Just finished my ballot and dropped it in the mail. I’m not going to provide a diatribe about how I voted, just the highlights:

  • I-1185: Yes
  • I-1240: Yes
  • R-74: Rejected
  • I-502: Yes
  • ESJR-8821: Approved
  • ESJR-8223: Approved
  • ESB-6635: Maintained
  • SHB-2590: Maintained
  • King County Prop 1: Rejected
  • Seattle Prop 1: Rejected
  • P/VPOTUS: Gary Johnson and James P. Gray (Libertarian)
  • Senator: Baumgartner
  • Congressman: Bemis
  • Governor: McKenna
  • Lt. Gov: Owen

I would, of course, recommend you follow my selections. But being as this is America, you are welcome to make your own choices.

The good news is that I’m in a lab most of tomorrow and flying all day Tuesday, so this political season is pretty much over for me!

This Post Has 24 Comments

    1. Staples

      I think you may not have understood what was at issue in R-74. Voting against R-74 is not voting against government’s role in defining marriage, because R-74 is about how the government defines marriage. Voting against R-74 means you want to keep the current government-promulgated definition of marriage, and voting for R-74 means you want to change the current government-promulgated defintion of marriage. Your ultimate argument for voting against R-74 is completely inapposite.

        1. Staples

          What part don’t you understand? I tried be be as straightforward and clear as possible, so I’m not sure if I can break it down any further.

          1. Andrew

            Why do you think I may not have understood what was at issue in R-74?

            Also, I wasn’t trying to give a complete argument for voting against R-74, I was explaining how I believe “it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage.”

          2. Annie Mesaros

            I think what Staples is getting at (and I agree with him) is that rejecting R74 wasn’t about rejecting the state’s role in marriage. For me, it was about rejecting the inclusion of same-sex couples in our society. I voted to approve R74 because the question of whether the state should have a role in marriage was not at all at stake. Whether people of privilege (straight people like you and me) would extend our basic rights to our family members, friends, and neighbors was at stake. (And I’m so proud that it passed, and I personally celebrated with much champagne, congratulations, and cupcakes.)

          3. Andrew

            @Annie: Do you believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s design and is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments?

          4. Annie Mesaros

            OH, now we get down to it! You were making an argument about the state’s role in marriage, but _now_ you’re asking about the Bible. Which is the real reason you voted to reject R74?

            To answer your question, no, I don’t believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s design because God created gay people and Jesus proved his unending love by dying for all of us together–no exceptions.

            I can’t accept the OT’s condemnation of homosexuality because I don’t stone adulterers or disobedient children like it explicitly says to, and–more importantly–because of who Jesus was, what he stood for, what he taught, and what he did.

          5. Andrew

            R74 is a contentious issue, to say the least. I know it’s frustrating having a debate about how we are to love others and show them that love. It can be also be extremely maddening. The argument I made above about the state’s role was directly in response to Leor’s questions, “how it is an ideologically consistent position to vote libertarian while at the same time voting against gay marriage.” I can see how that qualifier has been missed and I’m sorry I didn’t do a better job of qualifying my response.

            There is no one single reason why I voted to reject R74; it’s a matrix of myriad factors that I’ve tried to articulate in the past but have ultimately felt frustrated in conveying. A large part of why I voted to reject R74 —but not the sole reason—is that I believe it is against God’s design and because I believe and trust in the redeeming love of Christ. As God’s Word, I don’t believe I can reject scripture without rejecting Christ.

            I’m not perfect, nor do I claim to be. In fact, I claim the opposite. I claim that I am a sinner and need God’s grace and salvation that he provides. I try to love, but I’m not perfect.

            My rejection of R74 does not mean that I am rejecting anyone, gay or straight. It means that I don’t agree with the law. I will still continue to love as best I can and share the gospel as best I can.

          6. Annie Mesaros

            Thanks for clarifying! I was just surprised that you brought up the Bible when I was talking about civil rights. For the record, I don’t feel like I can truly love someone and try to curb (what I believe) are their basic civil liberties that I myself have.

            I know it’s a hard issue–believe me! I’ve been grappling with it for much of my life. I will just say one last thing and then we can continue to conversation elsewhere if you’d like and it’s with regard to rejecting scripture. I do not pretend that I live out the law of scripture to the letter. I don’t believe it’s possible, and I don’t believe that’s what God wants from me. Everyone–truly, everyone–picks and chooses and follows scripture selectively. So I have to ask myself, which parts will I choose? I make that choice every day, whether consciously or unconsciously, and I just do my best and I’m thankful that God’s grace makes up for it. For me, accepting people for how God made them has become more of a priority than trying to dictate how they live.

Leave a Reply