The Moderate Washingtonian

Outlook on politics and elections in the state of Washington from an overall centrist viewpoint. My views tend to be libertarian in nature, but at the same time are largely nonpartisan.

27 January 2006

Senate victory and the bellyaching in defeat

In case you hadn't heard, the state Senate passed HB 2661 today, with amendments, by a margin of 25-23 (Sen. Bob McCaslin of Spokane Valley was absent). The House must vote again on the bill to send it to Gov. Gregoire, to accept the Senate amendments. This culminates decades of work by gay rights supporters and more recently by Rep. Ed Murray [D-Seattle], extending non-discrimination rights to gays and lesbians statewide (some cities already had such laws passed). While I'm extremely happy to see this finally pass, and for once am happy that Chris Gregoire occupies the governor's office, I can't help but chuckle at the reaction of the opposition in loss. First, Sen. Val Stevens [R-Arlington] claims, "this is a very sad day for the state of Washington." Yes, Senator Stevens, i'm sure you'll be up late each and every night damning the day that I can't be fired from work for the gender of my significant other. So unfair, I know. Second, and even more ludicrous, is Sen. Bob Oke [R-Port Orchard] in voting against these basic protections despite supposedly having a lesbian daughter, based on the oft-mentioned biblical (Old Testament, mind you) condemnation of homosexuality. Judge not lest ye be judged, Senator. Only those without sin should cast the first stone.

Amazing, even us deviants can read that thing.

4 Comments:

At 11:02 PM, Blogger Will said...

Thanksgiving in the Oke household is going to suck.

 
At 7:38 AM, Blogger TMW said...

If his daughter is lucky, she may be able to give thanks for not having a shitty mother.

 
At 1:54 PM, Blogger Will said...

What I think is really weird about this whole gay/lesbian debate is how most of the GOP thinks a person chooses to be gay, which is the foundation of their rationale for allowing discrimination. I mean, why would anyone choose to be gay? Seems like a whole lot of trouble. You can't get married, you have to get a lawyer for all sorts of things straights take for granted, and you're only welcome in certain parts of the state (big cities like Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and in college towns like Walla Walla, Bellingham, etc.) I imagine their are a lot of small town/ rural gay/lesbian couples who don't go in to town *together* (I knew one such couple who live in Sen. Val Stevens district.) Not to mention the Log Cabin Republicans, folks who are gay yet are more conservative than you are! Also, Jim West, for cying out loud! If I were Sen. Lisa Brown, (who's great speech was all about how "gays and lesbians are among us, doing lots of jobs, and you don't know they're even gay." Well, the GOP Senate leader was gay, and none of those folks had an inkling it seems.

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger TMW said...

I agree. What's the point of choosing something that gives you a hell of a lot more trouble and less rights? Even the Republican theory is flawed -- in my mind, the theory that one chooses their own religion is on much more solid footing than choosing their sexuality, and it too is, rightly, included in the non-discrimination laws.

To be completely honest, ten years ago I probably would have considered myself a Republican, albeit a liberal one, in the mold of a Rudy Giuliani or a Dan Evans. However, the current GOP sucks so bad that I want little to do with them, aside from still voting for the good ones. I guess that sort of thing comes with being independent-minded.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home