As a result, an anonymous source swung by and left this:
Danny Westneat's reporting was incomplete. Dunn said he would support the King County Legislative Agenda with the line of "supporting marriage equality" if and only if it included a religious exemption. This was Joe McDermott's concession, and it mirrors Gregoire's position at the state level.How true is any of this? I don't know. Unfortunately, with most anonymous sources, it's difficult to show any particular level of accuracy or verification.
Further, Dunn went on to offer an amendment that would add the line, in effect, we believe marriage equality should go to a vote of the people. The amendment failed 5-4 across party lines. For some reason, this was not mentioned in Westneat's article, and it should not be left out of this blog.
However you stand on the marriage equality issue, I think more Republicans are seeing the nation's attitude shift on it. If they want to preserve their popularity and, thus, their jobs, they are going to try and get ahead of this movement. Yes, it's political. No, it's not personal.
Bottom line, Dunn said he would support the agenda further offering an amendment that would send this issue to the people of our state.
Because of that and the fact that I don't know the source or the particulars of this information, I can't comment on it's veracity.
But what I did not see today, that would have went a long way to address both my concerns and this anonymous post, is any kind of clarification from Reagan that would have clarified his position as expressed by Westneat, among others.
Given that lack of change in the public perception... and lack of effort by Dunn to address the disconnect in any way that has been publicized between what Westneat printed and what this comment says, I have to go with both my original take and my conclusion: I will not support Dunn's election.
1 comment:
Preserve their jobs and popularity, while joining in the madness leading the country down the tubes?
No thanks.
Post a Comment