A Day at the Capitol

To testify before the State Senate State Affairs Committee on the gay marriage Amendment.

I parked at the library which doesn’t am and walked to the Capitol from there. I’m not familiar the parking around the Capitol and didn’t feel like paying a fee to park or having to leave the hearing every 2 hours to move my vehicle.

The walk up Capitol Drive is quite a thing as long as you keep your eyes on the Capitol. This time of year, it’s dark until around 7:30-7:45 which was a pity because I was opening to see daybreak over the Capitol, but it’s still an impressive sight. Climbing the steps to the Capitol is always special. I liked walking through the Capitol, though I’d have to learn to tolerate standing in the Capitol for a long time.

The Senate Gold room was the location of the hearing and even though it was the largest hearing room in the Capitol, it was inadequate for the rush of people on both sides who came to hear and testify. One guy from our side let the poor security guard have it, telling him and when the Chairman courteously asked if we could hear, the man shouted, “We can’t hear anything you’ve said or done.” The rush of people was overwhelming. The hearing room which was generally adequate purposes was filled to standing room only, along with half the fourth floor of the Capitol in a sea of people.

It was a slow creep into the building. By the time, the hearing opened, I was standing at the door. It took about fifteen minutes for me to get into the room and another hour before I got to sit down.

While I was in line, I got stuck behind Rabbi Daniel Fink and Reverend David Wettstein of the Episcopal Dioscease. Rabbi Fink was generally quiet and polite, however Rev. Wettstein was a different matter. He snickered and made snide remarks during the testimony of those who disagreed with him. One didn’t have a sense that you were near a man of God, just someone who wore the vestments.

One thing that was particularly jarring to him was the two times that speakers mentioned that Hetrosexual married couples had better sex lives than others. They were arguing marriage was beneficial through many reasons. The better sex doesn’t seem like too much of a public policy argument and Wettstein was highly amused by it.

He got up and began to psychoanalyze the supporters the bill as only motivated by their own prejudices and hatred. I’ve rarely witnessed such a self-righteous speech. Indeed, the motives of all who opposed the legislation were judged to result from fear and hatred, rather than any rational reasoning. He accused them of being unjust, unmerciful, and lacking in humility. I found out that liberal preachers still preach fire and brimstone, they just reserve it for those who are standing up for biblical values.

Most the opponents of the Amendment were providing their own experiences which while they I felt for the homosexuals who testified, but their testimony didn’t prove much.

One man who said he was a former religious broadcaster and had tried all the different remedies out there but couldn’t change the fact that he desired other men. Of course, according to AA, alcoholics never fully recover either, it doesn’t mean those who stay on the wagon are merely “pretending to be sober”.

There was the former CEO of HP who delivered blistering testimony in support of gay rights because he has a gay son. Hardly a reason to change the law.

What came across to me, listening to the opponents of the measure was three characteristics:

1) Anger: Listening to some speakers, one got the sense that some of them were about to punch you in the nose. It was a very negative force, especially compared to the calm delivery of those favoring the Amendment.

2) Hatred of Idaho: The message of the opponents: Idaho=Evil. Idaho is full of bigoted and hateful people and we have an awful, horrible past.
One homosexual former flight attendant testified that the only places he’s been harassed for being homosexual were in Idaho. Yakima, Wenatchee, Kalispell, and Billings were all cool with him but not those rascally citizens of the evil cities of Pocatello, Boise, and Idaho Falls.

Indeed, one has to wonder why these people havent’ moved to Seattle and also how they hope to pursuade the people of Idaho if this passes.

3) Distrust of the People: Of course, the truth is that they don’t expect to. Rather, they hope to wrangle together enough moderate votes to defeat the measure in the legislature and make sure the people never get to decide the issue. At their heart, and their core they do not trust the people (particularly the evil Idahoans) and this will be their downfall.

After standing against the wall for an hour, a seat opened and I got to sit down. I didn’t know if I’d ever get to testify. Well, I did and was caught totally off-guard because others had indicated that the list was already packed.

Many of my better points had already been taken, so I ad-libbed and flubbed my way through. I tried to make several key points:

1) Judges cannot be trusted to not invent a right for gay marriage. Had Massachusetts acted in regards to the activist court ruling in Vermont.

2) Opposition to gay marriage is not about gays, but protecting marriage.

3) The Government has no business in personal relationships. There’s no Friendship license, no license is required for being a friend, a nephew, ro any non-maritial relationships that involve love just as much as marriage.

4) The Government’s whole reason for recognizing marriage is for the sake of the children who may result from a sexual relationship, not for the sake of the parents gratification.

The latter 3 points were not raised in the course of the previous testimony. Even though, I didn’t say them as well as I could have, I hope they made a difference. The bill passed committee 5-4 and we’ll have to wait and see what happens to it on the floor.