Looking for 120,577 Assholes
Now that the Governor has signed the state's new domestic partnership law, Attorney General Rob McKenna confirmed that same-sex civil union opponents have submitted the paperwork to make the law subject to a popular vote. The driving force behind the referendum is Protect Marriage Washington, a Political Action Committee whose endorsers include such stalwarts as Ken Hutcherson, Washington Opposed to Pro-Homosexual Policies, and Council 1379 of the Knights of Columbus. Yet to commit are Miss California, Marion Barry, the ghost of Jerry Falwell (which has been busy reuniting with the ghost of his mother), and the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran.
Perhaps Bruno can help collect signatures
Referendum 71 (pdf) reads:
This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Of course, it's worth noting that the rights, tax implications, etc. are pretty limited because the federal government isn't recognizing the marriages. To make the ballot, the referendum will need 120,577 signatures by July 25th. The last time gay rights opponents tried to repeal a gay rights measure, they failed badly—and blamed it on Tim Eyman.
Meanwhile, in a commendable but unnecessary show of force, Equal Rights Washington is collecting "decline to sign" signatures from those who will refuse to lend their John Hancock to the repeal. Thus far, they say, they have 15,000.
4 comment(s)
read the story says:
they failed badly?
he and his allies had 105,103 signatures. A referendum needs 112,440 signatures to reach the ballot
Posted On: Tuesday, May. 19 2009 @ 11:50AM
Damon says:
They said they had 105,000--no one checked those for validity. There are usually quite a few found invalid.
Since you suggest I read the story, I'll note that the sentence after the one you cite says that to reach 112,000 valid signatures, they'd likely need to submit 130,000 total. I'd say falling 20% short of the signatures you'd need to have the opportunity to fail badly at the voting booth constitutes failing badly. But perhaps we differ on measures of failure.
Posted On: Tuesday, May. 19 2009 @ 12:00PM
Don Ward says:
Right or wrong, the history of this issue is that if this measure gets on the ballot, it will probably pass. Has happened in every other state where the legislature or courts approve same-sex marriage benefits.
Posted On: Tuesday, May. 19 2009 @ 2:07PM
Damon says:
Not so sure about that one, Don. There've been repeals of marriage (Prop 8, most notably), but I don't recall the repeals of civil unions--at least recently, or in states of similar political makeup. The Prop 8 campaign had to make sure it positioned itself as not against civil unions--they realized it'd be trouble if they didn't. A majority of Americans support civil unions, and WA is more socially liberal that the US generally. Your conflation of "marriage" and "benefits" obscures this distinction. While it'd be nice if voters were supportive of gay marriage, it looks at least like they're for civil unions.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 20 2009 @ 4:42PM