannie". We don't have to be connected with a polarizing public figure to be attacked and beaten on the street.

We just have to exist.

To Mrs Hutcherson I say this - if we have to deal with the prejudice that your husband helps create and perpetuate in our lives, then you have to deal with the consequences he creates in yours.

Suck it up.

UPDATE: Reverend and Mrs Hutcherson are pushing hard to have the two teachers who spoke out at the MLK Day assembly removed from the school.

Can't see the forest for the trees

2008-02-09T18:48:00.001-08:00

In a very "energetic" comment on this post someone styling themselves "mighty dr" took me to task for failing to fact check my own post. Here's the indictment:

#94579

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 4:07 p.m.
Gay Curmudgeon - since you're all about fact-checking and making sure that others are CORRECT in their statements on this blog, how about you correct yours!!! Hutcherson has NEVER and I repeat NEVER advocated for special rights for anyone based upon the color of their skin, their ethnicity nor their religion! It's unfortunate that you can't recognize that one can believe that the existing law is sufficient without you labeling them a HATER and a BIGOT. Ahhh, yes, tolerance - it's so progressive.
mighty dr

It's hard to know for sure, but I'm guessing that they are taking issue with this sentence from my post:

They ignore Hutcherson's objections to all civil rights for GLBT people including his well documented opposition to anti-discrimination and hate crimes protections which he wholeheartedly supports for race, ethnicity and religion.

If the biggest problem you have with my rebuttal is that you don't think Hutcherson supports hate crimes and anti-discrimination protections for race, ethnicity and religion, I'm fine with that. It means you aren't able to defend his hypocrisy so I have to think that your objection is nothing more than a quibble for the sake of form.

Lets get this straight. Your position is that Hutcherson, a black man who frequently trots out his experiences of and participation in the Black Civil-Rights movement is against the very legislation that movement brought into being and which protects him from discrimination and bias crimes. Uh-huh.

In June 2007 Hutcherson along with 29 other black pastors objected to adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the existing Hate Crimes legislation that protects them on the grounds of their race and religious belief. In the poster where they made their case, they said the following (emphasis is mine):

We are African Americans, though we represent thousands of Christian leaders of all races. We understand more clearly than most the dangers of racially motivated violence. But we also recognize the threat to religious liberty from labeling biblical teaching as "hate". The Black community needs a free black pulpit. Indeed, ALL Americans need free pulpits

They didn't oppose the whole category of Hate Crimes laws and demand their repeal. That's because, as the highlighted text shows, they know that these hate crime laws protect them under race, ethnicity and religion. The Black Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was all about getting rights and protections for African Americans and anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation is part of that history.

I'm reluctant to say it "mighty dr", but if you really think Hutcherson didn't ever support and doesn't currently support the hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws of which he is a beneficiary you are incapable of critical thinking.

I did not call Hutcherson a "bigot" or a "hater" in my response at all, despite ample evidence that he is a bigot, behaves in a bigoted fashion and evangelizes bigotry.

I only called him a hypocrite, which he most certainly is.

Hacks Hallow Hutcherson Hypocrisy

2008-02-04T09:10:00.001-08:00

The comment by Michaelsclass (#93790) on this post contains so much misdirection, untruth and distortion that it cries out for fact checking and rebuttal.

The nub of Kit McCormick's objection was what she saw Hutcherson as hypocritical in his simultaneous support of civil rights for African Americans and vehement opposition to civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The commenter willfully ignores that it is Hutcherson's hypocrisy that is at issue. They ignore Hutcherson's objections to all civil rights for GLBT people including his well documented opposition to anti-discrimination and hate crimes protections which he wholeheartedly supports for race, ethnicity and religion. The many legal inequalities that GLBT people suffer are ignored and the commenter focuses on the singular hot-button issue of same-sex marriage.

Chalk one mark into the "Misdirection" column.

Then the commenter cherry picks a single definition from a five year old dictionary that is nominally "current" (not available online), to whit:

The dictionary definition of marriage is "the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children." Source: The 2003 Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. It's been the definition for more than two thousand years.

Firstly, there is some argument about the actual edition year. 1999 is the main edition and the online version carries edition dates of 2002 and 2003. The complete definition of marriage from the 1999 edition is:

The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English
marriage   /márij/ n.
1. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
2. an act or ceremony establishing this union.
3. one particular union of this kind (by a previous marriage).
4. an intimate union (the marriage of true minds).
5. (Cards) the union of a king and queen of the same suit.
by marriage   as a result of a marriage (related by marriage).
in marriage   as husband or wife (give in marriage; take in marriage).

According to the plurality of Reference librarians I spoke to including those at the Seattle Public Library and the Library at the University of Washington, the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster are considered the more commonly accepted citation sources with The American Heritage Dictionary as an outlier. The source you cite is seldom used based on the number of copies available in WorldCat.org.

The Oxford English Dictionary (SECOND EDITION 1989) defined the primary meaning of marriage as:

marriage, n.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock.

Note that even in the 1989 definition, there is no prescription that the marriage pairing is only husband and wife. This framing includes same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.

Examining the latest revisions to the OED as of December 2007 includes the addition of an explicit reference to same-sex usage:

marriage, n.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

Cherry picking a single definition from one non-canonical source that happens to support your contention is dishonest.

Add a mark in the "Untruth" column.

The claim that marriage has had a single monolithic definition for two thousand years is preposterous. Marriage has had different meanings in different cultures and across different times. Examining the full definitions from the abovementioned dictionaries makes it clear that marriage has at various times been defined as polygamous, a property contract, a political contract, an act of barter, an act of kidnapping, and an act of commerce. It also denies the rich historical and cultural record of accepted same-sex unions and marriages.

What is most interesting is what is not there. There is no reference to marriage being for children or any requirement for procreation and the rearing of children in order to enter into a marriage. More about that in a moment. Then the commenter states:

In the United States, all people are treated equally under the law - all PEOPLE are equal. But all RELATIONSHIPS between people are NOT equal - because all relationships do not provide equal benefits to society. Men and women who decide to marry are afforded special privileges because American society long ago decided that encouraging men and women to have children - and raise them together for the rest of their lives - provides a unique benefit to society. Creating children, especially, is a benefit that can not be provided or duplicated by any other form of relationship.

Both the first and last statements in this paragraph are untrue. All people are not treated equally when their rights are parsed as you have attempted to do. The supreme law of the land, The United States Constitution, makes no such distinctions.

Let's add a mark under "Distortions".

Children can be and are raised within opposite-sex or same-sex couples or by single people not in any kind of durable relationship. Sex and conception are not bounded by relationships and orientation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 examined in The Williams Institute's "Census Snapshot: United States" in December 2007, 20% of all same-sex couples in the United States are already raising children under the age of 18 years. These same-sex couple meet the child-raising test you seem to be proposing, yet despite being parents they don't qualify for the "special privileges" you defined.

Many couples marry with no intent to ever have children or past the age of child-rearing. If your claim were true, then why would they be allowed to marry at all and be afforded the "special privileges" that accrue only to couples raising children.

There's another mark under "Untruths".

So, providing special benefits to married men and women is NOT illegal discrimination, nor is it unfair. Illegal discrimination - and unfairness - occurs ONLY when two things that are the SAME are treated DIFFERENTLY. The union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is NOT equal in every way to the union of a man and a woman. The relationships are truly different - so it is entirely fair to accord them different privileges.

Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are fundamentally the same in all relevant dimensions. You've made no cogent argument to the contrary.

Regardless of it's current legality, providing "special benefits" to married opposite-sex couples that don't apply to same-sex couples is discrimination. As with many other injustices like legal slavery and miscegenation laws, they just haven't been determined to be illegal - yet.

Because providing special privileges to men and women who marry is NOT unfair in any way, gay rights activists have devised an UNDERHANDED WAY to acquire the privileges of marriage while circumventing the will of the majority: They seek to change the very definition of marriage, thereby automatically conferring the privileges of marriage on same-sex couples.

The argument you are making that something isn't wrong because it isn't illegal is entirely fallacious. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution says that providing "special privileges" to one group of citizens over another group is unfair as do many U.S. State Constitutions. It is frequently because many State Constitutions make it clear that discrimination is unfair that civil rights for same-sex couples has moved forward at all.

In response, almost every state in the union has passed "defense of marriage" laws and amendments - essentially using the law and state constitutions as dictionaries! It's silly that such laws have to be passed and upheld, but they do.

It is because this discrimination will ultimately be found unconstitutional and unacceptable that state and federal politicians have been passing so-called "Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMA) to slow down the pace of progress. This bears more than a passing resemblance to the Black Codes used to regulate and restrict the advance of civil rights and liberties for African-Americans.

Marriage is "the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children." Because this is different from all other forms of relationship, and provides unique benefits to society, we afford special privileges to men and women who marry. What is so hard to understand?
If gay activists want to be afforded the same privileges as men and woman who marry, then they must convince the majority that their "gay marriage" relationship deserves them.
So far, they haven't. And changing the definition of marriage - treating us all as fools - will not work.

Your opening statement is misleading and the definition you are using doesn't jibe with the three most authoritative dictionary sources I cited. Legally, marriage requires nothing regarding children whatsoever. The issue of raising children is just the latest in a long list of "reasons" why same-sex couples should not be given the same rights as opposite-sex couples. A bad "reason", as it happens, since it ignores the 20% of same-sex couples who are already raising children today in the United States.

Public opinion continues to show strengthening support for recognition of same-sex relationships. In a nationwide ABC News/Facebook Poll conducted in December 2007, 54% of respondents said that same-sex couples "should be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage".

How big a majority of public opinion supporting same-sex relationships do we need before you accept the the advance of civil rights?

Experience has taught me that a "gay activist" is anyone who objects to the discrimination they experience and refuses to accept it in silence. Not at all unlike the "uppity negro" stereotype used to put down African Americans in the wake of the Black Civil Rights Movement.

But you know this issue isn't about civil marriage equality at all.

It's about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people being treated equally and fairly in any way. Kit McCormick couldn't sit silently while a vocal opponent of GLBT civil rights reminisced about the hardships he suffered before securing his own rights. Silence became intolerable when facing an oppressor who hides behind his own experience of oppression and uses it as a shield.

The hypocrisy was too stark.

Dictionary Definitions of Marriage

2008-02-03T10:32:00.001-08:00

Discussion of civil marriage equality for same-sex couples often ends up in a discussion about what the word "marriage" actually means and it's history. This post is a distillation of my recent research into the most authoritative dictionary definitions for marriage.

This post exists so that each time someone pulls out a five or ten year old definition from a second or third tier dictionary to argue that marriage doesn't include same-sex couples I don't have to cite the full dictionary definitions in my rebuttal and can link to this post.

The Oxford English Dictionary (SECOND EDITION 1989) defines the primary meaning of marriage as:

marriage, n.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock.

Note that even in the 1989 definition, there is no prescription that the marriage pairing is only husband and wife. This framing includes same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.

Examining the latest revisions to the OED as of December 2007 (Premium service via my membership at the Seattle Public Library so I can't link to it) includes the addition of an explicit reference to same-sex usage (literary citations from the text excised for the sake of brevity):

marriage, n.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

b. in marriage: in or into wedlock (now arch.). to give (also conjoin, join, take) in (also to, into) marriage: to give (join, etc.) as husband or wife. but marriage: unmarried (Sc. Obs.).

c. A vow or contract of marriage. Chiefly in to break (also keep) one's marriage. Obs.

d. A particular instance of matrimony between a husband and wife; a matrimonial alliance.

e. With modifying word, as group, communal, etc.: a system understood to exist in some cultures, religious groups, etc., by which each of the men in a small community is regarded as married to each of the women. Cf. plural marriage n. at PLURAL adj. and n. Special uses.

2. a. The action, or an act, of getting married; the procedure by which two people become husband and wife.

b. A wedding ceremony; wedding festivities. Now chiefly Sc. and S. Asian.

c. In phrases denoting the means or custom by which a spouse is acquired, as marriage by capture, marriage by exchange, marriage by purchase.

3. A dowry (in quot. 1465, that given by a father for his son). Cf. MARITAGE n. 2. Obs.

4. A person viewed as a prospective husband or wife; a (good or bad) match. Also: a spouse (rare). Obs.

5. fig. and in extended use.
a. An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things.
b. Cards. In bezique, pinochle, and related games: the holding of a king and queen of the same suit in a hand, which scores points when declared. Cf. MARRY v. 11.

c. (An act of) industrial or commercial union; a merger.

d. An antique assembled from components differing in provenance, date, etc.; the assembling of such an object. Cf. MARRIED adj. 2c.

The same edition of the OED also contains a definition of "gay marriage":

gay marriage n. a relationship or bond between partners of the same sex which is likened to that between a married man and woman; (in later use chiefly) a formal marriage bond contracted between two people of the same sex, often conferring legal rights; (also) the action of entering into such a relationship; the condition of marriage between partners of the same sex.

Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage is:

marriage, noun

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Even The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition - 2000) includes same-sex couples in the definition of marriage:

marriage

NOUN:
1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry¹.

Washington State is for Equality

2008-01-24T15:22:00.001-08:00

In a University of Washington Statewide Voter Survey conducted in October 2007 there was a question (Q31) designed to gauge public opinion on same-sex marriage and relationship recognition.

~~While the study has not yet been publicly released,~~ the advance data I’ve seen is encouraging.

UPDATE: 2007 results here on slide 6 and 2006 results here on slide 7.

31. Which of the following statements best describes your views on the issue of same-sex marriage?

35.23% - Gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal right to marry as straight couples
24.12% - Gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same legal rights as straight couples but it should not be called marriage
14.11% - There should be domestic partnerships that give gay and lesbian couples only some of the benefits and protections of marriage
22.10% - There should be no legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples
3.19% - (Don't Know)
1.25% - (Refused)

Key Takeaways:

The majority of Washingtonians (59.35%) think that gay and lesbian couples should have exactly the same rights as straight couples

The vast majority of Washingtonians (73.46%) think that gay and lesbian couples should have some or all the benefits and protections of marriage

Only a small minority of Washingtonians (14.11%) think that gay and lesbian couples should have only domestic partnerships with limited benefits and protections

More Washingtonians support full marriage equality (35.23%) than oppose any legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples (22.10%)

A commenter on the Washington Votes site claims of our legislators: "They don't care what the majority of Washington voters want."

Yet it seems that the exact opposite is true.

With 59.35% of Washington Voters agreeing that gay, lesbian and straight couples should all have the same rights, and 73.26% of Washington Voters saying that gay and lesbian couples should have some or all of the benefits and protections of marriage, it's evident that our legislators know exactly what Washington Voters want.

Fair treatment and equality for all couples and families.

Being stupid isn't enough, now Hutcherson has to look it, too

2008-01-15T18:33:00.001-08:00

If you are creating a web site that is going after corporations and Microsoft is your first target, wouldn't you think that you'd avoid building it on top of a Microsoft Product? (Hat tip to tiff_seattle)

Not Hutch and his AGN Financial Network pals.

I guess they just can't do without that gay-loving-traditional-marriage-hating Windows Server 2003.

Business Wire has no comment

2008-01-12T10:52:00.001-08:00

You may recall Hutcherson's original complaint that his press release wasn't published by Business Wire for content reasons.

Curious about the reason for the refusal to publish, I called the local Business Wire bureau in Seattle. I was told that they would not be able to comment and referred me to their New York head office.

The New York office made it very clear that they had no comment on the reasons that AGN Financial's specific press release was rejected. They reserve fairly broad rights to refuse to publish press releases based on their content.

When pressed for content issues that might cause such a refusal they did mention quality of writing, grammar and language used as potential reasons they might decline to publish press releases.

Having read the press release several times, I can see reasons under all three categories they mentioned that might have caused them to reject the AGN Financial Network press release.

But is it really too much to hope that they found the content simply offensive?

Oops, I think he did it again!

2008-01-11T14:04:00.001-08:00

I've already laid out the reasons why Reverend Ken Hutcherson's latest scheme is likely to fail in previous post - and they are legion.

Hutch has said he will stop Microsoft "supporting anti-Judeo Christian values" by amassing One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of MSFT stock and then putting forward a Shareholder Proposal in time for he and his followers to vote on it at Microsoft's next Annual Stockholders meeting in November 2008.

But like most things Hutch does, I don't think he thought it through or did the math correctly.

Researching the Microsoft Stockholder meeting schedule, it turns out that in order to vote the shares, they must be acquired far enough in advance.

On the AGN Financial site, Hutcherson has set out a deadline for getting the 100 million shares he wants for mid-March 2008. A full nine months prior to the likely date of the ballot in mid-November 2008.

My reading of the proxy materials over the last several years shows that in order to vote the shares, you need to be a shareholder of record by the end of the first full week in September – only about 5 weeks before the ballot. This falls right inside the guidance contained in the Microsoft By-laws:

1.7 Record Date and Transfer Books
For the purpose of determining shareholders who are entitled to notice of or to vote at any meeting of shareholders or any adjournment thereof, or entitled to receive payment of any dividend, or in order to make a determination of shareholders for any other proper purpose, the Board of Directors may fix in advance a record date for any such determination of shareholders, such date in any case to be not more than seventy (70) days and, in case of a meeting of shareholders, not less than ten (10) days prior to the date on which the particular action, requiring such determination of shareholders, is to be taken.

Is there another rule that imposes a nine month window? I can’t find it in the SEC regulations I’ve looked at. If there is no such rule, the question is “Why is Hutcherson driving people to donate by mid-March?”

Does he finally intend to pay the $30,000 in back rent he owes the school where he rents space for his church?

Or does he just have a boat or SUV payment due?

Assuming that this isn't just a scam to get more money sooner, that leaves Hutcherson and his followers just over two months to meet the 100 million MSFT share goal.

Even I find it hard to believe that even Hutcherson could be this poor in his planning.

Hutcherson Wins Another Schrammie

2008-01-09T23:01:00.001-08:00

It's not the first time that Reverend Ken Hutcherson has won a Schrammie, and it's unlikely to be the last.

He says God is still whispering in his ear.

And the voice of the Almighty is telling him to go be a mogul and smite those homosexuals.
So would Pastor Ken Hutcherson put down that bottle of sacramental wine and please come on down?

Being one of the region's pre-eminent Christian bullies, the right-wing reverend is gathering his flock for a special mission.

That idea is to have the faithful buy up shares of Microsoft stock and then donate a portion to Pastor Hutcherson's newly created "AGN Financial Network."
The ultimate goal would be that the pastor's soldiers of Christ would come to wield enough shareholder power to thwart Microsoft's support of gay rights.

Ideally, Pastor Hutcherson would like to strip away gay civil rights protections and prevent the legalization of gay marriage.
I just wonder if God gave him any other stock tips besides Microsoft.

Anyway, for his blustery biblical tirades; for his coarse and cruel regard for basic human dignity but mostly for his arrogance and disdain of people who see things differently than he, take a bow Pastor Hutcherson, because this "Schrammie" is for you.

Let's hope our eyes and ears don't end up bleeding from another trite and facile video from Pastor Hutcherson.

Hutch has a PR problem

2008-01-09T11:24:00.001-08:00

I've been complaining that Pastor Ken Hutcherson failed to deliver on the promised press release and web site, but it seems that none of it is his fault!

In an e-mail earlier today Hutcherson stated:

"The Business Wire refused to release it, stating that they had the right to do so, based on the content."

Having read it, I'd say that it was a justified decision on their part.

Perhaps they find overt bigotry hard to stomach as well.

You can find the web site at AGNFINANCIAL.ORG and you can find the MIA Press Release here.

The press release still doesn't say what Microsoft is doing that it needs to change or stop. What it does say without any hint of irony is:

AGN believes that Microsoft Shareholders would be better served if Microsoft reexamined their giving policies and explored more worthy causes that are designed to help people in real need.

Potential donors to this Antioch Bible Church swindle would be better served helping the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged by donating to other Northwest charities instead.

And there is such grandiosity of vision and language:

The AGN website will keep people apprised of the progress and news of this campaign of Biblical proportions. All existing and potential Microsoft shareholders can visit the site prior to regular voting windows to see what AGN recommendations are backed by Biblical scriptures. For the first time in American History, a single person with only three shares of Microsoft stock (worth approximately $100), will have the voice of millions or even hundreds of millions of shares shaping the moral decisions of one of the largest companies in the world.

You won't be surprised by the supporters, either:

This Biblical initiative is supported by Chuck Colson (Prison Fellowship), Gary Bauer (Family Values), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), Paul Weyrich (cofounded the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority), Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. (leading researcher of the Black Church), Dr. Richard Land (Southern Baptist Convention and Host for Faith & Family), Don Wildmon (American Family Association), Herb Lusk (Greater Exodus Baptist Church and former All American Football Player), Tom Strobhar (Citizens Action Now), and Nationally Acclaimed speaker and best-selling author, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. The list of supporters is growing daily.

I mentioned Tom Strohbar's activities in this realm in a previous post.

How is it that whenever Hutch launches something he seems to screw it up?

My bet is Divine Intervention.

UPDATE: Here's the Non-Profit Corporation registration for this organization.

Where's the beef, bigot...

2008-01-08T17:10:00.001-08:00

We were promised a press release and a web site for Hutcherson's latest scam.

Where the hell are they? Has anyone seen or linked to them? If so I can't find them.

Has anyone been able to find records for the alleged "AGN Financial Network"?

It doesn't come up in corporate and non-profit registration searches in Washington State or Delaware.

Maybe it's all a disorganized shambles that has no hope of getting off the ground.

Now what ever would give me that idea.

Microsoft Employees Reject Hutcherson

2008-01-08T16:52:00.001-08:00

It seems that there are some Microsoft Employees who disagree with Pastor Hutcherson's anti-GLBT agenda.

A group has been created on Facebook called Microsoftees who disagree with Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Church which has 63 members.

I'll mention without commenting that there is also a Facebook group for Hutcherson's Antioch Bible Church which has just 39 members.

Lame Hutcherson scam hits "the tubes" tomorrow

2008-01-07T16:25:00.001-08:00

For someone so "pro-life" Reverend Ken Hutcherson has a penchant for stillborn schemes that never fails to astound.

If his confounding ravings at the Microsoft Shareholder Meeting could be loosely interpreted as an announcement that he was "expecting", then tomorrow we can look forward to what amounts to a "birth announcement".

I look forward to the juicy details of his latest all new scam.

But if we are honest I think we'll all see that its just a tired old scam parading around in a funny hat.

Hutcherson's 2007 - A Year in Review

2008-01-02T00:05:00.001-08:00

It really hasn't been a good year for Washington State's loopiest biblical literalist.

From beginning to end he huffed and he puffed... and no-ones house fell down.

He tried to roll back the anti-discrimination bill with a ballot initiative but parlayed it into a double failure by giving up on I-963 (Failure #1) to focus on fighting the Domestic Partnership Bill which promptly passed (Failure #2).

He found common cause with some Slavic Churches at home and abroad whose members think it's acceptable, and even funny, to assault and murder people they perceive to be gay.

He passed himself off as a "Special Envoy" from the White House in Latvia and got caught - triggering requests for investigation to the FBI and the State Department Inspector General.

In league with Bishop Harry Jackson's High Impact Leadership Coalition he opposed the passage of the expanded Hate Crimes Bill, they failed and it was passed in both the House and Senate.

The principal of the school he rents for his church, himself a member of Hutcherson's congregation, resigned amidst a flurry of irregularities including undercharging Hutcherson for facilities rental in the order of $30,000 over several years.

He joined the virulently anti-gay Watchmen on the Walls organization, now tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, speaking at their Lynnwood conference amid community protest.

Unsatisfied with the failure and boobery he'd managed so far, he turned up at the Microsoft Shareholders Meeting and threatened them with dire retribution without making it clear what they needed to do to avoid it.

A few days later he clarified some of his remarks and eventually outlined his scheme, one that has absolutely no chance of affecting Microsoft in the slightest, but which could net a tidy profit from his more gullible followers and those who failed basic math.

Seriously, the man couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. Here's a quick timeline of Hutcherson's year:

Jan 20th - Pastor wants bias law repealed
Jan 26th - Ken Schram: I irritated some folks with this week's "Schrammie"
Jan 27th - Gay-rights foe finds new allies in Slavic churches
Mar 1st - The Holy War Room: Evangelicals Plot Their Global Takeover—In Portland's Backyard!
Mar 9th - Procreate or Annul: Marriage-Rights Spoof Sparks Seattle Debate
Mar 13th - Anti-Gay Latvian Group Charges Blair with Interfering in Domestic Politics
Mar 19th - White House disputes pastor's claim he was "special envoy"
Mar 20th - Hutcherson told Latvians he had "the power"
Mar 26th - This is war, anti-gay American preacher Hutcherson tells Europe
Mar 28th - Anti-gay preacher's White House flap
Apr 12th - Hutcherson won't show evidence of White House ties
Apr 14th - ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES: How Christians View Sexuality and Non-standard Sexual Practices
Apr 23rd - Principal's downfall came at a high cost
May - No one really wrote much about him that was new
Jun 1st - Is Rev. Hutcherson back in Latvia?
Jun 21st - Celebrating faith and sexual identity in song
Jun 18th - Hutcherson and HILC oppose the Hate Crimes Bill
Jun 29th - Initiative targeting gays is dropped
Jul 5th - Couples get more rights in 2 weeks
Jul 5th - Immigrant Initiative comes up short
Jul 6th - Hutcherson's Initiative 963 fails - no signatures submitted
Jul 16th - Opposing gay rights - think before you speak
Jul 20th - Rights registry isn’t end of same-sex union issue
Jul 24th - Lawmakers want to add rights to same-sex partnerships
Aug - Again, no one wrote anything new about him
Sep - Wow, two months of peace and no new Hutch boobery
Oct 3rd - The Latvian Connection - West Coast Anti-Gay Movement on the march
Oct 16th - Lynnwood Christian conference raises worries
Oct 20th - Watchmen meet amid protesters
Oct 22nd - No clashes between protesters, Watchmen on the Walls
Nov 14th - Notes from MSFT's annual shareholders meeting
Nov 16th - Pastor in Microsoft 'gay rights' share bid
Dec - Silent Night - obviously putting finishing touches on that fundraising-scam-masquerading-as-going-after-Microsoft thing

I'm going to be keeping an eye and an ear out for Hutcherson's "Oh, no! I have something *much* more important that I'm doing" excuse for failing to follow through on his threats to Microsoft.

Perhaps we should take odds on what it will be when the Microsoft Shareholders meeting rolls around again in November 2008. I think he'll say he's "focusing on getting pro-traditional family candidates elected".

It's got to be better than his tired "The dog ate my boycott" canard, surely.

Happy New Year to the "E Roy St Humpers"

2008-01-01T14:13:00.001-08:00

It's not often you find a compelling narrative in refuse, but today is an outstanding exception.

Taking a New Year's Day constitutional we discovered a discarded condom wrapper outside our home. Evidently someone started the New Year with a bang (and responsibly - rock on dude/s).

As we walked towards Fuel Coffee we discovered half-empty drinks on the side of the road where, we imagine, the couple decided to abandon booze for booty.

We also found evidence of post revelry clean-up with a bar of soap, and water bottles used to wash the pink bits and re-hydrate.

I hope that next year when they or another couple decide to transfigure themselves into The Beast With Two Backs near our home, they'll smile for the motion-sensitive security cameras.

A Humpy New Year to all!

I didn't know until now...

2007-12-23T10:12:00.001-08:00

For the last few years we have been getting our glasses from Market Optical at the University Village. HWMBO needed new frames before the benefits reset at the turn of the year so we went down on Sunday to get him sorted out.

I like visiting the MO at U-Village. It allows you to try on different frames that let you envision and re-invent yourself. Getting different glasses, whether they are super-hip and groovy or ultra professional, helps you realize that your calcified idea of who you are and how others see you isn't as fixed as one might think.

It's unlikely that I would ever have picked the frames I wear now to try on. That's what I rely on the people at MO to do - to be un-blinkered by who I am and instead see who I might be.

It was Dan who convinced me to try them. Dan wasn't working last Sunday when we went in. As HWMBO tried on this and that frame, finding it hard to settle on anything definite, I tried on a few frames that were totally wrong for me and tried to find a place to be out of the way as the store got busy.

I was standing in the small well of quiet near the desk when I saw the framed photo. I blinked and began to shake my head and then stopped, as I saw Dan's smiling face with the legend "Our Beloved Dan" above two dates - May 29th, 1980 and May 30th, 2007.

Dan was killed by a drunk driver in a hit and run.

We didn't know Dan that well, perhaps to him we were just some guys who came in a couple of times a year. Yet, we remembered each others names, cars we drive, vacation plans, and current romantic updates. He was the kind of person you were happy to have talked to.

As is the custom in our home, a candle burned that evening for Dan.

His family and friends remember him with joy and sadness.

And it seems we were not the only ones to be similarly affected.

"Chan eil saoi air nach laigh leòn."

Not Homophobic, just Athazagoraphobic

2007-12-15T14:30:00.001-08:00

In the rare cases when Pastor Ken Hutcherson is actually asked whether he is homophobic, his response is a confident smile and a practiced statement that he is "not afraid of homosexuals".

His response plays on his persona as a rough and tumble NFL player, a plus-sized black man and reduces the question to a "What-could-*I*-have-to-fear-from-homosexuals?" dismissal.

For some reason, the media is completely disarmed by this narrow and literal interpretation of the word. It's like they've never seen, let alone opened, a dictionary in their entire lives.

How much effort does it take to discover that:

Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear") is a non-clinical term^[3]^[4] used to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.^[5]^[6] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexuals, or homosexual behavior or cultures.^[7]

And:

ho·mo·pho·bia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Hutch spends so much of his time and energy opposing domestic partnerships, same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination, hate crimes, etc. so wouldn't you think one person in the media might have nailed him for being a supremely ineffective and homophobic man of god?

All this musing on meanings got me wondering what else Hutch might be afraid of. After some digging around, I think I have uncovered what his real phobias might be:

Athazagoraphobia- Fear of being forgotten or ignored or forgetting.
Demonophobia or Daemonophobia- Fear of demons.
Hadephobia- Fear of hell.
Hamartophobia- Fear of sinning.
Metathesiophobia- Fear of changes.
Paraphobia- Fear of sexual perversion.
Poinephobia- Fear of punishment.
Proctophobia- Fear of rectums.
Theophobia- Fear of gods or religion.
Zeusophobia- Fear of God or gods.

Here are a few things he doesn't seem to be afraid of but should be:

Kakorrhaphiophobia- Fear of failure or defeat.
Numerophobia- Fear of numbers.

And here are a few things Hutch definitely loves:

Autovoxiphillia - Love of one's own voice
Notaphilia - Love of bank-notes and checks
Pathenophillia - Love of virgins
Russophilia - Love of Russia and/or Russians
Scripophilia - Love of bond and share certificates
Theophilia - Love of God

I'm looking forward to discovering many more Hutch-phobias in the new year!

Blessed Ignorance in Connecticut

2007-12-15T10:47:00.001-08:00

I've been having a discussion with a guy called Nick at Pray Connecticut who posted with what can only be wilful ignorance:

Why have civil unions dropped almost in half from 2006 to 2007?

Is it because people are waiting for full marriage rights or is it because there really isn't that much demand for it?

I suspect the latter.

I responded pointing out:

This is hardly a new trend in states with domestic partnership and civil union laws that still fall woefully short of civil marriage. The lack of national recognition makes them less useful and desirable.

Most importantly, there is a case before the Connecticut State Supreme Court challenging the state's restriction of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. Arguments were heard in May and the court has yet to rule.

As a result many same-sex couples are waiting to see of they will be able to get equal recognition and rights for their relationship.

There was some more back and forth with me providing statistics showing that despite the recent fall off in civil unions, the same-sex couples who have entered civil unions from October 2005 to October 2007 still accounts for 23.7% of the same-sex couples identified in the 2006 American Community Survey.

To which he responded:

"I think this cuts both ways. If the numbers are as you say, why is it that less than 1/4 of same-sex couples have taken the plunge in two years of civil unions? Because the rest are waiting for full-blown marriage?"

Rather than deal with the limited formatting in Blogger's comment system, I'm going to continue my response here:

The numbers are as I say which is why I included citations so that you could verify them in order to form a cogent argument in rebuttal. You show astounding ignorance and intellectual laziness for someone making such sweeping statements. You don't have an argument based on data - you have "a belief".

I started by looking at the data in the 2006 American Community Survey but the problem with the data is that with marriage having been available to opposite-sex couples for so long, the incumbency doesn't give much useful comparative data.

That so many as 23.7% of same-sex couples reported in the 2006 American Community Survey have entered into fundamentally unequal "civil unions" is a surprise to many people who understand just how unequal they are to marriage. For comparison, the number of opposite-sex couples marrying in the same period is 34% of the Opposite-sex Unmarried Partner category. What these numbers don't take into account are those entering into marriage and civil unions without officially having cohabited first.

Of the 73,447 unmarried partners living together, 90% (66,061) are opposite-sex and 10% (7,386) are same-sex couples.

Why is it that with free and unfettered access to marriage, opposite-sex couples comprise the overwhelming majority (90%) of couples "living in sin" in Connecticut?

It's hard to draw any other conclusions from the ACS since it's hard to compare overall marriage and civil union statistics when they have very different benefit and utility and you are only looking at couples that are already cohabiting.

You are asking the wrong question, Nick. A better question would be:

Given that marriage has been available to opposite-sex couples for longer than our entire lifetimes, why are 10% of all cohabiting opposite-sex couples still unmarried?

When we take a look at the one year where we have complete data on per capita "run rates" for both opposite-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions (2006) and no legal case offering an alternate, the run rates are the same - 1% of the relevant population.

You further opined:

"And how much "gay bashing" goes on in Connecticut? Haven't we all heard by now that Hartford is one of the gayest cities in the US? And still less than 25% take advantage of this provision."

Hartford ranks 10th in the U.S. in population of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults with 5.6% of the metro population and 6.8% of the city population.

However, if you look at the Hate Crime Statistics for Connecticut in 2005 and 2006 you will see that they have increased dramatically in a single year. I don't think it is a coincidence that increases in Hate Crimes against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people appear positively correlated with divisive public debates on same-sex issues like anti-discrimination and marriage equality.

In 2005 there were 8 reported Hate Crimes with "sexual orientation" as the motivation. Unfortunately, 10 cities didn't file statistics for all quarters of the year so the numbers are far from complete. This is especially worrisome as bias crimes are already grossly under-reported by the victims with only 44% ever being reported. In fact, Hartford had one (1) sexual orientation motivated hate crime in the 3 months it did report for, it failed to file for the other 9 months.

In 2006, there were 29 reported Hate Crimes with "sexual orientation" as the motivation. Once again, 11 cities failed to file statistics for all four quarters of the year. Still, that is an alarming increase of 262.5% over the 2005 numbers.

Despite passing the expanded Hate Crimes bill intended to address this problem in both houses, the U.S. Congress isn't sending it to the President's desk because of Election Year politics. Meanwhile, more dead, injured and harassed gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered - oh well.

I live in the second biggest "gay city" in the U.S. (Seattle has a GLB metro population of 6.5% and 15.9% of the city) and with recent hate crimes like this, and this, and this, and the general increase in hate crimes across the country, I feel less safe than at any time since I moved here.

You really are an integral idiot if you think that political and religious organizations can use the lives, the relationships, the very existence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as wedge and fundraising issues and believe that it doesn't have a material impact on the life, health and safety of those same people.

Nick, you either don't understand or are willfully obfuscating the real issue here. It is not the number of people that take advantage of a right or legal protection that validates it or makes it just. If that were so, there would be no Hate Crimes protection for Protestants, Catholics or Muslims at all. Yet, they are all protected.

The real test of such things is that anyone needs it.

But I know that there is no argument that can persuade you - you haven't even made one for your own questionable assertions.

You mentioned that statistics "cut both ways" but since I'm the only one wielding them in this conversation, so far they have only served to make my case and revealed that you don't have one...

...just "a belief".

Revolting: Pastore strokes Hutch on KKLA

2007-12-02T10:16:00.001-08:00

In similar news, Hutch made what I believe was his first appearance on Frank Pastore's radio show on KKLA 99.5 - amusingly and, it turns out, incorrectly titled as "The intersection of faith and reason".

Hutch was supposed to be on at 5:30pm but he started late and I had a chance to catch the flavor of the station before he came on.

Imagine my delight when before Hutch came on there was an advertisement about dealing with your divorce from Duchanin Law Firm the oldest and largest in California.

"Ouch! I hope Hutch is listening" I thought. "As a biblical literalist, he must be going apeshit since divorce is a total no-no in the bible." I imagined that stoning scene in Life of Brian when an enormous rock is dropped on someone as the big finale for their heinous crime.

"No, wait!" I gasped. The thought bubble with the image from "Life of Brian" popped over my head, covering me with a sticky ironic residue. I suddenly remembered that Hutch's biblical literalism on divorce stops well short of any political advocacy to make it illegal or at least stop passing laws making it easier. Given these statistics, I can see why. His biblical literalism ends in political advocacy only when it comes to $pecific i$$ues like homo$exuality.

There was also a segment with three women who had written a book called "The Faith Club". The women, a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew, had apparently got together in the wake of September 11th to put together a picture book for children that would highlight the similarities between their religions and how their different faiths were connected.

The impetus to write "The Faith Club" came out of the many misunderstandings and challenges they found when they started talking about how to explain each of their faiths to their children in the picture book.

As "host", a term normally reserved for someone who makes people feel welcome, Frank Pastore was surprisingly obnoxious, superior and dismissive of the three women. He boiled interfaith communication down to the question "Do you think your faith is the one true path to God?" When each of the women said that they agreed that there was one God and that there are many paths to Him, not a single correct path, Pastore declared that none of them really believed anything if they didn't believe that their religion was the one true path.

"If you don't believe everyone else is wrong, you don't believe anything" sounds more like the intersection between arrogance and ignorance to me.

Finally Hutch came on with Frank making much of hearing him on Rush Limbaugh and that he sounded like a great guy so they wanted to have him on the show. He described Hutch as "a former football player still playing in the big leagues going after Microsoft". In my mind's eye I imagined Hutch getting an ego hard-on and smoking a cigar as Pastore stroked him shamelessly. Then he asked the question "What’s going on with you and Microsoft? This is a very unique idea, I’ve never heard this before..."

Trying to force change as shareholders isn't a new idea at all, people like Thomas Strohbar have been attempting this for several years. The only new wrinkle here is that Hutcherson is tying to bilk Christians of $1.1 billion dollars in the process.

Then Hutch went into his spiel saying that "It’s not the news or the homosexual agenda that's killing us, it’s the corporations that is killing us." He talked about how "Equality for homosexuals passed in Washington" and got into his version of what happened between him and Microsoft over the Washington State Anti-Discrimination Bills HB 1515 and HB 2661.

Hutch did his I-got-Microsoft-to-role-over-and-drool routine and then complained that "When the homosexual community attacked them (Microsoft) on it (changing their stance to neutral), Microsoft went back and called me a liar." Then he repeated his claim that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called him a liar saying "I stepped up and called him a liar back." I wished that I could tell the, well, I'm going to go with hundreds of people listening at that moment that in reality Microsoft's CEO never called Hutcherson anything directly or even spoke to him, he just called Hutcherson publicly on his bullshit. I guess in Hutch-World claiming that someone important called you a liar makes you important too.

Then we had a wind-up into some big powerful black-pastor-man chest thumping with "Now you have started a battle you’ll never be able to recover from." So I was personally disappointed when Hutch devolved to a strange and whiny-baby comment that “There is even a group at Microsoft devoted to advancing the homosexual agenda”.

Begin inevitable digression.

This is a reference either to the GLEAM (Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transgender Employees At Microsoft) Diversity Advisory Council, or to Microsoft's larger Global Diversity and Inclusion group which represents the all the Diversity Advisory Councils for different communities.

These groups cover categories like racial group or national origin (Blacks at Microsoft, Israelis at Microsoft, Chinese at Microsoft, Africans at Microsoft, etc), gender and sexuality (Women, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender), disabilities (Attention Deficit Disorder, Visually Impaired, Hard of Hearing), and life stages and situations (Adoption, Single Parents, Dads, Working Parents, etc).

When dealing with minorities in a workforce, there is always a lower case "a" agenda. Mainly to get their expertise to make you more effective in the marketplace, but also to get them equal time and fair treatment compared with everyone else in the workforce. I guess that means that there is also a Black agenda, a Women's agenda, and an Adoption agenda. As a proud black man Hutch obviously supports the Black agenda, and adoption is one of his pet projects he should be pleased with that, but as a biblical literalist I don't think he'd be comfortable with Women working.

Damn and tarnation, I forgot. It'$ only the gay$, le$bian$, bi$exual$, and tran$gendered that his biblical literalism applies to.

End of inevitable digression.

Then Hutch got on to his "This is not a traditional boycott. Do you know how much economic power Christians have?" shtick and segued into a variation on one of his favorite themes "You (Microsoft) don’t care about blacks, whites and homosexuals, you care about green (money)" and talked about how his plan would hit them where it hurts.

They he talked briefly about his illegal and ineffective Microsoft Buy and Dump stock scheme and complained that "They (Microsoft) had a big sell off but they would not give me credit for it".

Err, I think he's forgotten that he didn't get credit because it was nothing to do with him and everything to do with Microsoft surprising the stock market on 3rd quarter 2006 earnings and lowered earnings guidance.

He may consider himself "a child of the king", but when he whines and complains so pathetically, he sounds like nothing more than a Grade-A "Drama Queen".

Finally he got to the call to action for the Christian soldiers listening with their holy spirit infused hands clasped tight to the radio. He asked Christians to buy three (3) MSFT shares, send one (1) to Hutcherson, and assign the proxy votes for the other two (2) to him. Then Hutcherson talked about the huge response saying that "People are calling from all over the country and all other the world asking when we are going to kick this off".

Then I got a bit distracted, Hutch started talking about Genesis 11 and Nimrod, and I started to chortle and snicker. Apart from it's older meaning of a famous hunter, "Nimrod" also has a more modern context. His point being that when Christians unite "...they are one voice, they are unified, and there is nothing impossible for them to do". Great rhetoric, but for proof I'd like to see them ski through a revolving door.

Then Hutch framed a frightening question "What would happen if Christians become unified in righteousness?" The obvious answer springing to my mind was a drive toward theocracy with an upgrade from disregard for other beliefs, to enthusiastic and active contempt and violence - it won't be just for Russian speaking church members any longer.

But this is the heart of the pitch and Hutch says "We’re going to buy stock, and we are going to put the fear of god in every corporation."

Step 1: Realize that as an average Christian you can change the world for $100

Uh-oh, Hutch is starting to make this sound like an Amway pitch or a Pyramid selling scheme.

Step 2: I'll give you our web site and you send me the stock and the proxies - in 1 year we need 100m shares and their proxy votes

Then Hutcherson again doubles back on how Microsoft CEO Ballmer allegedly called him a liar and lays blame for the latest scheme at his door saying, "I spoke to the CEO and said if you haven’t called me a liar we wouldn’t be here. Ballmer started this..."

Frank ended the interview with more ego stroking for Hutch and letting his listeners know that they would be having him back on to track Hutch's progress.

Media Sucks - Swallows Hutcherson Scam

2007-12-01T16:23:00.001-08:00

Ever since his bizarre and incoherent oration at the November 13th Microsoft Stockholder meeting, we've all had to tolerate the media bloviating on Hutcherson's latest cunning plan.

All this has been happening without anyone really pinning down what Hutcherson intends to do and how achievable it might be.

In case you missed it, Hutcherson turned up at the public Microsoft stockholders meeting, vaguely threatened them with dire consequences, but completely failed to say what his issue was and what he wanted Microsoft to do differently. Here's his speech:

Fortunately, Hutcherson did an interview with Toby Harnden, the Washington DC correspondent for The Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK where he laid out his plan a little more coherently.

An advocate of a "biblical stance" against divorce and homosexuality, Mr Hutcherson, 55, is asking millions of evangelical activists, as well as Orthodox Jewish and other allies, to buy up Microsoft shares and demand a return to traditional values.

Microsoft, he declares, will be just the first company targeted in an escalation of the culture wars between evangelicals and corporate America.

The interview with Hutcherson was part of a series called Crossing America, which resulted in video posted to YouTube, the story posted to The Daily Telegraph site, and a blog entry. There is a little more to be gleaned from the video:

Harnden's piece is otherwise perfunctory franken-journalism. It takes the thin first person interview Hutch gave, and rehashes quotes from old stories which paint colorful stereotypes that the mug punters in the UK will easily recognize.

It is interesting to note that Hutcherson wasn't able to engage the US mainstream media at all. Perhaps the somewhat deserved reputation of the UK press as sensational, inflammatory and indiscriminate made the choice of mouthpiece a no-brainer. It is somewhat heartening that he had to go as far the UK to find someone who wasn't already wise to his track record of failure and media whoring, or bored with his serial failure to ever achieve his goals.

Does Harnden ask what it is that Microsoft is doing and should stop, or do differently? Does he assess how credible Hutch's nebulous plan is? Does he ask Microsoft for comment? Does he recount Hutcherson's history of abject failure in all his high profile media whoring endeavors? Does he try and put forth a counterpoint to Hutcherson? No, not at all.

No journalism to see here, folks. Move along.

In the video, Hutcherson says:

"Corporations are the number one fighters against traditional values."

"They are putting more money against traditional marriage, against Judeo-Christian values, against Christ's influence in our society than any other entities, and they have been virtually untouched. They have been under the radar. I'm gonna put them on the radar screen."

I have no idea what this means. It seems that Hutcherson has a problem with Microsoft's "promotion of a Homosexual Agenda" and is a "number one fighter against traditional values".

I called Antioch Bible Church to enquire and even they couldn't tell me what Hutcherson had meant. I'd contend that you have to be fairly desperate for press coverage to publicly announce an initiative like this without having even a high level set of talking points pulled together on what your goals are and what is supposed to happen next.

From the above video and other articles, it looks like the plan is this...

Get enough influence to change MSFT policy by securing the proxy votes for 100 million shares by the next Stockholder meeting in November 2008

Getting Christians to buy three MSFT shares each
$end one $hare to Hutch
Assign proxy voting rights for the other two shares to Hutch
Submit a stockholder proposal making your case by the November 2008 meeting

Hutch has said that Microsoft is "nothing but a feather in the wind of God". Boy-howdy, I hope that wind has a better grasp of math, the law, and business than Hutcherson does.

But just how wrong is he? Let us review by specific domain:

Math

Total MSFT Shares: 9.4 billion
Total MSFT Market Capitalization: $323.5 billion ($34.58 per share)
Shares needed for Controlling Interest (51%): 4.8 billion
Funds needed for Controlling Interest: $165 billion

Hutcherson's 100 million share goal is 4.7 BILLION short of the 4.8 billion shares needed to get a 51% share of MSFT
At three shares per Christian, Hutch would need 1.6 billion Christians to respond to his call to action - there are only 232 million Christians in the United States of America
If every single U.S. Christian rose to Hutcherson's call, they would each need to buy 21 MSFT shares to meet the 100 million share goal.

Law

Even if Hutcherson were to get a majority of voting proxies and attempted to change company policies or actions, the Business Judgement Rule provides significant protection to company boards of directors enabling them to make decisions and set policies in the best interest of the company.

Business

59% of all Microsoft stock is held by institutional, and not individual investors. Institutional investors overwhelmingly assign their proxies to the Board of Directors.

The Microsoft Board of Directors would oppose any shareholder proposals that were not in the best interests of the company.

This includes voting down anti-competitive shareholder proposals like Proposal No: 2 which was put forward by Thomas Strobhar from Ohio at the 2006 Microsoft Stockholders meeting. Strobhar is a pro-life, anti-gay activist who made similar proposals at stockholder meetings for Ford in 2006 and 2007, and at American Express in 2006.

Strohbar's Proposal No:2 to Microsoft Stockholders appears on the 2006 Proxy Statement and proposed that Microsoft put together a committee to figure out how to rewrite the companies Equal Employment Opportunity policy without “sexual orientation”.

Like his attempts at Ford and American Express, it was defeated.

So to recap the findings so far:

Hutcherson set a share proxy target so low that he has no hope of influencing Microsoft policy - less than 1% of total MSFT shares.
To meet his guaranteed-to-fail goal at three shares per person, Hutcherson would require 24% of the entire world's population to participate.
It is practically impossible for Hutch to get 51% of voting stock with around 59% of Microsoft shares in the hands of Institutional investors at any one time.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hutcherson is mentally competent, we can deduce that "taking over" or even seriously attempting to influence Microsoft can't really be his goal.

Now let's consider the fiscal impact of complete success and near total failure.

If by some miracle Hutch were to meet his goal of 100 million shares, he'd have 33.3 million shares resulting in a "donation" to his coffers of approximately $1.1 billion.

Even in an "abject failure" scenario where he achieves only 1% of his stated goal, Hutcherson would hold 333,333 shares at a value of approximately $11.5 million dollars.

He wouldn't be able to force the company to do a single thing, but $11.5 million isn't a bad result for keeping his name in the media and continuing his unbroken record of failure.

The delicious irony of this would be Hutcherson's dependence on Microsoft's success and his diminishment at it's failures, just like every other stockholder. Behold the magic of capitalism!

Hutch also needs to beware The Law of Unintended Consequences.

The last time Hutcherson tried messing with MSFT stock the only claim he could legitimately make is that he created a May 1st rally during a $5 decline in the stock. The decline began several days earlier after MSFT surprised the street by taking a multi-billion dollar hit in earnings to fund investment in emerging markets.

In short, Hutcherson achieved the reverse of what he intended. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the same prove true this time.

Shiny.

An interesting take on same-sex marriage

2007-10-24T08:44:00.001-07:00

It is worth taking a look at this response to the question from a student asking "Will gay marriage ever be legalized?" by Associate Professor of History Clair Potter from Wesleyan University, it concludes:

And gay marriage will not be legalized because it is a particularly successful institution, because it offers principles for living a life that are easy to adhere to, or because it is comprised of principles that most people truly understand or agree to. As my colleague Lisa Duggan once said in conversation, after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, “If they love gay marriage now, they’ll love gay divorce.” Rather, marriage is a symbolic realm that stands in for equal rights, so that those rights need not, in the end, be addressed through state redistribution of resources. Marriage, in other words, is not just a romance between two people, as many gay and lesbian advocates portray it: it is a social romance about what constitutes a well-ordered, and orderly, society.

Andrew Sullivan would, I think, approve. I wonder if he has spotted this yet. Does the man *ever* sleep?

I think this response captures the symbolic importance of marriage. I like the idea of a social romance about society. I wonder what the typical conservative view might be characterized as... a gothic novel?

Who Watches the Watchmen?

2007-10-22T09:24:00.001-07:00

Just like Aryan and White Supremacist groups, there is a lot of code in the anti-gay groups like Watchmen On The Walls (WOTW). It can be subtle, but not always.

Take the words of Scott Lively defending WOTW and attempting to discredit the most respected (and therefore frequently attacked) hate monitoring group in the US. In this HeraldNet article he tries to sever the connection of bias and hate that exists between racism and homophobia:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center used to be a very good organization," Lively said. "But something happened and they swerved off into this politically correct position of taking sides with the gay activists against the rest of society.

"And now they're using the reputation that they earned justly working against racism to try to work against people who are standing for family values. They're no longer a nonbiased independent source of information, they're political activists on one side of this culture war."

It sounds reasonable and moderate, but just so you are clear on the messages that he wants people to swallow:

SPLC has gone downhill because they don't realize that IT'S A WAR with the whole of SOCIETY AGAINST THE GAYS.
SPLC is using their reputation and their credibility to ATTACK YOUR FAMILY.
SPLC has gone from being a credible monitor of bias and hate to a BIASED SPECIAL INTEREST OPPOSING STRAIGHT FREEDOM and run out of Larry Kramer's hairy left ear.
SPLC have BROKEN THE RULES BY OPPOSING ANTI-GAY EXTREMISM and taking a position on a social issue

It is hardly uncommon for organizations like WOTW who are caught in the SPLC's illuminating gaze to attack it alleging that it is capitalistic, hypocritical and biased and therefore untrustworthy and irrelevant.

Lively goes on:

The Watchmen members are predominantly Russian-speaking immigrants, a multinational network of like-minded Christians who don't stand for violence, he said.

"If one of our association happens to act violently towards someone who is homosexual, that person will be disassociated immediately," Lively said.

White supremacists have long used this defense as well. The pattern is to encourage, but not direct, independent action - a "lone wolf" model - on the part of group members or associates that can be disavowed by the inciting or sponsoring organization.

There is also the most subtle incarnation of this phenomenon, the inculcation of war and conflict motifs, focus on what is "natural" and "healthy", talking about a "moral battle" for your family and "the soul of civilization".

Then there are things like this:

"We're not trying to create a theocracy," said co-founder Scott Lively, a California attorney, author and president of Defend the Family.

"But if people who believe the way we believe were running the TV stations and the government and business and academia, I think that society would be a healthier place and that's our goal," Lively said.

Here's my translation of the above:

We are not trying to create a theocracy (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

But our goal is to take over the government, the media, the education system, and the business world so we can impose our religious rules and values on everyone and get rid of everything that we think is sick and sinful.

Here is the trick. When someone spends more time telling you what they are not and what they are against, instead of what they are and are for, they have a big problem. With that in mind, review the statement recently read by Scott Lively about the mission of WOTW (full version is here):

We are the Watchmen on the Walls.
We are a global coalition of men and women of every race, color and nationality who believe in the superiority of the natural family and marriage between one man and one woman.
We are against cohabitation, divorce, abortion, adultery and other behaviors that weaken the marriage-based society on which civilization depends. But we are especially focused against homosexuality, because those who practice this self-destructive vice, and have organized themselves into a political movement, are the chief enemies of the natural family.
We do not promote or condone violence.
We do not apologize for opposing homosexuality because it is morally, physically, psychologically and socially wrong, unnatural and harmful. This is self-evident to the vast majority of the citizens of the world, whom we represent.

After having read the full statement, I don't see how anyone could question that this group shares the majority of it's organizational and ideological DNA with the many other bias related groups that the SPLC tracks.

We're all watching now.

Taking Transgender out of ENDA

2007-10-03T10:05:00.001-07:00

I've been in Washington D.C. while the whip counts and maneuvering over ENDA (HR 2015) were taking place. For those of you who don't know, the count supposedly came up short of the votes needed to pass the version of ENDA (HR 2015) that included all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people.

I've read Barney Frank's very detailed statement explaining his reasoning, the historical context, and his very pragmatic approach to politics. I've read Majority Leader Pelosi's statement, and I've read the statements from the key LGBT organizations opposing the removal of the Transgender protections from ENDA including this one from 90 LGBT organizations.

I can't escape the idea that ENDA must remain inclusive.

Removing protections from this bill would be a betrayal of people who often find themselves the farthest out of the mainstream.

We can't forget that draq queens and transgendered people were among those that fought back when the police raided the Stonewall Inn in 1969 and provided the turning point of the modern gay rights movement. Can we do less for them?

It looks like congress is going their own way on this without consultation with the broader community, the question remains:

What is an LGBT Rights organization to do?

Options as I see them:

Option 1 - Oppose the modified ENDA (HR 2015) and have the inclusive bill pass congress, but face a near certain veto by President Bush.

NET: A landmark employment rights bill passes congress for the first time and your organization didn't support it - you lose your place at the table. It sucks to be you.

Millions of GLBT people still able to be fired just for being who they are. It sucks to be us.

A symbolic victory (but not for your organization) that paves the way for passage under a Democratic President and an increased democratic majority after the 2008 election.

Option 2 - Oppose the modified ENDA and have the inclusive bill fail in congress.

NET: You get to say that you held to your principles, but millions of GLBT people are still able to be fired just for being who they are. It still sucks to be you.

You will need to weather criticism from GLB people and politicians that your organization isn't pragmatic enough to get things done.

A symbolic victory that paves the way for passage under a Democratic President and an increased democratic majority after the 2008 election.

Option 3 - Support the modified ENDA (HR 2015) and have the modified bill pass congress, but face a near certain veto by President Bush.

NET: Millions of GLBT people still able to be fired just for being who they are.

A symbolic victory that paves the way for passage under a Democratic President and an increased democratic majority after the 2008 election.

Option 4 - Support the modified ENDA (HR 2015) and have the modified bill fail in congress.

NET: Millions of GLBT people still able to be fired just for being who they are.

You will need to weather criticism from GLB and T people for throwing the transgender provisions out when the going got tough.

A double failure (asking for half a loaf and still not getting it) that risks the whole ENDA train being derailed completely.

The Human Rights Campaign, after initially making noises about remaining neutral on splitting ENDA, have finally done the calculus on this and signed their names to a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

If that makes you wonder why they missed the boat on this letter from 90 LGBT organizations even though it was released and dated on the same day as the LCCR Letter, take a look at their clarifying statement up on HRC's Backstory blog. Here's the money quote:

“Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position,” Solmonese continued. “Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill. And will continue working with our allies in Congress to support a comprehensive, legislative strategy to achieve passage of a fully inclusive ENDA as quickly as possible.”

This is what we Australian's call "having an each-way bet".

HRC is seeking a middle course. The result is a less than enthusiastic objection to splitting ENDA coupled with a willingness to "take what we can get" from the congress.

In can't decide if I'm sympathetic to their plight or outraged by their ambivalence.

It's the love, stupid!

2007-09-25T15:27:00.001-07:00

How many stories like this do their need to be before same-sex couples get the respect and legal rights they deserve?

I know that they'd rather talk about the sex and sensationalize it, but it's always, always, always about the love.

Bush Family Pool Guy tells it like it is

2007-09-25T15:18:00.001-07:00

What's not to like about this guy?

For Razsa, his job -- the only one he could find -- put him directly in touch with the very sort of power he holds partly responsible for his, and other people's, hard times.
"I look at the biggest middle finger in the world all day," is his more succinct explanation.
I ask Razsa if he has a monologue loaded up, in the event that his next encounter was at closer range. To my surprise, the idea doesn't appeal.
"What do you say? 'Thanks for School of the Americas, and Iran-Contra, and NAFTA, and shipping all those jobs overseas, and arming Saddam, and funding the Taliban?' What do you say -- 'You're a jerk?' There's nothing that can be put into a sentence that would capture the lives these people have taken, and the way of life that's been taken."

He's certainly getting some blogospheric love.

Point and Counterpoint

2007-09-24T14:48:00.001-07:00

Did you know that there are no homosexuals in Iran? Listen...

A bold lie in light of the first person accounts of gay and lesbian people in Iran. But if there really are not longer any gay and lesbian people in Iran, here's why:

What about this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this?

Given the history of torturing gay and lesbian Iranians, it must be a relief that Ahmadinejad can get some man on man mashing without the pull of the rope or the kiss of the lash.

Red State's own Mr. Darcy on Same-Sex Marriage

2007-09-23T14:14:00.001-07:00

Here's something you never expected to hear me say. There is some interesting posting and discussion going on over at Red State and I think it's worth taking a look.

A poster has set forth some reasons why he thinks outlawing gay marriage is a bad idea. He takes two swings at it here "In which I (reluctantly) endorse gay marriage" and here "My (second) take on the gay marriage issue".

When people talk about opposite sex marriage, they think about love and commitment, but when people talk about same-sex marriage they are thinking about the sex. This poster, Next93, is no exception and the probability that they are male approaches 100%. In the first of the six reasons for not outlawing same-sex marriage they say this:

1) As a conservative, I don't really see how it's the government's job to tell people who they can and can't marry. Just because I find the concept nauseating (it's NOT fear (homophobia), it's disgust (what's the greek for that?)) doesn't mean that it should be prohibited. At the end of the day, it's not costing the taxpayers, and they're not hurting anyone but themselves (or, if they are, they'll do that with or without a marriage license). And if this puts us on the "slippery slope" that leads to inter-species and group marriages, then someone is simply going to have to tell me how that costs the taxypayer. (sic)

I'm fairly sure that it's not the love and commitment in same-sex marriages that the poster finds "nauseating" and "disgusting".

The arguments around same-sex marriage boil down to:

It's disgusting, but it's none of the government's business
Legalizing same-sex marriage might kill Islamic terrorists
Cohabitation is the real real threat to marriage
Gay men should suffer from mother in laws and marriage problems like everyone else
Letting gays adopt is a bad idea, but it's too late to stop it so give them legal rights and protections like any parents
Gay men need their turn getting screwed over in divorce and family court like all other men.

I appreciate the support for our issues but not, you know, a lot.

When I go to a wedding I'm looking at the couple and thinking about how momentous and happy a day it is for them. I'm not thinking about the groom athletically pile-driving the bride in the elevator between the ceremony and the reception. When this Red State poster thinks about same-sex marriage all he can see are two handsome buff guys sweating over each other, their muscles flexing and bunching as they...

Well, you get the idea.

He doesn't see same-sex couples working on their taxes together, planning their retirement, and taking care of each other and our families as we age - all challenges without changes to federal law. He doesn't see them going to work, doing the housework, and raising their children.

And it's clear that he doesn't see Lesbians at all.

It's all gay men, all the time. It could be the tradition of lesbian invisibility, or because lesbian sex is hot to him that he doesn't mention it at all. It's more likely that lesbian sex doesn't get his focus because it isn't as potentially demasculinizing and threatening to him as sex between men - where someone is penetrated, made submissive, and therefore more feminine. It might also be simple phallocentricim where sex without a penis isn't even sex.

Hearing Next93's left-handed arguments in support of same-sex marriage, I'm reminded of an exchange between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice" where Darcy begins by proclaiming (all emphasis mine):

"In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you."

...

He spoke well, but there were feelings besides those of the heart to be detailed, and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. His sense of her inferiority - of its being a degradation - of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit.

...

He spoke of apprehension and anxiety, but his countenance expressed real security. Such a circumstance could only exasperate farther, and when he ceased, the colour rose into her cheeks, and she said,

"In such cases as this, it is, I believe, the established mode to express a sense of obligation for the sentiments avowed, however unequally they may be returned. It is natural that obligation should be felt, and if I could feel gratitude, I would now thank you. But I cannot - I have never desired your good opinion, and you have certainly bestowed it most unwillingly. I am sorry to have occasioned pain to any one. It has been most unconsciously done, however, and I hope will be of short duration. The feelings which, you tell me, have long prevented the acknowledgment of your regard, can have little difficulty in overcoming it after this explanation."

Mr. Darcy, who was leaning against the mantle-piece with his eyes fixed on her face, seemed to catch her words with no less resentment than surprise. His complexion became pale with anger, and the disturbance of his mind was visible in every feature. He was struggling for the appearance of composure, and would not open his lips, till he believed himself to have attained it. The pause was to Elizabeth's feelings dreadful. At length, in a voice of forced calmness, he said,

"And this is all the reply which I am to have the honour of expecting! I might, perhaps, wish to be informed why, with so little endeavour at civility, I am thus rejected. But it is of small importance."

"I might as well enquire," replied she, "why, with so evident a design of offending and insulting me, you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will, against your reason, and even against your character? Was not this some excuse for incivility, if I was uncivil?

I am glad that the discussion is taking place over at Red State but, like Elizabeth Bennet, I find it hard to be grateful for the mean and grudging support Next93 offers us.

If the inclusion of his nausea and disgust was intended to inoculate his otherwise reasonable comments supporting same-sex marriage from attack and dismissal by the Red State denizens, it failed miserably (just read the comments thread).

And as with Mr. Darcy's speech to Elizabeth, the inclusion of such insults makes his advocacy a poisonous gift.

Reading his second post, we can hope that like Darcy's journey in Austen's classic novel, Next93 has come to better self understanding and that is the source of his less tainted restatement of his position, and not simply better editing of his true feelings.

Scientific progress doesn't go "plink"

2007-09-19T16:30:00.001-07:00

Over the weekend our AV Receiver died. We were watching a DVD and suddenly there was a loud static "plink" and then - silence.

In the last few months I noticed that the rather detailed configuration for the receiver was wiped out whenever the power failed, even briefly. This meant that I'd have to reconfigure the benighted thing every time the power blipped. It seems that the battery backup feature hasn't been working for a while either.

I seriously considered replacing it, but when I went to my local Geek High Temple (electronics store to you) they talked me out of buying anything new. Apparently the sound quality on all but the super high-end gear is inferior to my hefty Marantz SR-14EX.

In truth, it is a great receiver and it was pretty pricey back in the day. I'm happy to hear that people who have a vested interest in selling me something new think it stands up so well.

Or would, if it was still working.

I just heard back from the repair place that the entire output section of the receiver is shot and has to be replaced. It nets out to $80 in parts and $350 in labor.

I also heard that a lot of Marantz SR-19, SR-18 and SR-14 units have been making their way to the repair shop with exactly the same problem recently.

I don't object to paying for a repair, but it sticks in my craw that a whole generation of Marantz products are having the same failures at exactly the same time. It reeks of planned obsolescence or a gross carelessness in quality. Either way it speaks poorly of Marantz.

To think that I bought the SR-14EX for it's build quality...

And to make matters worse, I also purchased an SR-19 which I gave away to some friends. I'm sure it will be going "plink" at any moment and curses will arrow through the ether to me.

Ironically, the tag line for Marantz is "Life amplified".

Not so much at the moment, it seems.

Ultimately, I decided to fix beastie. But now I don't know if I would ever buy a Marantz product again. Or recommend them - which I've done many dozens of times.

I can't imagine doing either now that I've learned that it is actually Planned Obsolescence that goes Plink.

What is "morally acceptable"?

2007-09-18T13:35:00.001-07:00

The Gallup "Values and Beliefs Survey" came out in May 2007, and for LGBT people the news is strangely encouraging. We came in 7th on a list of things that are considered "morally wrong".

It's no cause for champagne, but it seems like we are at a tipping point in opinion where almost as many people think it's acceptable as not.

Summary of Moral Acceptability Ratings
May 10-13, 2007
	Morally acceptable %	Morally wrong %
Married men and women having an affair	6	91
Polygamy, when one husband has more than one wife at the same time	8	90
Cloning humans	11	86
Suicide	16	78
Cloning animals	36	59
Abortion	40	51
Homosexual relations	47	49
Doctor-assisted suicide	49	44
Having a baby outside of marriage	54	42
Sex between an unmarried man and woman	59	38
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur	58	38
Medical testing on animals	59	37
Gambling	63	32
Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos	64	30
The death penalty	66	27
Divorce	65	26

For Christians who believe in the power and sacredness of Traditional Marriage, though, there is all kinds of bad news here.

65% believe that Divorce, arguably the greatest tangible threat to traditional marriage, is overwhelmingly considered morally acceptable.

No wonder so many religious people are spending millions of dollars and oodles of political capital protecting their marriages from:

The
DEADLY and PERNICIOUS
onslaught
of
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE *

No bigoted hypocritical boobery to see here. Move along.

* Doesn't it just sound like the title of a Victorian Novel

Late Summer Fruits of Darkness

2007-09-18T13:03:00.001-07:00

Over at SLOG Dan has a fit against blackberries, surprisingly, I had to concur in the comments:

Blackberries are The Dark Lord's fruit.
I grew up in Sydney, Australia where blackberries grow everywhere. My Mum loved gardens but hated gardening and generally lived in abject terror of nature. She ultimately got her way with a huge rockery garden complete with waterfall, pond and fountain.
And, as you might expect, being the eldest son in an Irish Catholic family the task of looking after the garden fell to me.
Did you know that blackberries love rockeries? They grew everywhere - under every rock, and entwined in every plant and tree. I’m not talking about the fluffy-bunny, touchy-feely, bountiful fruit kind you see here in the North-west… oh no. I’m talking about the enormous flesh-gouging and blood-feasting kind with long arching wrist-thick stalks and tiny mean berries.
The kind that you cut back and pull out with blood covered arms on a Sunday and have grown back before the wounds they inflicted have even scabbed over to begin healing. They grew with the unnatural vigor that only comes through unholy compacts with dark powers. Yes, I hates them precioussss.
Even though they are evil to their tiny diamond hard tooth-destroying seeds, He Who Must Be Obeyed (my guy) loves them. For his recent birthday I made him a Spice Cake with Blackberry filling and Cream Cheese Frosting which got pretty good reviews.
Yet with every bite there was this uneasy feeling and the slight metallic tang of my own blood on my tongue.
~GC
P.s. If you decide to make the cake, I recommend making two batches to get enough height and I used 2 nine inch pans for each batch to avoid cutting. I also cut down the confectioners’ sugar in the frosting by one cup (to 4 cups – Christ in a coma!)

Which is all really just a sneaky way of recommending the Spice Cake which really did look like this, but taller.

And if I ever find out who ate the blackberries I had to finish it, there will be trouble.

Australia's Chasers Go Global?

2007-09-18T12:48:00.001-07:00

Over the last few months material from The Chasers has been turning up linked on some U.S. progressive political blogs. Their analysis of Fox News ...

...and parody of CNN coverage of issues in CNNNN is terrific and captures the bias and hypocrisy very well indeed.

But their recent stunt at the APEC summit (getting someone dressed as Osama Bin Laden within 10 meters of the hotel housing President Bush)has definitely moved things to the next level at home and abroad.

I hope that the Chasers don't ever leave the ABC as it would stilt their ability to poke fun at politics and commercialism that they do so well.

Color Me Amazed: Corporations are for Same-Sex Marriage

2007-09-18T12:24:00.001-07:00

In his latest communiques, Reverend Hutcherson is certainly beating the drum hard on big bad corporations who are "supplying millions of dollars each year" to same-sex loving God hating organizations.

And in his latest, it looks like someone has finally got through to him that these e-mails are missed brand building opportunities. He has included the name of his church along with a new design. Strangely, the text in the new design is such a soft gray that they message is much harder to see and takes a back seat to the banner and the brand. But more about that later.

Who are these shadowy corporations that are "supporting the promotion of same-sex marriage" and "anti-Judeo Christian values"?

I really want to know. You see, a procession of people like me have been trying to get their corporate employers to put their political and financial support behind same-sex marriage rights for years. It seems that even simply allowing same-sex marriage in law, a rather passive act, is transmuted by Hutch's rhetoric into "promoting" it. Corporations know how these rhetorical games are played.

But supporting same-sex marriage? With a very few exceptions, they just won't do it.

Big corporations are pathologically risk averse and go to extreme lengths to avoid anything that they thing might lead to any kind of liability or negative press.

They may support anti-discrimination as it impacts the workplace since it is a legitimate business and competitive concern for them.

They are willing to donate money to charities and groups that work in our communities because they are part of their potential customer base and they can't afford to poison the well.

But corporations don't fund same-sex marriage as an issue.

It's just too much risk for most of them to consider. Not that it matters to Reverend Hutcherson and his confreres. If you have anything to do with any GLBT issue - support ENDA or the Hate Crimes Bill or Taxation fairness or HIV Care and Research - then by association you must support (OHmyGODit'sTHEendOFtheWORLDasWEknowIT!) same-sex marriage.

Let's get this straight once and for all:

Corporations don't generally support the issue of same-sex marriage because it largely has no direct relevance for their business. This makes them overwhelmingly agnostic to the issue, not in opposition to it.
Corporations don't publicly support the issue of same-sex marriage because a christo-hysterical tool-fest would ensue driven by egocentric self-aggrandizing political opportunists like Reverend Hutcherson.
Corporations may support many issues like anti-discrimination that have workplace impact internally because of the reduced liability and risk it affords them. They may also support anti-discrimination externally because of the message that sends to potential employees about the city or state they are located in. It is about competition and winning. In short, it's just good business.

This is really about corporations who do anything at all that helps GLBT people, even indirectly, and even if it is only driven by their own profit motive and not high-minded altruism.

Be on notice, if you are a corporation that falls short of Hutch's biblical literalist ideal in treatment of GLBT people (stoning) then you are certainly pro same-sex marriage in his estimation.

So when Uber-Tool Reverend Hutcherson and his Tool-ettes roll out their next hysterical and doomed-to-failure effort against some certainly newsworthy corporations, let's respond in the only way that makes any sense.

First, buy the products and services of the corporations they attack and let the corporations know why you are supporting them.

Second, donate money to your local organizations who work to keep the biblical literalist ideal of stoning at bay (Equal Rights Washington would be my pick for Washington State).

Let's not get confused about the question

2007-09-12T10:56:00.001-07:00

I keep seeing postings from gay men (mostly) agonizing over whether they are for or against same-sex marriage.

I have sympathy for the political, cultural, and religious issues that people are working through in their private lives, but I've run out of patience for this brand of hand-wringing equivocation in the public debate.

"What does it say about me that I buy into the ultimate hetero-normative institution of marriage and all the gender stereotypes and baggage that it carries?"

"What does it say about me that I'm for same-sex marriage when I've completely rejected the religion that rejected me?"

The key question that we need to answer is not whether you should marry, but whether anyone should be able to marry if they choose to. The more revealing question is whether you can support the right of others to choose something for themselves even though you would never make the same choice.

And it really isn't such a hard concept to grasp and embrace. The right to free speech is a cornerstone of free society that is we can all support, even though it allows people to say and do things with which we vehemently disagree.

We have to break the Myth of Monolithic Marriage - the idea that by getting the option of marriage gays and lesbians somehow narrow our choices to make of our lives what we will. All we get is another option and we further the broader agenda of full equality.

So even if you are vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage for yourself, what is your justification to oppose it for others?

Gays and Lesbians are "The Blue Threat"

2007-09-12T10:50:00.001-07:00

You know it's time to come out of summer hibernation when Scott Lively is out peddling his fantastical version of history and fears for the future to other nations. Hat tip to Gay Republic Daily...

For those who may not remember him, Scott Lively is the author of "The Pink Swastika" (researched and exposed as a polemic here) and other fairytales and has been chillin' with local Pastor for Prejudice Ken Hutcherson on recent trips to Latvia.

"Homosexuals have formed real political power today. They submit young people to their ideas, work in high schools and Mass Media very actively. You will hardly notice how those who speak against it begin to be pursued. It has already happened in my country, and I do not want it to happen in Russia."

"The youth must know about "the blue threat" as much as possible. Many countries of the former Soviet Union, which had been the outposts of family values recently, have submitted to the pressure of homosexuals."

Although it's impossible to tell from the above quotes from the Gay Republic Daily article, Mr Lively is visiting Russia in the guise of an "American Human Rights Activist" from a "human rights organization".

I've never heard of this "Blue threat" and I'm supposed to be part of it. Does anyone have any idea what this means? Perhaps it's just a translation error.

I'm guessing that Mr Lively just thinks "The Blue Threat" and "The Pink Swastika" look and sound good together as he travels and eats on other people's money.

Fairness, Faith, and Failure

2007-07-07T09:30:00.001-07:00

There has been much ballyhoo about how numerologically auspicious tomorrow's date, 07-07-07, is supposed to be. But I'm convinced they got the date wrong.

You see today is 07-06-07 and it's the deadline for Reverend Hutcherson's initiative 963 to turn in 224,800 valid signatures or fail to make it on the ballot. Initiative 963 hoped to repeal anti-discrimination protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Washington State.

As reported by KNDO and The Stranger, Hutcherson won't be turning in any signatures today. That's because he stopped gathering signatures months ago, allegedly at the urging of Pastor Joe Fuiten.

Fuiten supposedly argued that the "the time was not right" for the 963 initiative campaign and asked Hutch for his help in opposing the domestic partnership bill instead. Oh, so that's why he stopped gathering signatures. It wasn't anything to do with it being hard to get Washingtonians to sign a mean spirited petition. I thought faith could move mountains, surely it can manage a few hundred thousand signatures...

It wasn't anything to do with him tearing around like a dog with a full bladder putting his mark on every anti-gay effort here and abroad that could raise his profile and feed his, self-confessed, enormous ego. It couldn't have been the prospect of a looming public failure that encouraged this last minute PR hand wave of a high profile issue for which Hutcherson has been a standard bearer. No, no, no.

Let's recap Hutcherson's involvement in the Anderson Murray Civil Rights Bill (HB2661):

Hutcherson lobbied hard to kill it -- he failed.
Hutcherson signed onto referendum 65 to overturn it -- it failed.
Hutcherson lodged initiative 963 to overturn it -- it failed.

There is a pattern emerging here. Hutcherson talks a good game, but he's is more interested in focusing on the activity that gets him the best profile in a press release than he is in actually delivering on a single thing he works on.

He became known by picking a fight with Microsoft who, since their original fumble when they didn't understand what was happening to them, has stood up to and then ultimately ignored Hutcherson through multiple unsuccessful boycotts and buy-and-dump stock debacles. How much failure does Hutcherson have to rack up before the press begins to characterize him as the attention-seeking serial failure that he is?

Oh, and remember the domestic partnership bill that Hutcherson was supposedly pouring his energy into? It passed. HE FAILED AGAIN.

Anyone want to take odds on new initiatives from Hutcherson seeking to repeal the anti-discrimination or domestic partnership bills?

Bush: Governing like no one is watching

2007-07-03T10:44:00.001-07:00

There is a familiar quality of brazenness to the President's commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence.

The justice that the rich and powerful receive is so much nicer than the justice that the rest of us have to deal with.

While it might be true that nothing says "Thanks for Taking a bullet for me" like commuting jail time to probation, I still think there is a chance for Bush to sink lower and pardon Libby entirely.

It is amazing how few changes need to be made for the old saying to apply perfectly to President Bush:

"Work like you don't need money,
Be loyal like you've never been hurt,
And govern like no one's watching."

But the truth is that a lot of Republican voters are watching. Lewis Libby has become a conservative cause celebre and we can expect an insistent drumbeat of spin saying, in essence, "No crime, no foul. Nothing to see here, move along."

I'm trying to understand why it was so important to so many "tough-on-crime" conservatives to be lenient on Libby. How does this help them now? How does this help them in the 2008 elections?

I have to wonder is the commutation and eventual pardon are just ways of building the paper trail that allows Republicans to declare Libby's actions as "un-crimes"?

Breaking: Heartless Gay Conspiracy attacks Australian Parliament House e-mail servers

2007-06-28T16:05:00.001-07:00

A reader of several of the Aussie blogs where I've posted calls to action regarding John Anderson's outrageous comments has taken me to task in the comments thread on this post.

Here's the response with the commenter's text in bold:

You raise what, on the face of it, might be considered serious allegations - so let's address them.

“First, what you're trying to do is organise a denial-of-service attack on a member of Australia's federal parliament. If it succeeded you'd probably end up facing criminal charges (and if the US can haul Australian residents over there to face charges, no doubt Australia could get you back here if sufficiently determined).”

First, your interpretation of my intentions is presumptuous and wrong. My intent is to encourage Australian Citizens and voters to communicate information to an elected official to help them correct their ignorant, misinformed or bigoted statements regarding the documented restrictions of the rights and entitlements of gay and lesbian Australians.

If I wanted to orchestrate a denial of service attack, I wouldn’t be asking individual Australian Voters with real grievances to write to Mr. Anderson and send him the HREOC “Same-sex: Same entitlements” report. The scale of response that this grass-roots campaign would have to generate to impact the e-mail system of our federal parliament would have to be extraordinary. While I’m flattered at your estimation of my impact, it lacks the virtue of being reasoned or realistic.

Instead, what I would do is leverage more than a decade of experience in e-mail technologies and standards I’ve gleaned from working on e-mail server software. I’d use automated code through anonymous entry points to send tens of thousands of e-mails with the report through the Australian Parliament House e-mail system to Mr. Anderson. But what good would that do anyone? What minds would be changed? Not a single one for the better.

Second, you suggest that if this alleged denial-of-service attack were to be successful I could face criminal charges. I’m guessing you interpret this threat coming from section 477.3 of the Cybercrime Act of 2001. Much of the language in the act hinges on intent and the “unauthorized” impairment of computer systems. I put it to you that any activities where citizens engage with members of parliament on issues they care about is not only authorized use and lawful, but the most fundamentally necessary form of protected speech in a democracy. Are you seriously suggesting that I’m likely to be charged under this legislation because I’m encouraging citizens to communicate information to a member of their own parliament?

Since a denial-of-service attack is demonstrably neither my intent, nor probable given the approach and scale of this campaign, I’m satisfied that there are no grounds for the Cybercrime Act of 2001 or any other criminal statue to apply. Your overreaction does, however, leave me with some lingering questions…

Why is it so important to you that people don’t e-mail this report to Mr. Anderson?
Why is it so important to you that I stop this campaign?
Why is it so important to you that I shut up and go away?

"Second, Anderson gained a huge amount of sympathy when he and his wife had a severely handicapped child that subsequently died. By all means point out to him how his views actually contradict his christian (sic) beliefs, but if you're looking for a target for a full-scale attack, you need to find a better one."

I am very sorry for the difficulties and losses that he and his family have suffered, but I’m confused why this is even relevant in this conversation. He is a member of parliament who has chosen public life and made a public statement on an issue that is, in itself, the source of incalculable pain and suffering for gay and lesbian Australians. Where is their sympathy? Where is their justice?

It is not that his statements contradict Christian beliefs, a proposition I didn’t mention and am not even vaguely interested in exploring, but that his statements contradict documented reality. The rights and entitlements of gay and lesbian Australians are abridged because Mr. Anderson and other members of parliament like him won’t lift a finger to remove the discrimination and claim that the discrimination doesn’t even exist.

"So could you please stop spamming all the other blogs I read with this dumb idea."

You haven’t sailed close enough to a credible argument to yell ‘ahoy’, let alone made a compelling case for me to cease and desist from a perfectly lawful and legally protected activity. A really dumb idea would be letting a politician like Mr. Anderson get away with uttering such an outrageous untruth without being confronted with the reality.

If you don’t like the idea, don’t engage. If you have a coherent objection, make it.

A Myopic "New Vision"

2007-06-28T15:06:00.001-07:00

Theodore C. Sorensen, a Nebraska born Attorney and one time U.S. Senate candidate, spent 11 years working with John F. Kennedy collaborating on some of the most memorable presidential speeches in living memory. Kennedy famously referred to Sorensen as his "intellectual blood bank".

The Washington Monthly edition for July/August 2007 has an article by Mr. Sorensen called "The New Vision: The speech I want the Democratic nominee to give".

Here is the brief Mr. Sorensen got from the Washington Monthly (all emphasis mine):

We called Theodore C. Sorensen and asked him to write the speech he would most want the next Democratic nominee to give at the party convention in Denver in August 2008. We requested that he proceed with no candidate in mind and that he give no consideration to expediency or tactics—in other words, that he write the speech of his dreams.

I recommend that you read his fantasy speech, note it's accounting of the travesties, betrayals and injustices of the recent political past and pledges to set them right. Can you identify what is missing?

In a fantasy speech with no restrictions or expediency, from a mind that has collaborated on some of the greatest oratory in human history, there is no mention of the defining civil rights struggle of the modern era - the discrimination and demonizing of gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender people.

If you tilt your head sideways and squint, you might think the underlined relates to GLBT people...

In the final analysis, our nation cannot be secure around the world unless our citizens are secure at home—secure not only from external attack, but secure as well from the rising tide of national debt, secure from the financial and physical ravages of uninsured disease, secure from discrimination in our schools and neighborhoods, secure from the bitter unrest generated by a widening gap between our richest and poorest citizens. They are not secure in a country lacking reasonable limitations on the sale of handguns to criminals, the mentally disturbed, and prospective terrorists. And our citizens are not secure when some of their fellow citizens, loyal Islamic Americans, are made to feel they are the targets of hysteria or bigotry.

...but it doesn't. It's clearly about race, poverty and religion. And then in the most obvious place to acknowledge us we are passed over once again...

The purpose of public office is to do good, not harm; to change lives, help lives, and save lives, not destroy them. I look upon the presidency not as an opportunity to rule, but as an opportunity to serve. I intend to serve all the people, regardless of party, race, region, or religion.

What is it going to take for a Democratic nominee to stand up for our rights and our lives in the real world when it's clearly impossible for them to do so even in an ideal fantasy world?

And the children shall lead them...

2007-06-27T19:32:00.001-07:00

After two rather bitter posts, this one fills me with optimism and hope for the future.

Do you think it's a bad sign that only 50 of the 141 Presidential Scholars signed the letter?

Fred Thompson looks like ass

2007-06-27T19:13:00.001-07:00

I'm completely sick of hearing how attractive Fred Thompson is supposed to be to women.

I'm bored with hearing how seductive his voice is and how good he smells.

I expect that once we've been through how soft his skin is, and how naughty the twinkle in his eye can be I'll be weary beyond all recounting and ready to pitch ripe and rotting summer fruits at his hang-dog jowly basset-hound ass.

Somebody please, make - it - stop.

If you were casting a senior military guy, a government bureaucrat, a district attorney, or a guy with erectile dysfunction he's clearly the go-to-guy. I get it.

But a Lothario? I guess nothing says sex appeal to the ladies like a 64 year old republican lawyer with a hard-on for the Presidency.

UPDATE: He Who Must Be Obeyed has asked me to make it clear that I have no intention of actually throwing anything at anyone, and most especially have no intention of pelting an undeclared but likely soon-to-be U.S. Presidential Candidate with anything other than my own florid prose.

Duh: Gay men earn less than Straight men

2007-06-27T18:35:00.001-07:00

It isn't news to us working men, but straight guys seem to earn more than we do. That's according to this "Bias in the Workplace" study from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

Gay men earn 10% to 32% less
than similarly qualified straight men.

The June 2007 study aggregates finding across multiple studies over multiple years to give a coherent, albeit somewhat fragmented picture of discrimination and inequality in the workplace.

Other cheerful findings include:

16% to 68% of LGBT people report experiencing employment discrimination
15% to 57% of transgender people also report experiencing employment discrimination
Many Heterosexual coworkers witness sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace
Transgender people report high rates of unemployment and very low earnings
Controlled experiments reveal sexual orientation discrimination in workplace settings

It's well worth reading to get a sense of the pattern of discrimination. The pattern isn't so much a patchwork as a bloody great blanket smothering the joy and productivity in us all.

I probably should not have written this post after a bad day at the office.

MassResistance becomes MassHissyfit

2007-06-27T17:48:00.001-07:00

I feel the same way about MassResistance as I do about high-level radioactive waste.

I know it exists, but it's really much better for all humanity if no one ever has to come into contact with it, and we must find a way to prevent making any more of it.

I won't link to them, but I will link to MassResistance Watch who, with piquant humor, are using the same blogspot template as they are.

In the wake of the latest successes for marriage equality in Massachusetts, the people at MassHissyfit have launched into a frenzy of petulant foot-stamping and name-calling worthy of any over-stimulated 2 year old.

You know the drill:

How the Gill Foundations Buys votes
More on the corruption of the Massachusetts Legislature by homofascist money...

and this:

Romney's Socialist Health Care Starts in Mass.
Romney is no conservative. He is, in fact, a big-government Socialist...

and this:

A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps?

Ah, let's just hold that thought.

In keeping with their toddler tantrum theme, MassHissyfit has taken to exercising their reasoning skills in the style of a two year old, but without the innocent acceptance of others that makes kids such fun to be around.

The specter of not just civil marriage, but also of state hate crimes protection for Transgender people has made them lose their tiny minds:

"CNN also spoke with Mara Keisling (director of the National Center for Transgender Equality), a man dressing as a woman with his deep male voice intact. Why this person is given any credence is unimaginable. His challenge to biological reality and demands for special rights are over the top."

I'm inclined to think that the real Victor/Victoria turn we are witnessing here is all MassHissyfit's - that of a two-year old pretending to be a grown-up, pretending to be a two year old.

For those who don't know, Mara Keisling is a tireless advocate for Transgender rights and a lady in every sense of the word. MassHissyfit couldn't have picked a figure of more integrity to attack at that event than Mara Keisling, or one less deserving of their feeble efforts.

I think it's time for a new diaper, a bedtime story where two Princes or Princesses finally get married, and a good long nap.

The Gay Curmudgeon

Hutch: Upgrading from Lying to Extortion

Hutcherson Scam is DOA

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

Voting at Meany Middle School

Clusterf@ck to the Polls

Vote NO on Prop 8 in California

Mormons Against Marriage

Skyhooks alum Red Symons country music ode “Palin”

Waiting for Hutcherson’s Flameout…

Architectural Voyeur

Families Northwest on Facebook

Who is harassing people that have the Washington State Registered Voter database? [Updated]

Our Neighborhood isn’t your cutting garden

Hutcherson is a White Pride Poster Boy

“And the waters will run red…”

What is “morally acceptable”? Part II

Yours, Mine and Ours

I really hate it when I’m right

California Court rules Same-Sex Marriage ban Unconstitutional

Building Sold: Monsoon to leave 19th?

Anti-discrimination now. Equality when?

Aussie Footballer Champions a fair go for Gay and Bi players

Hutch opposes disruption by creating chaos

Christian Evangelists Target Jews for conversion in Advertisement

Curry Leaves are in short supply

Chasers on Biblical Literalism

Same Shoe, Different Foot

Christ on a Cruise Ship!

Summary of changes to Domestic Partnerships in Washington State

Seasonal Baked Goodness - Part II

Seasonal Baked Goodness - Part I

Why is Senator Cantwell MIA on UAFA?

Can't see the forest for the trees - Part II

Beware the Ides of March...

Clock is ticking for DP opponents

Domestic Partnership Rights Expanded in Washington State

Hutch: God Hates Soft Men - let's kick ass

Suck it up, Mrs Hutcherson

Can't see the forest for the trees

Hacks Hallow Hutcherson Hypocrisy

The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English

Dictionary Definitions of Marriage

Washington State is for Equality

Being stupid isn't enough, now Hutcherson has to look it, too

Business Wire has no comment

Oops, I think he did it again!

Hutcherson Wins Another Schrammie

Hutch has a PR problem

Where's the beef, bigot...

Microsoft Employees Reject Hutcherson

Lame Hutcherson scam hits "the tubes" tomorrow

Hutcherson's 2007 - A Year in Review

Happy New Year to the "E Roy St Humpers"

I didn't know until now...

Not Homophobic, just Athazagoraphobic

Blessed Ignorance in Connecticut

Revolting: Pastore strokes Hutch on KKLA

Media Sucks - Swallows Hutcherson Scam

An interesting take on same-sex marriage

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Taking Transgender out of ENDA

It's the love, stupid!

Bush Family Pool Guy tells it like it is

Point and Counterpoint

Red State's own Mr. Darcy on Same-Sex Marriage

Scientific progress doesn't go "plink"

What is "morally acceptable"?

Late Summer Fruits of Darkness

Australia's Chasers Go Global?

Color Me Amazed: Corporations are for Same-Sex Marriage

Let's not get confused about the question

Gays and Lesbians are "The Blue Threat"

Fairness, Faith, and Failure

Bush: Governing like no one is watching

Breaking: Heartless Gay Conspiracy attacks Australian Parliament House e-mail servers

A Myopic "New Vision"

And the children shall lead them...

Fred Thompson looks like ass

Duh: Gay men earn less than Straight men