Eyman seeks to ban gay rights

Navigation

User login

Online users

GooseKaler
Rick
agathafrye
Phil Owen
einmaleins

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis

Eyman seeks to ban gay rights

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:59am.

BY BRAD SHANNON

THE OLYMPIAN
Tim Eyman says he will file an initiative today to repeal the gay-rights bill narrowly adopted Friday by the state Senate.
The longtime initiative promoter said in an e-mail to supporters and the media late Sunday, “Politicians aren’t thinking about what the voters want. Let the voters decide.

Rob Richards's blog
Login or register to post comments

Gawd. Eyman. Pfft. Why is he

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 10:06am.

Gawd. Eyman. Pfft. Why is he doing this? Bah.

Hmm. Eyman sounds like the a

Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 10:57am.

Hmm. Eyman sounds like the alter ego of Oregon's Bill Sizemore! Still, as a citizen, this is his right. So, let's get ready to defeat him soundly.

I agree with Eyman in that th

Submitted by Deep Diver on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 2:59pm.

I agree with Eyman in that the voters should decide.

From the polls on TV, its a close vote on the homosexual rights issue, but over a 60% no on homosexual marriage. If the polls are right, the homosexuals may get what they want in the way of (rights ), but won't make the marriage thing work for years to come.

I'm actually more curious how

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 3:02pm.

I'm actually more curious how you got that giant yellow head into your post.

I'm not going to give away th

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:04pm.

I'm not going to give away the mystery of that yellow head, in that way we can develop DD's mysterious rep even further.

As an amateur OlyBlog mythologist, I'll remember this moment.

I didn't know I had a mysteri

Submitted by Deep Diver on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:39pm.

I didn't know I had a mysterious rep?

Sarah, did you cheat and look at the html code now that you are a moderator?? That's not fair!! :)

Well, see, I'm the one who de

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:13pm.

Well, see, I'm the one who decided you could have a mysterious rep, and now I am developing that rep for you further, plus claiming now that the universal "we" believes you are mysterious and enigmatic. *grin*

How did you guess that I would actually see if I could look at the html code of comments? Moi? I can't and I'm not 'fessing up to even trying.

There is a nifty trick available through our browsers, usually in the View menu. Will be called Source or View Source or something like that. Click it and you can look over the source, html for that page.

Eyman on first quick read may

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:05pm.

Eyman on first quick read may sound like he is all about letting voters decide. But he is very clear that he wants the vote to be against.

I don't think Eyman would mak

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:24pm.

I don't think Eyman would make a difference.

The homosexual community doesn't want the people to vote. Of the states which have put amendments on their ballots to restrict same-sex marriage, Oregon was the closest and still passed with close to a supermajority.

I think even Washington state would see an amendment pass fairly easily.

You definately won't see anyone talking about the will of the people through government in this thread.

Say what? That's quite a sta

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:23pm.

Say what?

That's quite a statement there, Mister. (I'm doing a bad John Wayne imitation.) "The homosexual community doesn't want the people to vote." What "homosexual community"? There isn't one single community, which one are you talking about?

If you mean supporters fo the recent legislation, that group includes all sorts of people.

An honest question is: Should civil rights be put to the vote of the people, or legislated? On the legislation side of things, we people are involved, we put legislators in office, we lobby and advocate.

I just re-read your post TFI and I think I just did talk about the will of the people through government.

But if we're going to assume

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/03/2006 - 6:22am.

But if we're going to assume that the will of the people in Washington state is in line with most of the country, including a similar thinking state to our south, it wouldn't be "the will of the people" to offer protection to the homosexual community.

In this instance, if we're going to follow democracy, it is the will of the minority being imposed on the majority.

So, let me get this ..ahem..

Submitted by Babbak on Tue, 01/31/2006 - 11:43pm.

So, let me get this ..ahem.. straight: You are with Tim Eyman in that the voters of this state do indeed have the right to choose whom they discrimate against in housing, banking, employment and insurance? This law has nothing to do with preferential treatment, gay marriage, or any of the other "hot" issues that are being brought up to inflame the far right. It very simply makes it illegal to fire me, refuse me housing, a bank account, or insurance JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHO YOU PRESUME I MIGHT PREFER TO HAVE SEX WITH. There is NO rational arguement anyone can make as to why we would choose to regress to barbarism and voluntarily overturn legislation that protects the BASIC abilities of any citizen to lawfully live and work in this society. Anyone opposed to this law should have trouble sleeping with themselves, much less anyone of the opposite sex.

Not true, mon frere. If I we

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:38pm.

Not true, mon frere. If I were to deny the will of the people in this case and not in others, I'd be a hypocrit. Or, what do you call it? Oh, yeah, a winger.

I'm pretty mixed about the pe

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 6:45pm.

I'm pretty mixed about the people using government to impose their will. On one hand, I think people should be able to decide which direction they want their (country, state, etc.) to go.

On the other hand, they start passing more and more measures deferring responsibility to the government, ultimately leading to government making the decisions on its own.

TFI, that last post almost so

Submitted by Deep Diver on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 7:17pm.

TFI, that last post almost sounds like liberal double talk..... :)

I know, right?In an attempt t

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:04pm.

I know, right?

In an attempt to avoid offending anyone.

Nah, I don't think we are gon

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:28pm.

Nah, I don't think we are gonna give TFI his liberal certificate of honor yet. :)

A thought on this though (an actual thought) is that it is interesting in general that many of us see expressing the full range of our thoughts, even our ability to see both sides, our ability to think out loud without having to have a definitive statement of one fact........as somehow weak. Soft. Liberal. Double talk and yes...flip-flop.

We could instead describe that way of thinking and expression as thoughtful. Contemplative. Well-rounded.

Yeah, my wife right clicked o

Submitted by Deep Diver on Tue, 01/31/2006 - 4:28am.

Yeah, my wife right clicked on the head and said see that's what Sarah did. Ok, so she is smarter than me.

I think this promotion to moderator is good for you Sarah, you have become a Chatty-Cathy.

Nooooooooo....not Chatty Cath

Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 01/31/2006 - 10:42am.

Nooooooooo....not Chatty Cathy! I remember those dolls. From what I remember, they'd break easily, sometimes their voice boxes would get stuck. Scary.

But, I'll take that as positive feedback, thank you.

I actually forgot about the right click option too. I'm still new at this brave world of html, I just poke at things til they get into shape. I think I even screwed up the site at least once, Rick has been patient with me. Funny and embarassing to be asked what I'm doing and to not know how to answer, because I don't really know what I just did. I am actually learning though too.

I've seen much discussion her

Submitted by Babbak on Wed, 02/01/2006 - 12:08am.

I've seen much discussion here about the right of the people to decide if "gays" should have the right to work(if they are good employees, like you), to have *places to live* (if they pay their rent, like you), *bank accounts* (if their credit is good, like yours) and insurance in Washington State (just like you have). THESE are the rights that are protected by the bill that passed, not the right to marriage or whatever else it is that you all seem to think. Would you honestly wish to live in a state where the basics of living (housing, work, banking, insurance)are legally deniable to a significant percent of the state's population based on their presumed sexual orientation? How can that be a desirable thing? Furthermore, how can you honestly believe that the voters of this state have the right to deny these most basics of protections to folks who may be perceived to be gay, lesbian, transgendered, bi, etc.? How the hell do you presume to know who IS gay for that matter?? Would you be ok with folks being tossed out of their homes on the presumtion of homosexuality? Bisexuality? Sexual ambiguity? Would you repeal my right to housing just because I am black, or to work because I am jewish, or to have a bank account because I am woman, or to have health insurance because you detect I have a Southern accent? THIS IS TANTAMOUNT to what you are saying the voters of this state SHOULD have the right to do by means of Mr. Eyman's initiative. NOBODY HAS THAT RIGHT. I choose to think that you all have NOT read the text of the bill in question and are commenting out of ignorance as to the true nature of the law and the possible ramifications. At least I hope and pray you are. Otherwise, we as a people are really in deep trouble.

babbak: a significant percent

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 02/01/2006 - 12:27am.

babbak: a significant percent of the state's population

The Fire: By significant, are we talking 40? Are we we closer to, say, 5?

Now, about everything else. I think a private company is well within their right to deny service to whomever they wish, whether it's based on race, religion, or simply because you look at a person funny.

There's no guarantee that you and I are entitled to health insurance, a job, banking, etc.

Again, this is the private sector. I think the State should remain neutral toward any category (yes, including sexual orientation).

Then again, it's next to impossible to fire any government employee, regardless if they're straight, gay, or Martian.

So yes, I'm well aware of the "ramifications" of the law.

Babbak: my right to housing

The Fire: Where are we guaranteed housing?

We "as a people" are not in trouble. The State of Washington managed to survive without this legislation so I doubt it would have ceased to exist had it not been enacted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just targeting a homosexual. I don't think any specific group should be offered special protection.

If I want to own a company and fire you, that should be my decision.

Then again, if you work in a place with a strong enough union, they should be able to negotiate certain protections themselves without the help of the government.

Dude, maybe you are ok with m

Submitted by Babbak on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 8:26pm.

Dude, maybe you are ok with more than 300,000 (three hundred thousand) gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered folk in Wa state being treated like second-class citizens, but I am not. And for the record I (a gay man) am part of "we the people" too, whether you like it or not, and you can bet your ass that I am going to demand the same treatment that heteros assume is their god-given right- but not mine. And I don't really care whether you like it or not, just as I don't really expect you to care whether I "like" the rights you exercise and take for granted. And yes, heteros are entitled to equal access to housing, banking, employment, and insurance. HOmos ARE NOT. If you are unaware of that fact, it only shows HOW much you take your rights for granted, and how little you truly care for the welfare of others.

A word to the wise -- TFI is

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 8:32pm.

A word to the wise -- TFI is the energizer bunny when it comes to thinking of hypothetical situations that divert you from the issue at hand. So, we all take turns around here trying to bring him back around to the point. Tag -- your it!

I said no class should be ext

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 8:44pm.

I said no class should be extended special privileges.

I then also said that, as a private employer, it should be my right to fire you for any reason I deem necessary (unless there are prior agreements made by your employer and union, guaranteeing certain protections, etc.).

What's hypothetical about that?

EDIT: The reason heterosexual people have been given "equal access" is because government (the mass population) will extend protection to any minority group. Yesterday it was the minority racial population, today it is the homosexual population, tomorrow it is (fill in the blank).

It's government trying to play the role of social engineer. We weren't "guaranteed" an equal playing field when we're trying to open a bank account or purchase a house.

I assume the administration will be deleting the above post shortly. I've seen it happen for less.

I'm certainly not upset about it but, if we're going to lob into open "words of the wise," I could certainly think of a few.

Just pokin' fun. Besides --

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 9:08pm.

Just pokin' fun. Besides -- it's not my turn.

Not my turn either. I'm tryi

Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 02/03/2006 - 5:46am.

Not my turn either.

I'm trying to dream up "words to the wise" that could be said about me. (Of course I'm going to be nice about myself.)

"Sarah will honestly try conversations on many subjects but not all. Will duck out of conversations when she feels the need to. Tends to look things up perhaps unduly, be prepared for links that may or may not directly relate. Cheerful but has been known to get upset. Sense of humor somewhat eccentric, odd fascination with caimans."

To address "the issue at hand

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/03/2006 - 6:14am.

To address "the issue at hand": Yes, I think all people should be treated equally.

No, I don't think government should be involved with trying to reach equality. It should not be up to government to act as social engineer.

In short, I oppose any legislation offering protection to any special group, whether it's based on religion, race, or choice of sexual partner.

Of course, there's also other issues which I raised, such as the fact that private property owners (re: companies/business owners) should be able to operate their business as they see fit.

Washington is a no cause stat

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/01/2006 - 4:40pm.

Washington is a no cause state, which means you can be fired from your job without being given a reason. This law is purely for show. I believe everyone should have the same rights, and it's kind of sad that we need to pass laws to enforce these rights. But we do, so I live with it. I don't see this law changing anything in the workplace because even if you are fired for being LGBT, your boss doesn't have to give a reason. The burdon of proof would be on you to prove you discriminated against.

To put an actual number of th

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 8:58pm.

To put an actual number of the population we're talking about in percentage, the gay, lesbian, and transgender community make-up 5% of the total state population (last census had Washington state at 5.9 million).

This number is consistant with most estimates of the national population, putting the figure between 2-6%.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: