Gay partnership referendum makes ballot

[stevedeshazer]

Source: Seattle Times

Expanded domestic partnerships for same-sex couples could face a public vote after Washington officials ruled that referendum sponsors have enough voter support to force a referendum on the November ballot.

The new partnership law, nicknamed "everything but marriage" by its supporters, would broaden domestic partnerships by granting gay and lesbian couples all the remaining state-provided benefits that presently apply only to married heterosexual couples.

After a month of counting petition signatures, the secretary of state's office said Monday that Referendum 71 had 121,617 valid voter signatures - more than a thousand more than needed to advance to the general election.

The tally could increase as rejected signatures are double-checked, but that won't be the final word. Supporters of expanded domestic partnerships asked a King County Superior Court judge on Monday to at least temporarily block the referendum from the ballot, arguing that election officials have accepted thousands of invalid petition signatures. Judge Julie Spector said she would rule early Wednesday, the same day Secretary of State Sam Reed says he'll certify the referendum to the ballot.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009781794_apusdomesticpartnerships4thldwritethru.html

[Fearless]

1. Good news!

[MadMaddie]

2. Why is this good news?

[Fearless]

3. Umm... testament to the fact that I need to read better... Bad news actually... perhaps...

If it fails it will be good news. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[MadMaddie]

5. I live in Wa and it's insane that this even made the ballot

I am sure the Morman Devil church will be sending funds here to try and overturn the state congress and governer. These people here that are supporting this are no Christians.

[Fearless]

9. It's sad. I'm sure many groups will.

:cry:

[awoke_in_2003]

4. It is sad...

that we still must put civil rights up for a vote.

[Stumbler]

6. Why does this sound like "separate but equal" to me?

I guess I'm of the mind that says our government should strip the word "marriage" out of existing laws and replace it with "civil unions" or some other term for all "domestic partnerships," whether straight or gay.

If two people wish to get married, they can go to their house of worship and have the ceremony, if their god allows it. If two people wish to unite in the eyes of government for the sake of tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, legal wills, etc, they can go to their city hall and file for the paperwork.

Maybe we could phrase it in terms of a business contract... After all, we allow corporations to merge with one another with few restrictions, in order to create a new, unified entity. Why are we still denying that ability to our own citizenry? Well, aside from the fact that we're a corporate-welfare nation disguised as a representative democracy...

[theMark]

8. Oh, come one now,...

If we do away with marriage, how will we know who the bastards are? :P

Somehow, I think we'll still know.

[marshall]

10. I agree that we need civil unions and leave marriage to churches

Government should not be in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies, sacraments, or even promoting love matches. Government's business is to make sure people get equal benefits and that they are charged with equal responsibilities.

One of my main issues with the marriage equality is that it rides on the back of an oppressive practice that was meant to keep women and children under thumb and protect the property rights of men.

I think civil unions should be open to anyone, regardless of gender or relationship. I think two sisters or a mother and son or any other blood relatives should be able to form a domestic partnership if they are by choice or circumstance two adults not legally married or united with anyone else who are sharing a residence and living expenses. Why should such a union be only available to couples who are in a sexual relationship?

[David Zephyr]

7. Now every Mormon in the country will have to fork out more money to express their "religious" hate.

Oh, well.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Well shit...

I'll feel bad voting against it, because it's half-assed and sort of insulting, but on the other hand, it's better than nothing, right?

Dammned if you do, dammned if you don't.

Hold my nose and vote for it, while continuing to support full marriage for all consenting adults, or vote no and wait for the real deal?

[No Elephants]

13. IMO, hold your nose. Anything else will be interpreted as anti-GLBT.

"If rejected at the polls, R-71 wouldn't overturn those first two phases of domestic partnerships. But a failure in November would roll back the additional rights approved earlier this year under the "everything but marriage" law.

Opponents of the law say overturning it will help stop full-fledged gay marriage from gaining a foothold in the state.
<snip>

As of this week, more than 5,800 domestic partnership registrations had been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007."

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Yeah, that's what I was leaning toward.

It's not enough, but some gains hinge on it... Voting it down will probably be interpreted as just not enough support for gay rights period.

I really, really don't want to be California... Dammit.

[MadMaddie]

15. There is nothing wrong with getting something accomplished

in parts. We will keep fighting until we have equality for all Americans.

[xchrom]

12. why do my = rights always have to come up in a referendum? nt

[DebbieCDC]

16. Watch out now for that crazy fucking paster from the east side

to start his anti gay rantings and ravings in high volume.