Seattle P-I: Hundreds support gay rights at religious-themed rally
February 14, 2005
As a choir sang the last notes of John Lennon's "Imagine," Sharon Holley stood in the sunshine with her life partner, Jena Rosen, and their 3-year-old son.
"We're people, we're parents, we believe in God," said Holley, 34, of Olympia. "It's not a sin to have the family we have."
Expressions of religious faith and support for gay issues don't always go hand-in-hand. On Monday, about 700 people attended a religious-themed rally for gay rights to show the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
"We have allowed the far-right fundamentalists to distort the truth," Pastor Stephen D. Jones of Seattle First Baptist Church told the crowd. "God loves each and every one of you, all of us, and reaches out to us with acceptance and love. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."
"We're people, we're parents, we believe in God," said Holley, 34, of Olympia. "It's not a sin to have the family we have."
Expressions of religious faith and support for gay issues don't always go hand-in-hand. On Monday, about 700 people attended a religious-themed rally for gay rights to show the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
"We have allowed the far-right fundamentalists to distort the truth," Pastor Stephen D. Jones of Seattle First Baptist Church told the crowd. "God loves each and every one of you, all of us, and reaches out to us with acceptance and love. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."
Seattle P-I: Religious leaders step up support of gay rights
All last year, while Christian conservatives staged huge rallies and television ads opposed to same-sex marriages, Monica Corsaro and Stephen Jones stewed in frustration.
As ministers on the other side of the debate, they sensed their message vanishing. They worried that only one religious opinion was emerging, when they knew that many people of faith supported legal unions for gays and lesbians.
"The American public has only heard one narrow voice," said Corsaro, a campus minister at the University of Washington.
As ministers on the other side of the debate, they sensed their message vanishing. They worried that only one religious opinion was emerging, when they knew that many people of faith supported legal unions for gays and lesbians.
"The American public has only heard one narrow voice," said Corsaro, a campus minister at the University of Washington.
The Olympian: Discrimination against gays must end
February 13, 2005
Employed gays and lesbians in this state can be fired from their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation.
It's legal, but it's not right.
Thus the need for the state Legislature to pass House Bill 1515 -- legislation that bans discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance.
It's legal, but it's not right.
Thus the need for the state Legislature to pass House Bill 1515 -- legislation that bans discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance.
Seattle Times: Legislators target gay marriage
Washington voters would be asked to amend the state constitution to outlaw same-sex unions, and governments would be barred from providing benefits to gay couples, under measures proposed in the state Senate.
At least one of two resolutions now before the Legislature seeks to nullify Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' year-old executive order recognizing gay marriages from other states. It would also void domestic-partner benefits some public employers, including the state, King County and Seattle, now offer their workers.
The far-reaching resolutions — which opponents call "nasty and nastier" but which they also say have little chance of success — are part of a mixed bag of bills concerning gays introduced in the House and Senate this session.
At least one of two resolutions now before the Legislature seeks to nullify Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' year-old executive order recognizing gay marriages from other states. It would also void domestic-partner benefits some public employers, including the state, King County and Seattle, now offer their workers.
The far-reaching resolutions — which opponents call "nasty and nastier" but which they also say have little chance of success — are part of a mixed bag of bills concerning gays introduced in the House and Senate this session.
Seattle Times: Gay rights bill passes House, faces test in Senate
February 11, 2005
The state House passed a gay civil rights bill today, for the third year in a row, and once again it faces an uncertain future in the state Senate.
The bill would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance. It was first introduced 29 years ago.
"This legislation is not about a special group of Americans seeking special privileges," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of four openly gay legislators. "This legislation is about Americans who desperately love their country, some who are fighting for their country as we debate this issue here today. It is about Americans who work hard, who contribute to their communities and who love their families."
The bill would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance. It was first introduced 29 years ago.
"This legislation is not about a special group of Americans seeking special privileges," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of four openly gay legislators. "This legislation is about Americans who desperately love their country, some who are fighting for their country as we debate this issue here today. It is about Americans who work hard, who contribute to their communities and who love their families."
Olympian: House OKs ban on bias against gays and lesbians
The House approved adding sexual orientation to race, religion, sex, marital status and other classes protected against discrimination after a subdued debate Friday.
The measure has passed the House and died in the Senate before, but some see 2005 as the year it will become law because Democrats control both sides of the Legislature and the governor's mansion.
"People have been pushing for this ever since I've been a legislator," said Sen. Karen Fraser, D-Olympia. "I remember voting for this when I was in the House 10 years ago.
The measure has passed the House and died in the Senate before, but some see 2005 as the year it will become law because Democrats control both sides of the Legislature and the governor's mansion.
"People have been pushing for this ever since I've been a legislator," said Sen. Karen Fraser, D-Olympia. "I remember voting for this when I was in the House 10 years ago.
P-I Editorial: Sexual orientation must be the right that religious affiliation is
February 6, 2005
Stung by criticism of their Friday-night flight from a vote on the gay civil rights bill last year, Senate Republican leaders insisted that Democrats had also ducked the issue when they held the majority.
There's been plenty of fleeing and ducking by both political parties. The Legislature's dogged refusal to extend fundamental civil rights to all Washington residents has gone on since the 1970s.
Democrats now control both houses and the governor's mansion. Will they flee, duck or do the right thing?
There's been plenty of fleeing and ducking by both political parties. The Legislature's dogged refusal to extend fundamental civil rights to all Washington residents has gone on since the 1970s.
Democrats now control both houses and the governor's mansion. Will they flee, duck or do the right thing?
P-I: Supporters, opponents of gay rights spar at hearing
February 2, 2005
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Supporters of gay rights have tried and failed for nearly 30 years to get a law in Washington banning discrimination against gays and lesbians.
After a Tuesday hearing, they said they believe they're closer to success than ever before.
"This is not about quotas. This is not about affirmative action," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, sponsoring the bill for the 10th year in a row. "It is about citizens in this state who work hard and pay taxes - but happen to be gay and lesbian - asking to be treated fairly. We are no better and no worse than other Washingtonians, and we ask to be treated no better and no worse than other Washingtonians."
House Bill 1515 would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance.
After a Tuesday hearing, they said they believe they're closer to success than ever before.
"This is not about quotas. This is not about affirmative action," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, sponsoring the bill for the 10th year in a row. "It is about citizens in this state who work hard and pay taxes - but happen to be gay and lesbian - asking to be treated fairly. We are no better and no worse than other Washingtonians, and we ask to be treated no better and no worse than other Washingtonians."
House Bill 1515 would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance.
P-I: It's more than politics, it's personal
OLYMPIA -- When Sen. Cal Anderson died of AIDS 10 years ago, Ed Murray came to Olympia and picked up the dream his predecessor had carried for years but never realized: outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Murray, a Seattle Democrat, also ascended the ranks to become the influential chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and along the way learned that roadblocks in the landscape of lawmaking are as common as traffic jams on King County freeways.
But as much as he came to accept them as part of the process, Murray has learned that disappointment comes in at least two varieties -- the political, which is part of the game, and the personal, which cuts much deeper.
Murray, a Seattle Democrat, also ascended the ranks to become the influential chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and along the way learned that roadblocks in the landscape of lawmaking are as common as traffic jams on King County freeways.
But as much as he came to accept them as part of the process, Murray has learned that disappointment comes in at least two varieties -- the political, which is part of the game, and the personal, which cuts much deeper.
Wenatchee World: It's just about protecting rights
By Tracy Warner, Editorial Page editor
"You're fired."
"But, why?"
"Because you're a ( )."
In Washington state, and the nation for that matter, there are certain words that legally cannot be used to fill that blank. Baptist, Methodist, Jew, Catholic, Rastafarian, Sikh, Muslim, etc. -- state law specifically forbids discrimination on account of "creed." Or write in black, Asian, Latino, Caucasian -- discrimination on account of race is forbidden, too. Or write in woman, or man, or single, or divorced, or married with children, or blind, or deaf, or mentally disabled, or physically handicapped -- all those cases are specifically protected under Washington state's law against discrimination.
By all these factors you cannot discriminate in "employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation or amusement, and in real property transactions." The people of the state of Washington through their elected representatives have deemed these rules wise, in the cause of advancing a just and civil society.
You can, however, fill that blank with "homosexual." Firing an employee for that reason and only that reason is perfectly legal in this state and most others. No law prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation, even if that orientation is not made evident by any behavior or "lifestyle." All that is required is the prejudice of the person doing the firing.
Once again, as it has been in each of the last 30 years, a bill has been introduced in the Legislature to add "sexual orientation" to the state's list of prohibited forms of discrimination. It is a simple change, an addition with more symbolic than actual impact, but a change lawmakers should make.
Lawmakers should make the change for the same reasons they banned other forms of discrimination: This form of prejudice exists; it exists outside society's ethical norms; and it is frequently unjust -- people are penalized not for their character or behavior but for a factor they did not seek and cannot change, the mere circumstance of their birth.
So this is not about political correctness or anything else trendy. It is not about currying favor with a political constituency. The bill is about the fundamental function of government in a free society -- to protect the rights of citizens, particularly those in the minority.
This bill has nothing to do with gay marriage. That debate is going on elsewhere and will not be affected. It will not change fundamental institutions. It will not force any group to change their moral standards or accept what they consider to be immoral behavior. It will not force companies to change their employment benefits. It is not a state sanction for any "lifestyle."
It merely gives to a definable minority what the rest of us have: the right to be judged by what we do, not what we are.
It is easy to scoff, and write this effort off as a pet cause of one party, a necessary means to satisfy their political base. It might be that way, except that we know this prejudice exists. In this age of divisive politics, of suspicion and retribution, of AIDS, or zooming medical insurance costs, we know this prejudice exists. And it can be as unjust as any form of discrimination this state has seen fit to ban.
This bill only fills in the blank is our state's statement in defiance of bigotry. It should pass, at last.
"You're fired."
"But, why?"
"Because you're a ( )."
In Washington state, and the nation for that matter, there are certain words that legally cannot be used to fill that blank. Baptist, Methodist, Jew, Catholic, Rastafarian, Sikh, Muslim, etc. -- state law specifically forbids discrimination on account of "creed." Or write in black, Asian, Latino, Caucasian -- discrimination on account of race is forbidden, too. Or write in woman, or man, or single, or divorced, or married with children, or blind, or deaf, or mentally disabled, or physically handicapped -- all those cases are specifically protected under Washington state's law against discrimination.
By all these factors you cannot discriminate in "employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort, accommodation or amusement, and in real property transactions." The people of the state of Washington through their elected representatives have deemed these rules wise, in the cause of advancing a just and civil society.
You can, however, fill that blank with "homosexual." Firing an employee for that reason and only that reason is perfectly legal in this state and most others. No law prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation, even if that orientation is not made evident by any behavior or "lifestyle." All that is required is the prejudice of the person doing the firing.
Once again, as it has been in each of the last 30 years, a bill has been introduced in the Legislature to add "sexual orientation" to the state's list of prohibited forms of discrimination. It is a simple change, an addition with more symbolic than actual impact, but a change lawmakers should make.
Lawmakers should make the change for the same reasons they banned other forms of discrimination: This form of prejudice exists; it exists outside society's ethical norms; and it is frequently unjust -- people are penalized not for their character or behavior but for a factor they did not seek and cannot change, the mere circumstance of their birth.
So this is not about political correctness or anything else trendy. It is not about currying favor with a political constituency. The bill is about the fundamental function of government in a free society -- to protect the rights of citizens, particularly those in the minority.
This bill has nothing to do with gay marriage. That debate is going on elsewhere and will not be affected. It will not change fundamental institutions. It will not force any group to change their moral standards or accept what they consider to be immoral behavior. It will not force companies to change their employment benefits. It is not a state sanction for any "lifestyle."
It merely gives to a definable minority what the rest of us have: the right to be judged by what we do, not what we are.
It is easy to scoff, and write this effort off as a pet cause of one party, a necessary means to satisfy their political base. It might be that way, except that we know this prejudice exists. In this age of divisive politics, of suspicion and retribution, of AIDS, or zooming medical insurance costs, we know this prejudice exists. And it can be as unjust as any form of discrimination this state has seen fit to ban.
This bill only fills in the blank is our state's statement in defiance of bigotry. It should pass, at last.
