Washington Legislature: With Neighbors Like This…

By Dan Richardson, 2-06-07

I was beginning to wonder if Oregon wasn’t the new California: The western state most noted for silly public goings-on.*

But then there’s Washington — just in time. See, some folks there have been on a roll to catch up with us in the silly-but-true department. Last year, some folks tried to import their own version of Oregon’s pro-developer law, Measure 37.

That was nothing. Right now, a Seattle Democrat state legislator is hoping to pass a law that would allow dogs in bars. Yep — can’t smoke in them, but you could bring your Labradoodle for some slobbery good times. State Sen. Ken Jacobsen is proposing a state law (SB 5484) allowing pooches in bars and establishments with liquor licenses, as long as the dogs are leashed and well-behaved.

The definition of well-behaved remains undefined — so apparently the same meat-heads who carry dogs in their purses like fashion accessories and drive with them on their laps will get to decide if it’s okay that their dog is humping someone’s leg. (No word on whether bartenders would have to card dogs before serving them drinks. The legal dog age would be 3.)

A supporter of the proposed law “said she ... would like the law to pass so she could bring her 112-pound Rottweiler, Ida, with her when meeting friends at bars.”

(Plenty of politics and dog jokes here.)

Let freedom ring! say I. It’s darn well about time the state stopped people from exercising their dog’s liberties. I mean, what’s next? Keeping children out of bars? How’s that for family values?

Speaking of which, it’s taken some Washington state gay rights advocates to get serious about enforcing family values. There’s now a gay rights group organizing a ballot initiative — I-957— to add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage in the state.

Only people who could, and do, have children could be legally married in Washington, under the proposed law. Couples without children after three years of marriage would have their union automatically annulled.

Yes, it’s ridiculous. Yes, the organizers know it. But, hey, if you can’t overturn 4,000 years of cultural inhibitions against homosexuality and gay marriage, you can at least screw with the political system.

Organizers say I-957 is a creative response to a state Supreme Court case last summer in which the court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation. I-957 needs 224,800 signatures by July 6 to qualify for the ballot.

Meanwhile, back in Oregon, legislators are getting apparently serious about promoting biofuels, cracking down on lawmakers taking lavish gifts from lobbyists, and tightening an increasingly loopy initiative process.

Because the last place we want to end up like is Washington.

* (Like what, you ask? Let’s see. Off the top of my head: the lack of stable education funding; the longtime inability of the legislators to hold utilities accountable for the millions of dollars in bogus taxes they collected; and a swampland of union corruption and overspending known as the Portland Metro area. Or, how about the fact that just last year the state ethics chief left, discouraged by the continued defunding of his tiny office, and went to a state where the ethics board has some clout — Nevada. Yes, Salem is less amenable to ethics investigators than Las Vegas.)