Tweet
I finally got a chance to watch the Washington Senate’s March 10th debate on SB 5688, the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill. My transcript is below the fold. Some interesting words spoken on all sides of the debate. I especially liked what Senator Franklin and Senator Brandland had to say. Sometimes support comes from unexpected places.
Click here to see the video. (anyone know how to embed this sort of media??) Fast forward to time stamp 2 hours, 5 minutes and 50 seconds into the video to find the debate on SSB 5688.[2:05:50] The Senate President raises SB 5688 and announces that a substitute bill is in order. Calls on Senator Murray. Murray moves that the 2nd substitute senate bill be substituted for SB 5688 and that SSB 5688 take its place on today’s 2nd reading calendar. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
The Senate President raises Amendment 175 by Sen Murray. Sen Murray moves for adoption of amendment.
[2:07:35]MURRAY: Thank you Mr. President. This clarifies language that the Department of Social and Health Services is not required to create any new programs, uh, under domestic partnership as might be required, um, or conflict, excuse me, might conflict with federal law. So in other words, domestic partners, unlike other married couples, will qualify for no special benefits um, that they might otherwise qualify for under federal laws. I urge a “yes” vote.
[2:08:05]
SWECKER: While speaking with some, aah, odd sorts of understanding of this amendment, I think this amendment is a classic example of what many of the parts of this bill will ultimately do, and it will find itself in conflict with aah many of the laws of the federal government , other entities and I suppose if you want to improve the bill, you should vote “yes” for the amendment. If you don’t like the bill, uh, I recommend a “no” vote.
Amendment 175 passed on a voice vote.
The Senate President raises Amendment No. 32 by Sen Swecker. {Lurleen’s note: See “Referendum Roulette” in the comments to learn how underhanded this Amendment was.}. Swecker moves the adoption of the amendment.
[2:09:36]
[2:10:15] MCDERMOTT: Thank you Mr. President. I believe the people have voted. The people have elected us. We have been elected to come here, and with the best interest of our citizens and our constituents at heart, to represent them, and vote here, in Olympia, our state capitol. I would ask the members not to put this out to a public vote, rather remember it is our responsibility to make sure that all of Washington’s laws are applied fairly and equitably to citizens across our state.
Amendment 32 fails a voice vote. Division was called for. Amendment 32 fails the division vote count. Sen. Benton demands a roll call vote. Amendment 32 fails the roll call vote 28-19.
[2:15:58]The Senate President raises Amendment No. 33 by Sen Swecker. Swecker moves the adoption of the amendment.
2:16:38][2:17:59]
Amendment 33 fails voice vote.
It is so ordered. Debate on the bill now begins.
D – 43rd District, Seattle.
Thank you Mr. President. Let me begin this speech where I ended, um a speech on this same subject before you all several years ago. President Lincoln said, “Though our passions may be strained, they must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory stretching from every battlefield to every patriot grave”, he hoped that that chord, that that memory would appeal to the better angles of our nature. I know many of you disagree with me on this issue, but I also know that you and I have been able to work together on numerous other issues. And in many cases we have become friends. I know this is not an easy vote, and I want you to know those who oppose me, I respect your position. I understand that is comes from a deep place, either based on a concept of tradition, or based on your deep-held religious beliefs. But there are others who are straining that chord. There are others who have decided to engage in the politics of personal destruction. There are others who are using deliberate misinformation, and it’s unfortunate. Recently we saw a t.v. ad against the bill before us claiming that I said that people should be fined, fired, in jail. It simply was a lie, and I’m happy to share with you the email exchange of which that is allegedly supposed to be a part of. We also heard during the hearings that this would restrict religious freedom, and the churches, I quote, would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. That’s not true. There’s nothing in this bill that forces any church or any religious organization to do anything they do not wish to do. They claim that it will force the teaching of homosexuality in public schools. There is nothing in this bill that will do such a thing. They claim that it will cost almost 6 million dollars. In this biennium, the number is roughly $200,000. They claim that it will impact adoptions. Nothing in this bill will change the almost 3 decades of case law that have allowed gay and lesbian couples to adopt. They say it will undermine marriage. You know, I don’t believe that gay and lesbian families are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of children in this country who are in foster care. For the fact that tonight, there are more homeless children in this country than any time since the 1930s. Gay and lesbian people did not do that. Nor are we responsible for the rising rates of domestic violence. There was one mistake in this bill that was an accident, although I’m sure some will say it’s a conspiracy. In the original bill, uh, there was language that seemed to say that marriage should be, that where you see domestic partnership, that now means marriage. I won’t read you the language, but that language was removed in the committee. Let me just take a minute before my time runs out to say what the bill does. It deals with the issues of the right to use sick leave when a spouse is ill. The right to benefits and wages when a spouse is injured. >>interrupted by Senate President because his time was up.
Sen. Val Stevens
R – 39th District, Arlington
[2:22:36] Thank you Mr. President. With your permission I would like to speak against this bill and read you some calendar events. In 1974 the Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment does not require the state to authorize same-sex marriage. In 1998 the legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It was House Bill 1130. It was also called “DOMA” as an abbreviation, which defined marriage as equal union between one man and one woman. On March 8th, 2004, homosexual couples filed suit against King County seeking to overturn DOMA. March 10th 2004 Attorney General Christine Gregoire informed the legislative leadership that her office will defend the constitutionality of DOMA. April 1st 2004 the ACLU filed suit against the State of Washington. July 18, 2004 Judge Hicks permitted the lawsuit to submit a brief statement on the position within the case. July 27, 2004 arguments were heard in King County Superior Court. August 4, 2004 King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that homosexual marriage in Washington State had declared that Tacoma, excuse me, DOMA was unconstitutional. September 7, 2004 Thurston County Superior Court judge Richard Hicks ruled Washington DOMA statute unconstitutional. Judge Hicks acknowledge that the enactment that in enacting Washington’s DOMA statute the legislature intended to limit marriage to the union between one man and one woman. September 2004 the State appealed both Thurston County and King County cases. March 8th 2005 the Washington State Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in Washington State. July 6th, 26th, 2006 Washington State Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s ban on same-sex marriage. I was a defendant for the State of Washington in that case. Put simply, Mr. President, under this bill domestic partnership equals marriage and I would like to read further from the bill. The bill clearly states 100 times the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin and family shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships. By any other words, Mr. President, this is same-sex marriage. Let is not be a mistake, that is exactly what is happening here this evening. We are passing the overturning of DOMA. Thank you Mr. President.
Sen Swecker
R – 20th District, Rochester
Ahh thank you Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate I arise in opposition to Senate Bill 5688. Supporters of this legislation have been candid about their ultimate goal to make same-sex marriage legal in our state. In fact this year they offered Senate Bill 5674 that they acknowledged would legalize gay marriage. And so the question is, why are we dealing with this bill at this time. Because even as the supporters of this legislation have acknowledged, the people of our state are not ready for same-sex marriage. And so, we are voting on a bill that has been described by proponents and the media as everything but marriage. Yes, it would expand domestic partnerships to include some 180 additional rights. But that’s not the biggest impact of this bill. The biggest impact will come from the language that was repeated over 180 times in the bill, I think the prior senator, uh, quoted that language. In short, the bill defines domestic partnership as marriage. After the courts get through with it, this may be the last vote we ever have on homosexual marriage. This bill would take us right up to the line, and possibly over that line, between traditional marriage, and marriage as defined in this law. I urge a “no” vote on the bill.
Sen. Joe McDermott
D – 34th District, Seattle
Thank you Mr President. Last year I stood on this floor and told you that the first time I saw a same-sex couple stand before their family, their friends and their community and pledge their lives, their love to one another, it was in a small chapel on the Palouse. In the last year I’ve been back to that chapel Mr President, to see another couple renew their vows on their 25th anniversary. The difference: the second couple was a opposite-sex couple. Over the last 2 years, the legislation we have adopted in this legislature has started to treat those types of couples similarly, expanding the rights of domestic partnerships, and beginning to give them the benefits, and the rights and responsibilities of marriage – vital protections all couples need. We continue that work tonight by expanding the domestic partnership, um, benefits and responsibilities to be all of those under current Washington state law for marriage. These include pension benefits, unemployment benefits and insurance claims. Mr. President, these rights have never been as important as they are today as families face record jobless rates, historic economic insecurity around our state. Now more than ever, all Washington families must enjoy the same protections under our state law. And let me too emphasize what this bill is not. It does not impact free speech. It does not mandate anything be taught in schools. It does not require private employers to treat citizens who are members of, who are registered domestic partners the same as they treat their married employees. And it doesn’t require religious groups to recognize any relationship. But is does provide real security for Washington families. All of our families deserve the same protections, especially at this time. Thank you Mr President.
[2:29:24]
Sen. Rosa Franklin
D – 29th District, Tacoma
Thank you Mr President. Well, I don’t view this as marriage, this bill. And I will tell you when I’m sitting here and I ask myself over and over again, when we stand before the judgment seat, we will be asked, how did you treat your neighbors? Did you feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? House the homeless? Accord the same rights, human rights, to those who are of the same sex? Who love each other. That’s is where I am coming from. To me, it is not marriage. Everyone knows that I do not support marriage. I do support equal rights for same sex couples. Again, and I repeat. When we stand before the judgment seat, we will be asked: How did you treat your neighbors? Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the naked? Did you house the homeless? Did you love your brothers and your sisters as yourself? And did you treat same-sex couples who love each other with dignity, honor, and give them the same human rights as each of us have? I support this bill, and power to you.
[2:31:43]
Sen. Pam Roach
(R- 31st District, Auburn)
First let me say how much I appreciated the comments of Senator Murray I don’t know what district you’re from, you’re so down, uh, down in the the area of downtown Seattle, I have no idea. But I appreciated your opening remarks and feel the same. I have good feelings between Senator McDermott and yourself and myself, and uh, I’ve only hired one attorney in my life and he’s a gay man that I’ve trusted with a lot of my personal affairs, and I appreciate that. The issue for me is not even a religious one, it is a tradition one, it is a traditional one, and I think that I feel a great deal of responsibility to represent the people of my district. Ehm, I think the majority feel the same that I would, in terms of protecting the tradition. One of the things I think about the people of the State of Washington is, they like to be involved themselves on very important votes, and so I was disappointed, although I knew the outcome, ah what it would be, when we did not support an amendment to allow vote of the people, to have this kind of debate, public debate, among the voters that would come by such an amendment. I don’t know what the future holds, if there’ll be a referendum held. I suspect there are some that are talking about that, I’m not particularly a part of it myself, but I think that the voters should have a say in important issues that involve tradition and religious beliefs. I think um that tonight ah may be, I think the speaker from the 20th district is right, I think this may be the last vote, and so the senator from Tacoma must know that there won’t ever be a chance to stand up for marriage if this isn’t regarded as that vote, because it is. Ah the courts will go from here, um. So anyway, I’ll be voting “no” on final passage on the bill and uh, there’ll be three republicans from our caucus who’ll be voting for the bill. And I think that’s important that the public know that, because it is uh, it is not completely a, um, unfortunately uh we don’t have a solid base in our own caucus to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. And I think that some will say that’s great, some will say gee what happened to uh uh, because they couldn’t even h-hold on a basic issue like this where the core of republican voters tend to be more conservative. So I’ll be voting “no” on it and hope to continue to good relationship that we’ve had, and I see the head, the head shaking yes and thank you very much for that.
[2:34:33]
Sen. Kevin Ranker
(D – 40th District, Friday Harbor)
Thank you Mr. President. I rise in very strong support of this bill. To treat people with civility, to treat people with respect, to treat people with kindness, and to treat people with equality is something that I, and I believe all of us, strive for as leaders of this great state. I recognize and I acknowledge that some of you have differences with my opinion on this issue. And I acknowledge that those are very deep, personal feelings for many of you. But our country, and our state, provide certain rights to married couples, and I believe very strongly that to not provide those rights to all loving couples is discrimination. We must. act. on this. We must. support this bill. It is about equal rights, it is about equality, it is about fairness, and it is about love. Please join me in supporting this bill.
[2:35:46]
Sen. Janea Holmquist
R – 13th District, Ephrata
Thank you Mr. President. Ladies & Gentlemen of the Senate and with due respect to all of my colleagues, I also rise in opposition to senate bill 5688. Mr President, I also expect that this will be the last vote we will ever take on domestic partnerships, as the gentleman in the 20th first mentioned. Because if this bill becomes law, what’s left? Simple: to legalize same-sex marriage. And Mr. President, even supporters of this measure have admitted that the people of this state are not ready for same-sex marriage. Yet this bill before us includes language that says domestic partnerships are eq-ual to marriage. So in my mind it gets around DOMA, the defense of marriage act to in essence institute same-sex marriage. And if passed this bill will alter the historical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by creating a legal equivalent to traditional marriage. Now according to organizations such as the Washington Values Alliance, as a result, the state will likely be subjected to lawsuits by same-sex partners demanding the courts impose same-sex marriage, as happened recently in California prior to Proposition 8. So one concern is that the Washington Supreme Court would use the California court’s rationale and precedent to overturn Washington’s DOMA via judicial fiat. Now in, in my personal perspective, same-sex couples have a right to form meaningful relationships. But I don’t think they have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. I’ll also mention that this bill before us increases spending. Uh while the proponents delay implementation, trying to reduce the fiscal impact, this still has over a million dollar hit to state funds, and it increases that hit to almost $2.5 million in the 2013-15 biennium. So at a time when we are cutting programs that could leave our most vulnerable without health care and other necessities, we should not increase spending. In conclusion Mr President, let me be clear: this bill redefines marriage by creating a legal equivalent to traditional marriage. And the family is the fundamental unit of society, and if we alter marriage, we alter the family. If we alter the family, we alter our children. And if we alter our children, we alter this state’s future. It increases spending at a time when we need live within our means, it doesn’t allow the people of Washington to have a say on this because we did not get that referendum, and, oh, have I mentioned, it’s an Initiative 960 bill. And I would urge a “no” vote. Thank you Mr. President.
[2:38:44]
Sen. Adam Kline
(D – 37th District, Seattle)
Thank you Mr. President. One thing I can’t help but notice, and I think most of us will notice, is the level of discourse tonight. It is much different than it has been on earlier iterations of this bill. We’re standing here, talking with each other civilly. There is no great histrionics, there’s no great outcry. Uh, I don’t think western civilization is going to crumble as a result of what we’re doing tonight. And I want to point out that a former colleague of ours, uh, a gentleman from Renton, former leader of the republican caucus in this body, put it perfectly when he voted in favor of a earlier iteration of this bill some years back. He said this bill is about whether it’s ok to be gay in the State of Washington. I couldn’t encapsulate that phrase any better than he did. And I think the level of discourse being as quiet and calm and rational as it is, is our recognition that it is ok to be gay in the State of Washington, in the Year of our Lord, 2009. Thank you.
[2:40:02]
Sen Claudia Kauffman
(D – 47th District, Kent)
Thank you Mr. President. I stand in favor of this, of this bill, senate bill 5688 because it is about equality. And how can you put a price tag on equality um when people have been, there has been inequity for years and years. But now we cannot sit and say we cannot do this because it costs too much money. And I know a bit about inequities in life. I know a bit about challenges in life. I know a bit about the history of this bill: domestic partnership includes not only gay and lesbian couples, but it also includes opposite-sex couples, elderly couples who coming together who do not marry. That also impacts this. This does not alter my lifestyle. This does not alter my future or my children’s lifestyle. This provides opportunities, and I urge your support.
[2:41:12]
Sen. Dale Brandland
(R – 42nd District, Bellingham)
Thank you Mr. President. I actually wasn’t going to speak until it was stated that there are 3 republicans that are going to vote for this bill. Well I wanna tell you, and I wanna tell everyone in this state that I’m one of ‘em. And I have been there, and I have voted for this bill, I believe this is the 3rd time. And I think everybody deserves an explanation. I think that this is about equal rights, this is about equality. I believe people that are gay are born gay. I don’t think that that’s something that you learn. And if you understand that, then I don’t think it’s incomprehensible that you would suspect that if you are gay that you are going to have feelings for other people. And if you have those feelings, I believe you are entitled to certain rights. I’m sorry to disappoint my comrades over here, but for me this is, this is a very strong belief for me. It would be very easy for me to just say ok, ’cause there’s only 18 of us [Senate republicans] and 31 of you. But I think this is the right thing to do. I’ve felt that all along, and I have not changed my beliefs. I’ll be voting for it.
Sen Murray
Thank you Mr. President. To close debate, first let me thank you all for um, your very thoughtful comments. The good member from the 20th was correct when she described the process that the courts went through when they ruled DOMA constitutional. The courts also said the legislature offered gay and lesbian citizens of this state a remedy, and that’s what we’re doing with this bill. The language in this bill is similar to all the other states who have domestic partnership, um, laws. They have domestic partnership, they don’t have marriage. You know, the comment was made about the children, and I think we are all concerned about our children’s future. And I wish and I hope that you have the opportunity at some point to meet some of, um, the families in my district and their children. Maybe my seat mate and his partner and their new son. But this bill isn’t about marriage. I wish it was. I wish it was for the police officers who testified and protect us, I wish it was for the young men and women I have met who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. But it isn’t. I wish it was, for after 18 years for Michael and me that we could finally get married. But we still won’t be able to. This piece of paper will be useless when we cross into Idaho or Utah or anywhere else. I wish it was, but it isn’t. That DOMA lay, that unfortunate in my opinion reprehensible law still stands. So this body chose to deny us the right to marry. And as I have said before, you have denied us that right, but do not deny us the right to care for our families and to build our lives. I ask you to consider who our families are, and to vote for this bill. Thank you.
2SSB 5688 passed on a roll call vote 30-18. The bill was immediately transmitted to the House of Representatives.
20 Comments
Thank you for posting this, I am so glad this passed, but I get a great laugh when I read Shit like this,
This garbage came from Sen. Janea Holmquist R – 13th District, Ephrata. I am not sure how two gay guys or two lesbians being DPed or Legally Married is going to alter her family. If this does do anything it helps solidify a Family. I just hope her prediction comes true,
What’s left? Same Sex Marriage. OH she does send out such positive vibes to me, and kicks the balls of her supporters. Which gives me hqppy Thoughts
Referendum Roulette: Swecker’s Amendment 32I just have to point out the preciousness of Sen. Swecker trying to give The Washington Hate Coalition a state subsidy by trying to amend the DP bill to automatically require a public referendum. What do I mean by state subsidy? Well, as Ken Hutcherson and his young friend Backholm have already explained, getting enough signatures this year for a referendum will be very difficult and expensive, if it is even possible. This is because the number of valid signatures required to get a referendum on the ballot is 4% of voter turnout at the last major election, and turnout was huge for the presidential election. They would need about 120,000 valid signatures, and would have only 90 days to collect them. Swecker’s amendment would have relieved The Washington Hate Coalition of the costs, work and gamble of embarking on this fools errand.
No wonder the senators opposing the DP bill were rending their garments over the failure of the amendment.
Oh, and a gamble it would be indeed. University of Washington’s Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality conducts the well-respected Washington Poll of voters on numerous issues. Would you spend your resources on a referendum with poll numbers like these?
In other words, 59% of voters support what we’re getting with the DP Expansion Bill, or better. Significantly, only Gary Randall is talking up a referendum. Hutcherson and Backholm crunched the numbers and threw in the towel long ago. Larry Stickney and others remain silent on how many of their precious resources they are willing to bet on Referendum Roulette.
In my opinion,it is mostly closet cases who fear that they won’t be able to contain their true selves any longer if society is no longer repressive enough. I remember a guy who was with an anti-equality group of Pentecostals who came to stand amongst we pro-equality people on the steps of the MA State House a few years ago. He told me that literally, all procreation would stop if gay couples could get married (he apparently was unaware of the fact that we were already were marrying at that point). But after he said that, he just sorta hung out with us. Seemed clear to me that the guy was personally conflicted. Naah, it was just the donuts we let him scarf. Yeah, that was it.
” JUMPING THE BROOM – GOOD ENOUGH FOR “QUEERS”
Please know that I do NOT, do NOT, appreciate less than equal legal instruments such as Registered Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions.
Historical information about the heterosexual Black Civil Rights Movement – ( so called because some blacks oppose the comparison with gays, yet they always forget to mention that blacks are also gay or lesbian.)–seems to not inform the triangulating, centrist and pragmatic gay “activists” who think like the Blacks who sold Plessy v Ferguson and Jim Crow to their own community.
Reactionary homophobes always suggest RDP or CU’s when they want to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. They understand history, and why it took until 1954 to get Brown v Board and then until 1965 to give it the true force of law, and until 1967 to end miscegenation or bi-racial marriage bans for straights with Loving v Virginia.
They would like to give us anti-sodomy legislation, and repeal anything that smarts of their heterosexist hegemony on civil marriage. Their misuse of the ” religious ceremonial option” in marriage, or rather their lies about the spiritual dominance of a civil and secular document, makes them provide the Jim Crow laws that once subjugated straight black citizens.
Look at CT and how long it took them to get civil marriage. Look at NH and the ” Conservadems and Republican” coalitions prohibiting the Civil Unions to change to Civil Marriage. Look at VT and their fight after a decade with many conservative Democrats joining Republicans to promote the Catholic – Fundamentalist alliance against us.
So – do NOT expect me to HOLLAR LIKE A QUEEN IN HEAT when I hear that some Reactionary Homophobe votes for RDP or CU inferior legal instruments.
The CONNECTICUT defendants NEVER GOT CIVIL UNIONIZED OR REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERED. Like us, they have kids, but knew that it was an attempt to deny full and equal rights.
HAVE SOME COJONES, IF YOU HAVE NONE, GROW SOME, OR BORROW SOME FROM THE BRAVE LESBIANS WHO FOUGHT FOR ALL OF US TO GET FULL CIVIL MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN TWO STATES.
OMNIBUS BILLGreat. But talk is VERY cheap. When something like an OMNIBUS BILL passes I’ll advocate tax compliance again, but until then “fuck the I.R.S.” (hating hets and the gays who empower them by not revolting can pay taxes)
EQUALITY & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT (OMNIBUS EQUALITY BILL)
http://www.equalitygiving.org/…
Which senator are you reacting to?
Votes, not talk.The DP Expansion Bill passed in the WA state senate overwhelmingly. This wasn’t just idle conversation at the bus stop, this was pre-vote floor debate.
There is an embed codebut I can’t get it to work either.
I was struck with the comments made from my neighbor to the north, Dale Brandland (R-Bellingham). Sometimes a Republican gets it (I know!).
Brandland was great.I also really loved Franklin. Even though she says she doesn’t support marriage, she made the point so beautifully how the “Christians” who oppose this bill are full of BS. Really great stuff. Power to you too, Senator Franklin.
Val Stevenscracked me up. . .off base and out of touch with even Her Arlington constituents.
But, with the WA State Senate this one comes down to Ed Murray, who really takes the fundie arguments & puts it into plain language that even the east staters can understand.
Franklinreally summed it up with a personal note.
sorry . . .I know this isn’t a Washington State blog.
BUT. . .It’s also important to know that. . .directly after the vote on DP, that the bill adding gender identity to state laws was 5952. .the bill adds the term to State law.
Joe McDermott deserves big kudos. .2:48ish. . .no seriously watch it.
definitely worth restating!also interesting to me is that some people voting against 5568 voted for 5952. this included Pam Roach. a few related details here.
She managed to fool meThe way she was talking I thought she would go and say that until WA calls it marriage, it is far short of marriage, but then she said “no marriage” for you….
I think that’s the general trend in the USI think people in general are first comfortable to give protections to transgender folks before they get comfortable affording a same-sex couple the rights of marriage, and only then to marriage.
solely my impressionI have no numbers (yes, I am too lazy to search) to back me up.
she’s getting there
could be, i don’t have the numbers either.what fascinates me about including gender id/exp in the hate crimes bill in washington is the apparent utter lack of opposition. as we’re hearing in other states like massachusetts and new hampshire and virtually every other state i’ve been aware of, the religious right is out there screaming “transvestites will rape my little suzie in the ladies room!!!” but not here in washington. if anyone has any insight into why things should be going so smoothly here and not elsewhere, i’m curious to hear. i was wondering if people weren’t putting up a fuss here due to the fact that several brutal anti-trans beatings have happened recently to students on washington state university campuses, and so there would be a shame factor in vocally opposing the bill that there wouldn’t be if, say, the victims had been prostitutes beaten up in bars. (not that i value anyone less for being a prostitute or in a bar, but the righties sure would blame them for their own beatings under those circumstances, as we know).
Brandland’s an interesting one…Back in February my university had our student lobby day in Olympia. My particular group of four students went to see Brandland first. He listened to our spiel calmly and considerately, then proceeded to tell us that our concerns (keeping tuition low as the best form of financial aid and a few other things) were not his main concerns, but that if he could vote for them without taking money away from his main issue (rights of the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill) he would certainly vote for it.
His speech in this particular debate fits well with my knowledge of his character from my brief encounter with him. He’s not my representative, but honestly, bravo to him.