I don’t see a refuation to the claims made…If he actually wants the state to get out of the marriage business, then these are fair criticisms. Part of the reason for the existence of marriage is to protect people, both during the relationship, and if the relationship ends.
Also, if he wants the state to get out of the marriage business — does that mean he’s opposed to allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry?

Every State has it’s own . . .I respect Lurleen concerning Washington State politics, however . .
Can anyone explain why this minor legislative race in Washington State has become more relevant to PHB and/or why it deserves such prominence on the day of elections?
Yep it’s important. . .and as a Washington State resident it is relevant, so perhaps I answer my own question.
Every State has it’s own Larry Stickney.

Sen. Tom 100% supports marriage equalityIn that quote above he is just expressing his appreciation for the system used in some other countries where clergy are not involved in conducting civil marriages.  In such systems, everyone goes to a justice of the peace to get teh civil marriage (the legal contract).  Then those who are religious can go ahead and get a religious marriage if they want to, but that step has no legal weight.  He wishes the civil marriage were called “civil union” for all couples, both gays and straight, and the religious blessing or ceremony to be called “marriage”.  
But again, this is just Sen. Tom dreaming of how it would be if he could make it so.  Nobody has any plans to try to reform the marriage system like this.  Under the actual system that we have today, he is 100% in support of marriage equality.

Actually, you can go lower…Actually, this isn’t as low as you can go.  You can win the presidency with an overwhelming popular vote for change with promises of repealing DADT and support for marriage equality and then on the day of your inauguration have a gay basher give your invokation and then continue to keep lgbt people in second class status for the next two years, attacking any attempt to press for action and ridiculing oppressed people.  You can make a video telling gay kids “it gets better” at the same time as you refuse to do anything to actually make it better.  If Tom supports marriage equality, he’s in the wrong party.  LGBT people have no political party in either Olympia or in Washington DC.  If we did, we’d be equal already.  Instead, we’re told we have to vote for a Senate candidate who voted for DOMA because “at least she’s not a Republican.”
When LGBT organizations fuse with political parties, LGBT end up losing.  You can’t hold politicians accountable when you’re campaigning for them.  

We frequently write about local campaignsThere is nothing new about PHB covering anti-LGBT campaigning in a state- or even local-level race.  You say “Every State has it’s own Larry Stickney.”  If we and others didn’t report on such people, how would you or anyone know that?  

Re:All he is saying is that everyone should get civil unions per default. And that marriages should be strictly religious.
He then goes on to say that this is what some European countries do. That’s not correct however. As said above, those countries just make a clearer distinction between civil and religious marriages. People are required to have a civil ceremony and then can opt to have a religious ceremony in church later. The civil ceremony is still a marriage however – with the same legal and social status.

Not surprised!Of course the GOP would resort to a low like this.
I only hope that most of those people had already mailed in their ballots!

there are49 other States, and yes it’s frustrating that we don’t have people to report on all the Stickneys and Randalls. . .
There’s only so much space given on the internets and I’m wrong again. . .Washington State legislative politics are much more important than anything else. . .I forgot.

please feel free to contribute your own diarieson LGBT- or race-related politics in your state.  

That would be niceif those posts didn’t get deleted, or if I didn’t get messages sent to my personal email asking my why I’m “bent on tearing down” something I support, but question the political media angle.
I really should know better by now.

As long as posts don’t violate the PHB Terms of Servicethey won’t be deleted.

How are these different?“In such systems, everyone goes to a justice of the peace to get teh civil marriage (the legal contract).  Then those who are religious can go ahead and get a religious marriage if they want to, but that step has no legal weight.”
Whereas, in our system, everyone goes to a clerk to get a civil marriage (the legal contract).  Then they can get married by the justice of the peace or a number of other government officiants (depending on the state) or those who are religious can go ahead and get a religious WEDDING (not marriage) if they want to, but that step has no legal weight (because it’s a wedding and not a marriage).
Which is exactly the same as these other systems from the quote above.
I’ve been hearing this same misconception for years and I honestly don’t understand how something that everyone’s been exposed to their entire lives — marriage — can be so widely misunderstood.
“He wishes the civil marriage were called “civil union” for all couples, both gays and straight, and the religious blessing or ceremony to be called ‘marriage’.”
His position makes no sense.  We already have civil unions and they’re called “marriage”.  The religious blessing or ceremony is called a “WEDDING”.  Not a marriage.  At all.  In any way whatsoever.  So why change that?  To satisfy religion — from which our government is constitutionally guaranteed to be separated?  No thank you.
Government is in the marriage business.  Religion is in the wedding business.  Only the government can legally grant, enforce or dissolve a marriage.   Religion can only throw a party for the marriages they like and that party is called a wedding.
You do not need a religious wedding in order to be legally married.  You don’t even need a civil wedding in order to be legally married.  You don’t need a wedding at all.  A legal marriage is entirely based on the marriage license and that’s it.  A small fee, a couple of witnesses and you’re married.  Want a wedding to go along with it?  Great.  Don’t?  Great.  Welcome to America.
If he doesn’t understand the simple mechanics of such a common, longstanding and pervasive aspect of not only our legal system but of our everyday lives from birth, then that’s a concern.

There is a small differenceUS: get a marriage license and either have a civil or religious ceremony
Many parts of Europe:
Have a civil ceremony and then optionally a religious one
People who place more emphasis on the religious part just keep the civil ceremony small and simple (just a few words as you described). But they still by law need to have one. Usually it’s done in some office at the city hall or some similar official building.
But yeah, he didn’t get the difference. A Civil union is a different legal institution from marriage altogether. It may have the same legal rights, but that’s not always the case.

the difference *who* solumnizes the civil contractyou are right that in the united states, everyone applies for a marriage license at city hall.  however, you then have the choice of having the marriage solumnized (officially enacted) by a justice of the peace or by clergy.  in many countries such as the netherlands, clergy are not allowed to solumnize the civil marriage and so there is no confusion as to what body (church or state) gives legal effect to the contract.  the state does.

as long asmy post didn’t pose a question about content or an opinion that differs from lurleen(?). .I didn’t know that was a PHB Term of Service, but thanks for clearing that up . .I think.

Here . . .in WA . .you can purchase a marriage license (if you’re straight)& have any multitude of clergy/civil servants sign the paperwork. . .stand in front of judge & reply “yeah . .whatever”. . . As long as they’re recognized by the State.
I can personally and legally solemnize a union within the constraints of The State . . .meaning . . any State in the Union for straight folks is A+OK . . .and a handful of States for a Gay couple . .A+OK . . .but if the Gay couple wants to move/cross the State line it’s all moot.
Nearly any religious or civil leader can perform a wedding with a State paper. What matters is equality rights in the civil society & government recognition.
A religious ceremony isn’t a prerequisite to a marriage unless it’s for the eyes of a church community and usually that religious ceremony is just for theatre.

what in heck are you talking about?

DC is very gay friendly,we even have the right to get married here.  
I hate it when people refer to DC as if it were some monolithic Legislative stronghold of bigots.  It’s your states that send the bigots here.  
Our city council doesn’t have any bigots on it any longer, voted this last year and passed civil marriage equality.  

As of this morning, 6:15amWith 58% of the precincts reporting, the tally stands thus:
Gregg Bennett, homophobic bigot: 12,087
Rodney Tom, champion of equality: 11,954
If the race remains this close, there will be a state-required manual recount of the ballots.
I live in the state’s 43rd district, which is so solidly Democratic that two of our three legislator are gay and only the straight one drew any kind of opposition at all. I really hope that Tom wins.

Uh, what?“LGBT people have no political party in either Olympia or in Washington DC.”
Washington now has eight openly gay law-makers: Rep. Marko Liias (D-21), Rep. Dave Upthegrove (D-33), Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43),  Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49), Sen. Joe McDermott (D-34), Sen. Ed Murray (D-43) and now Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27), the first open Lesbian elected to state office. All but Sen. McDermott were up for re-election, and all won by comfortable margins. In 2008, the seven men made up the second largest gay caucus in the United States; I would not be surprised if we are now first.
There are definitely bigoted, homophobic state Democrats, and the party platform has tended to be wishy-washy on equal rights. But with regards to Olympia, at least, I think you do a great disservice to these men and women, and to our many straight allies in both houses and in the Governor’s Mansion, by lumping the state party in with the national.

And Rep. Joe McDermott won his King County Council racewith over 67% of the vote so far!  We have an amazing delegation of LG (not yet B or T) elected officials and allies in this state.  There are some wonderful Republicans among our allies (Rep Norm Johnson [R-Yakima] beat anti-gay bible-beater Michele Strobel!), but otherwise this group is all democrats.

Ok, I spacedI forgot that Joe was running for the county council rather than the state Senate; his old seat went to Democrat Sharon K. Nelson, who ran unopposed. Our gay caucus in the Legislature remains at six then. Sorry about that.

. . .You know very well what I’m talking about, and it’s not worth going into, again.

No one saidthat there were no LG folk among elected democrats.
There are republicans from African American, Latino/a, Asian/PI – American & possibly (though I don’t personally know of any) indigenous/ first nations communities.
That doesn’t mean that the republicans are the party of people of color!!
You said yourself: there are bigoted, homophobic state Democrats.
If the leadership of the party said to those creeps: the policy of the party is to move the state/nation (as appropriate) toward equality, so if you want your committee chairmanships & party money, those party-crucial votes on which we expect support are going to include anti-discrimination measures such as occupational and marriage equality, medical insurance issues, etc.
But instead, the party leadership tells the progressives & the LG folk: look, we have to tolerate the homophobes in the Dems, so just wait for equality. Things are changing really, really fast and so there are some small measures we can pass this year, but on the large issues y’know, like actual equality, we’ll just have to wait a couple of decades until there are enough republicans to join our side and pass the legislation without forcing those poor, sensitive, easily offended homophobes to vote for actual, substantial government equality.
F* them. That’s not our party. If they were our party, they would share our priorities. They DON”T share our priorities. Does anyone anywhere think that passing marriage equality or trans health care parity are democratic priorities? They don’t even go on offense for DADT which has 80% support.
When the fricking heck does a measure have 80% popular support and not pass? Usually when something has 70% support the news calls a bill “Tremendously popular”.
But oh, no, not DADT. Because – and this is the honest truth: The feelings of homophobes are more important than the jobs, the careers, the health, or even the autonomy and basic rights of queer folk.
when the dems think homophobes feelings are more important than not merely my ability to have a career in the private sector, but also get fair treatment from the government itself, then the dems are NOT MY PARTY.
The GL people in the Dems are working for change on the inside. They have tremendous hope for eventual positive change and/or tremendous lust for power (or possibly both). But their mere existence in the Dems doesn’t make it the party of LG people just like the fact that the repubs have many gay elected officials does not make the repubs the party of LG people.
….and don’t for a second try to argue that they are the party of BT people when we all know that you can barely find a politician willing to say the words “bisexual” or “transsexual”. If they don’t know the difference between transgender and transsexual, they can’t possibly be the party of T folk.
QED, your statement is just ridiculous. Sorry.

Gay men != the LGBT communityTechBear:
An ally must be more than an enemy who is less evil than other enemies.
Is that your tag?
And you still argue that the dems are the party of LG folk?
Do you understand your own tag? I really think you should meditate on that.
And before you argue that “LGBT” people have a party, any party, maybe you should find some LBT people among your elected officials? Gay men are not the end all be all of LGBT folk.
It’s possible to have a _________ of Gay men without having a ____ of the LGBT community. Stop using the acronym reflexively.  Use gay when you mean gay. Use LGBT when you mean Lesbians AND BIsexual folk AND trans folk AND gay men.
I live in Oregon & my mother-out-law lives in Washington, so I know the politics better than most non-washingtonians and I’ve never never heard of a bill that was trans-specific passing the state legislature, or even reaching the floor for a vote.
Trans inclusive? Sure. Trans-specific? Nope. To the extent that trans people exist in the Wash legislature, we exist primarily as a weapon of attack by homophobes who think trans folk are just a weird kind of gay man and secondarily as an afterthought by gay men in the legislature who think that trans folk are a special subtype of gay man.
I say again: there is no LGBT party.

“And you still argue that the dems are the party of LG folk?”I have been one of the first here on PHB to say that they are not. What I said above is that state parties and party caucuses in the state legislature cannot be lumped together with the failings of the national party organization: they must stand or fail on their own. By and large, the Washington State Democratic Party has been better than most other state parties with regards to LGBT rights, and certainly better than the DNC.

I truly have no idea what you’re talking about.And since you’re insinuating negative actions on my part but are unwilling to say what I am alleged to have done, I will conclude that you’re making stuff up.  If it “it’s not worth going into”, why did you make insinuations in the first place?  Could it be that you just want to try to make me look bad?  Well now, that would certainly be in keeping with the election season and the subject of this diary, lol.