Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[bgwah]

No; neither Sheldon nor Tom have indicated anything definitive. Last heard from Sheldon was a statement indicating his appreciation at being nominated for PPT (though there was no commitment from him to vote for the arrangement). Schoesler, the new Republican leader, has indicated he likes the coalition idea.

We may get some clarity tomorrow once Benton's victory is confirmed. Or we could be waiting until mid-January.

I wonder if this will shed any light on the situation: http://capitolhillseattle.com/2012/12/05/murray-to-announce-whether-hell-enter-seattle-mayor-race-today-on-capitol-hill

[Meeker]

That seems a pretty good indicator Murray doesn't think he'll end up Majority Leader.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

Yeah, but a majority of you did.  I would love your state if it weren't for your backwards social policies.

[Alcon]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

Yeah, but a majority of you did.  I would love your state if it weren't for your backwards social policies.

Instead of condescending to us and assuming our vote was based on personally enjoying marijuana, how about you present an argument for why it's a bad policy?  I've already presented one (albeit in little detail) for why I voted yes.  Or is logically defending your position more "backward" than just moralizing?

[bgwah]

That seems a pretty good indicator Murray doesn't think he'll end up Majority Leader.

Yeah...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

Yeah, but a majority of you did.  I would love your state if it weren't for your backwards social policies.

Instead of condescending to us and assuming our vote was based on personally enjoying marijuana, how about you present an argument for why it's a bad policy?  I've already presented one (albeit in little detail) for why I voted yes.  Or is logically defending your position more "backward" than just moralizing?

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs.  I had a cousin who died from a heroin addiction, so I know just how destructive drug abuse can be.  And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

[bedstuy]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs. 

No, that has not been proven.  Perhaps, there's a statistical correlation but correlation does not equal causation.  No study has come close to showing that marijuana use causes hard drug use. 

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

How does changing the law change the religious definition?  We have a separation of church and state and ultimately, nobody can force you to support gay marriage.  And really, if it's the same in everything but name, doesn't that imply gay people's relationships are lesser compared to "real" marriages. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs. 

No, that has not been proven.  Perhaps, there's a statistical correlation but correlation does not equal causation.  No study has come close to showing that marijuana use causes hard drug use. 

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

How does changing the law change the religious definition?  We have a separation of church and state and ultimately, nobody can force you to support gay marriage.  And really, if it's the same in everything but name, doesn't that imply gay people's relationships are lesser compared to "real" marriages. 

I might get to pot later, but by sanctioning "gay marriage" you are violating the religious beliefs of those who do not recognize that as a marriage.

[Meeker]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs. 

No, that has not been proven.  Perhaps, there's a statistical correlation but correlation does not equal causation.  No study has come close to showing that marijuana use causes hard drug use. 

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

How does changing the law change the religious definition?  We have a separation of church and state and ultimately, nobody can force you to support gay marriage.  And really, if it's the same in everything but name, doesn't that imply gay people's relationships are lesser compared to "real" marriages. 

I might get to pot later, but by sanctioning "gay marriage" you are violating the religious beliefs of those who do not recognize that as a marriage.

My religious beliefs don't recognize a union between a man and a woman as a marriage. I guess we'll need to change the law because now it's violating my religious beliefs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs. 

No, that has not been proven.  Perhaps, there's a statistical correlation but correlation does not equal causation.  No study has come close to showing that marijuana use causes hard drug use. 

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

How does changing the law change the religious definition?  We have a separation of church and state and ultimately, nobody can force you to support gay marriage.  And really, if it's the same in everything but name, doesn't that imply gay people's relationships are lesser compared to "real" marriages. 

I might get to pot later, but by sanctioning "gay marriage" you are violating the religious beliefs of those who do not recognize that as a marriage.

Just out of curiosity, Oldiesfreak, do you have the number 1854 in your username because that's the year you are living in?

[Cobbler]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs. 

No, that has not been proven.  Perhaps, there's a statistical correlation but correlation does not equal causation.  No study has come close to showing that marijuana use causes hard drug use. 

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

How does changing the law change the religious definition?  We have a separation of church and state and ultimately, nobody can force you to support gay marriage.  And really, if it's the same in everything but name, doesn't that imply gay people's relationships are lesser compared to "real" marriages. 

I might get to pot later, but by sanctioning "gay marriage" you are violating the religious beliefs of those who do not recognize that as a marriage.

In the eyes of the government, all unions between two people should be the same, including called the same thing. Whether you prefer them all to be called marriage, or all called civil unions, they need the same name officially. Otherwise, that implies that they aren't equal.

And as for marijuana, there is no reason to assume its a gateway drug. Plenty of people have tried it, including presidents, and they're just fine.

Our state is a model in terms of letting people live in a tolerant, open environment. There is nothing socially backward about that.

[Ogre Mage]

Churches are not forced to perform or recognize marriages they do not wish to under the Washington law.  But they don't get to dictate to the rest of us what goes on outside of their chapel doors.

Putting same-sex couples in a separate class of civil unions is a version of the "separate but equal" argument in Plessy v. Ferguson.  It was later correctly declared unconstitutional.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Churches are not forced to perform or recognize marriages they do not wish to under the Washington law.  But they don't get to dictate to the rest of us what goes on outside of their chapel doors.

Putting same-sex couples in a separate class of civil unions is a version of the "separate but equal" argument in Plessy v. Ferguson.  It was later correctly declared unconstitutional.

The only thing that would be separate is the term used to describe it.  For me, it's a languge issues, not a civil rights issue.  And besides, all laws "discriminate" against somebody.

[afleitch]

I might get to pot later, but by sanctioning "gay marriage" you are violating the religious beliefs of those who do not recognize that as a marriage.

Is recognising divorce in law violating the religious beliefs of those who don't recognise divorce? Or does having divorce allow people to get one having no impact on those who don't believe in it?

Is recognising the second (or third or fourth or fifth...) marriage of divorcees violating the religious beliefs of those who don't recognise the rights of divorcees to marry, like the Catholic Church? Or does having this right to re-marry allow people to have one recognised by the state, have one in their church if their church sanctions them or not have them if their church does not sanction them?

Surely recognising same sex marriage allows those who want them to get them from the state, to get them from their church if their church sanctions them (and many do) or to not get them if their church does not sanction them?

Why do you oppose the rights of churches to marry same sex couples if they wish?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Churches are not forced to perform or recognize marriages they do not wish to under the Washington law.  But they don't get to dictate to the rest of us what goes on outside of their chapel doors.

Putting same-sex couples in a separate class of civil unions is a version of the "separate but equal" argument in Plessy v. Ferguson.  It was later correctly declared unconstitutional.

The only thing that would be separate is the term used to describe it.  For me, it's a languge issues, not a civil rights issue.  And besides, all laws "discriminate" against somebody.

100% the same or nothing. I'm not sure you realize this, but those are the options. Oh, wait. No. There's only one option: 100% the same.

[Cobbler]

Churches are not forced to perform or recognize marriages they do not wish to under the Washington law.  But they don't get to dictate to the rest of us what goes on outside of their chapel doors.

Putting same-sex couples in a separate class of civil unions is a version of the "separate but equal" argument in Plessy v. Ferguson.  It was later correctly declared unconstitutional.

The only thing that would be separate is the term used to describe it.  For me, it's a languge issues, not a civil rights issue.  And besides, all laws "discriminate" against somebody.

Why should the government give them separate names if they are equal? Just because some people have religious views that say that it can only be "one man, one woman" doesn't mean the government should inefficiently label them as separate names.

My opinion is if it looks like a marriage and sounds like a marriage, call it a marriage. Either that or the government calls all heterosexual marriages "civil unions", but since marriage is the more common term, I'd say it would be easier to call it marriage.


If you don't see them as the same thing religiously, good for you. But the government is not a church, and should not distinguish between the two.

[Alcon]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs.  I had a cousin who died from a heroin addiction, so I know just how destructive drug abuse can be.

I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.  But I'm a 22-year-old who lives in a city -- do you really think I've never known a drug addict?  Drug addiction is a horrible disease and we all know it.  However, there are two questions here before we can make the jump to prohibition:

1. Does pot substantively contribute enough to drug addiction to justify prohibition?

2. Is the prohibition system the most effective means of combating drug addiction?

You seem to be convinced #1 is true.  I'm not sure why.  I've read the studies on marijuana as a gateway drug.  Most heavy drug users have been, or are, marijuana users.  However, that's not entirely surprising; heavy drug users tend to use all forms of drugs, and nearly all of them smoke cigarettes.  The question is whether causality exists.  You seem convinced it does.  Why?  I've read quite a few studies on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that there isn't a strong indication of causality.  Why do you disagree?

Since establishing #1 is a necessary condition to even engage #2, we'll hold off on #2 for now.

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

Churches are not forced to recognize gay marriages.  Individuals are forced to contribute to the tax base that includes gay couples...although that would be true under civil unions and domestic partnerships, and you support that.  So, if this is a substantive and not a language issue, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

If it's a language issue, your argument is pretty scary.  There were (and are) people with sincerely-held religious beliefs against interracial marriage.  Should we avoid the government calling interracial marriage "marriages" because of this?  This argument seems to obligate that the government not enforce any policies, in name or in substance, that might offend some individuals' religious beliefs.  Is that seriously the position you want to take as someone so gung-ho about racial civil rights?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The only thing that would be separate is the term used to describe it.  For me, it's a languge issues, not a civil rights issue.  And besides, all laws "discriminate" against somebody.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In New Jersey, a state that has civil unions, a number of companies and insurers are playing "language" games, refusing to offer benefits to gay partners because they're not married -- merely civilly united. They're not supposed to discriminate that way, but the fact that there's no federal law means it's in businesses' best interest to try and see if they can get away with it.

Separate but equal has literally always failed the "equal" test.

[Alcon]

Marijuana legalization by city:

1. Seattle - 74.28%
2. Port Townsend - 73.82%
3. Langley - 70.10%
4. Bainbridge Island - 69.71%
5. Bingen - 68.14%
6. La Conner - 67.44%
7. Bellingham - 66.92%
8. Nespelem - 66.00%
9. Lake Forest Park - 65.85%
10. Friday Harbor - 64.09%
11. Index - 63.54%
12. Olympia - 63.40%
12. South Prairie - 62.98%
13. Rockford - 62.83%
14. Twisp - 62.77%
15. Leavenworth - 62.76%
...
273. Harrah - 36.67%
274. Granger - 36.65%
275. Mesa - 36.36%
276. Hartline - 35.21%
277. Kahlotus - 34.67%
278. Rosalia - 34.39%
279. Almira - 33.33%
280. Warden - 33.03%
281. Royal City - 31.45%
282. Lynden - 30.60%

[Meeker]

Leavenworth? That surprises me, though I guess I don't really have any idea what sort of people actually live there. How did it vote for President?

[Alcon]

Leavenworth? That surprises me, though I guess I don't really have any idea what sort of people actually live there. How did it vote for President?

Obama 59%, Romney 38%

Referendum 74 was 60% Approved

[Seattle]

What's really interesting is that South Prairie is so high up there. That's a small town in rural Pierce County, I believe.

[CultureKing]

Interesting that Whitman voted for both Gay Marriage and Pot Legalization...

And then went for Romney.

[Alcon]

Interesting that Whitman voted for both Gay Marriage and Pot Legalization...

And then went for Romney.

It even went for Baumgartner.  It looks like there were a lot of straight-ticket Republican students in Pullman who voted for R-74.  Similar patterns in Bellingham (WWU) and Seattle (UW.)  The most extreme example was a Pullman precinct that gave Baumgartner 41%, but only voted 15% Reject on R-74.

(Students didn't vote that overwhelmingly for pot legalization, but it gained more Republican votes outside of Pullman than it lost Dems vote inside of it.  That was good enough for a win.)

[ottermax]

There were some places that supported gay marriage more than pot, but were there places that were against pot more than they were against gay marriage?

In other words what locations voted more No for R72 than No for R502?