...sometimes known here as the "Everything but Marriage Act".
Referendum 71, driven primarily by a group called Protect Marriage in Washington, just barely collected enough signatures to make it onto the November ballot.
In fact, there seems to be some question as to whether or not enough valid signatures were collected, and a county judge is expected to issue a ruling on the matter this morning.
Meanwhile, the backers of R71 attempted to have the names and addresses of donors sealed in order to protect said signers from threats of violence and harassment. The WA Public Disclosure Commission recently denied the request.
In a similar battle, a federal judge ordered the names and addresses of the referendum signers temporarily sealed until a hearing tomorrow to decide the issue. I'm sort of unclear what the R71 backers' arguments here were, and I'm sort of unclear how the first amendment relates to the issue.
From data I've seen, public opinion seems to be on the side of maintaining the domestic partnership law, but the referendum proponents have managed to construct the language in such a way that voters will need to vote "Yes" in order to preserve the law. From what I understand, getting "No" votes is the easier job so we'll see how it falls out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's clever timing too. Turnout is always low in the off years. The "pro marriage" forces might have an easier time getting their numbers up in arms and to the polls than the defenders of the newly created status quo.
Can you believe it's already been a year since last November's elections? Man that was fast.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If your having to be underhanded to get your goals accomplished, chances are that you are not doing God's work. Sorry bigots, but atleast theyre not "married" so atleast this way they'll have to resort to storming into your homes and forcing your family to watch gay porn to destroy American morality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If your having to be underhanded to get your goals accomplished, chances are that you are not doing God's work. Sorry bigots, but atleast theyre not "married" so atleast this way they'll have to resort to storming into your homes and forcing your family to watch gay porn to destroy American morality.
From the article:
quote:A declaration filed with the court by state elections director Nick Handy said that in reviewing R-71 signatures, his division "has not found any indication of systemic fraud or of intentional efforts to submit false names."
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Well you cant tell me not to be suspicous can you?
Besides, the argument to seal the signature donors information was apperantly weak enough to dissallow, so I presume that they were intending to hide something. Either way I question why is it so important to them, these tax-paying innocent adults are not married in the name of God, and therefore this "Protect Marriage Washington" is instead persecuting the previously voted on rights of American citizens.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the argument to seal the signature donors information was apperantly weak enough to dissallow
Not quite. A federal judge ordered the names to be sealed, and is currently deciding the matter.
quote:I presume that they were intending to hide something.
Yes, their names. They said as much in the request to keep their donors and signatories names secret. They also gave a reason: they feared retaliation.
Retaliation isn't out of the question either-- donors to prop 8 were victims of harassment and vandalism.
The question is this: if you're willing to enter a political argument, do you have the right to be anonymous if the argument you're making is unpopular?
I don't think you do-- I'm a believer in transparency. I understand PMW's impulse to try and protect their donors and signers from harassment (in CA, vandalism was directed against both entities and individuals); but the ability for the public to know who is supporting what is essential to an open and free society.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I would clarify between agument and action. Signing a petition marks your support of the petitions intent in the eyes of the govt. hence the need to have citizens sign in the fist place and I do agree with you Scott, that anonymous support is not support but disengenious and the very want of Protect Marriage Washington to do so makes me question theyre reasons and legallities.
We agree on that point, but I am paranoid of a group that goes so far out of thier way just to dissrupt the lives of people who have done nothing to hinder this country, its laws nor its many religions. I will persist in my paranoia until such people are able to make a valid argument aside from "being gay is wrong" and speek civilly and publicly with members of the community that they hope to chastize and ostracize.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:anonymous support is not support but disengenious and the very want of Protect Marriage Washington to do so makes me question theyre reasons and legallities.
I don't agree. Anonymous support is OBVIOUSLY support, and PMW has a legitimate reason to want to conceal the names. The precedent that it would set, though, would be detrimental to speech in general.
I'm not happy about the websites that have popped up in the past couple months that list signers/supporters + addresses of people who support anti-SSM measures ; I think they're encouraging harassment. I think their whole existence is meant to cow opposition and undermine free speech rather than enable a civil discussion.
Nontheless, I don't like the idea of hiding where funding for a political/social objective has come from even more.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Youve already stated the trade off between the two, either socially take responsibility for your opinion and your action in supporting a petition or have the law led blindly by those who have more money than us. I abhor the idea of people and business' being attacked for any reason, but H8 was certianly not the first time it happened, and there was no protection for freedom fighters of Americas past. Womens sufferage, the million man march, all persecuted because of thier beliefs and an unwillingness to to go unheard. I would rather be persecuted for my beliefs than hide behind a mask, cloth, legal or otherwise.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
After being told they filed in the wrong county, opponents of R-71 filed another lawsuit in Thurston County (which contains the state capital). They are contesting the validity of thousands of signatures, citing a Washington State law that requires petition singers be registered voters prior to the time the signatures are submitted. According to this law, any signatures of voters who registered after July 25 should be invalid, as the signatures were submitted on that date.
The Washington Secretary of State's office on their blog cites a separate statute, claiming there is no deadline for voters to be registered other than the date the signatures are checked. Their office states this has been common practice for all public initiatives.
As the number of signatures currently considered valid is only barely 1400 more than the minimum required, if the court rules there is a legal deadline for voter registration prior to submission of petitions, the referendum will not make the ballot.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
As a citizen of Washington State, I must say that every petition signer I've ever come across has started with "Are you registered to vote?" And then launches into their schpeel . . .
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Last Thursday judge Benjamin Settle ruled that the names of those who signed the petition would be kept secret. The court's opinion was that the release of the names could have a "chilling effect" on the petitioners' First Amendment rights.
I'm frankly shocked. From what I can tell any threats levied against signers has been pretty mundane stuff, not the kind of thing you'd expect to override public disclosure concerns.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sigh.
Yet another blow against transparent government.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Are you registered to vote? if so would you like to sign my anti-gay marriage petition Mr....
Fox News, and this is my friend The Church of Latter Day Saints and I'll bet he would love to sign as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Are you registered to vote? if so would you like to sign my anti-gay marriage petition Mr....
Fox News, and this is my friend The Church of Latter Day Saints and I'll bet he would love to sign as well.
Feel better?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I was going to shoot marshmellows out of pvc pipe at a kitten, but if your gonna look down on me for that I may as well not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I must say, I do not understand the point of having people sign a petition if those people thehn remain anonymous. Isn't that why we have petitions? To publically acknowledge our support for something?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I must say, I do not understand the point of having people sign a petition if those people thehn remain anonymous. Isn't that why we have petitions? To publically acknowledge our support for something?
Petitions are also designed to demonstrate that support exists for a proposition.
The debate between open voting so that people only vote for things they feel truly strong about, and voting in secret so that people can vote for things that are unpopular will probably never be solved in our generation.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Though all the votes have not been counted yet, R-71 approval (which would maintain rights and privileges for same-sex domestic partners) is currently at about 52%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like Washington might be able to pull off what Maine won't be able to.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I voted for it, but it looks like my county is balanced slightly against. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Lyrhawn, I believe when you add the word "marriage" the polling on that front shows Washington faring several points worse than Maine. Hopefully in the not too distant future though. ________________
Also, I was slacking on keeping up with the court case surrounding the release of the names of R-71. October was a really busy month.
quote:Social conservatives can usually count Justice Antonin Scalia as a faithful ally on the Supreme Court. But Wednesday, Scalia had only sarcasm for opponents of Washington state's domestic partner law, who wanted to overturn the law through a referendum without having their names made public.
"Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, oh so sensitive" point of view, Scalia said. "You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known."