Tweet
UPDATE I was right – the begging bowl has definitely been passed from Gary Randall to Larry Stickney. Larry officially filed a referendum today.
Washington state’s legislature recently passed the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009 (SB 5688), which makes Washington DPs almost equal to marriage. The local Professional Christians are having a ball raising money off the event by scaring their followers into believing that DPs will destroy America, etc. etc., assuring that the promised referendum is the only way to save the day, then asking for donations into their coffers rather than the dedicated fund for the referendum. Slick, huh?
Gary Randall was supposedly the guy “asked to lead” (see his 4/20/2009 diary) a referendum effort to repeal the new DP law. But since Oregon Gary has been exposed as a carpetbagging, tax-evading, money-grubbing incompetent, it looks like the begging bowl has been passed to Larry Stickney. Larry, the guy who features campaign failures on his resume, has posted a “rally the troops” piece on his website. It’s called TEN GOOD REASONS TO RUN A REFERENDUM TO SAVE MARRIAGE NOW! Yes, he’s the sort to write in caps. And he lies like no tomorrow. Read the post and my comments (in green) below the fold.
TEN GOOD REASONS TO RUN A REFERENDUM TO SAVE MARRIAGE NOW!Quote of the Week
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved.”
-Martin Luther
Where the battle rages is between the Professional Christians competing for the money in the gullible woman’s wallet. As for the truth of God, Larry is missing “that little point” about bearing false witness. Many examples of that below. May 2,2009- I was asked yesterday to come up with some good reasons as to why we should run a Referendum to roll back SB 5688 which states that marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships. The legislature has already passed 5688 and the Governor says she will sign any day.
Larry saying that he was asked only recently to justify a referendum means that he admits that his supporters are starting to doubt his judgment. Not surprising, since they certainly know that Gary Randall has been exposed as a carpetbagging money grubber, and many others in Larry’s circle begged off of the referendum long ago: Ken Hutcherson and Joseph Backholm very publicly backed away from a referendum on King5′s Up Front; Joe Fuiten has has to maintain a low profile since he tried to evict retired clergy from their homes.
Nothing in SB 5688 says “marriage shall apply equally” to DPs.(Lurleen note: Danna points out below that I was mistaken in the struck statement. Thank you Danna. Larry so frequently refers to DPs as marriage that I got tripped up by his moment of honesty!) Let us be clear about what SB 5688 says and does. The bill clearly states “[W]ith the exception of chapter 26.04 RCW, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife,…shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital relationships and married persons…(page 6, Sec 3, line 23)”. That little exception of 26.04 RCW is vital, because that is the “prohibited marriages” section of state law. So although DP’d couples will have the legal right to access laws designated for married people and spouses, they will NOT be married. The governor is NOT signing a marriage bill. Same-sex couples will NOT be able to get married by a justice of the peace or interested clergy. None of those things are the case now, nor will they be the case when SB 5688 becomes law.Since many people don’t understand all of the ins and outs of certain political maneuvers, I would like to tell you why our organization, along with many other groups and individuals, believes running a referendum now to turn back SB 5688 presents us with our very best chance to save marriage in Washington!
Larry is bearing false witness. SB 5688 isn’t about marriage, it’s about DPs. Larry knows that the majority of Washingtonians support DPs but not yet marriage equality, so he must try to confuse the issue by lying that SB 5688 is a marriage bill. 1. “If we lose marriage, we will lose our culture.” (Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS)
Larry is bearing false witness. SB 5688 isn’t about marriage, it’s about DPs. 2. By running a Referendum, we are required to gather only half the signatures needed for that of an Initiative.
An initiative does require twice the signatures, but you have twice the time to gather them in. But Larry will never run an initiative attacking the entire DP law because he knows that 66% of Washingtonians support DPs or civil marriage for s-s couples.
Larry is making one whopper of a sin of omission by failing to mention that if he runs a referendum this year, he won’t have the full 90 days to collect signatures. This is because the 90-day signature-gathering clock started ticking April 26th, the day the legislature adjourned. But Larry can’t file the referendum with the Secretary of State until the governor signs the bill into law. That may not happen until mid-May. That’s two weeks lost. After filing, the Secretary of State needs 7 days to process the request. Another week gone. Only then, once the Secretary has agreed that the proposed ballot language is ok, can the anti-equality crew print their petition sheets. More days lost to the printer. So at best, Larry only has 65-70 days to collect more signatures than his crew FAILED to collect in 2006. Larry is taking his donors on a frenzied wild goose chase.
Larry neglects to mention the fact that anti-equality forces FAILED to collect enough signatures in 2006 for the referendum to repeal the LGBT anti-discrimination law. That year, they needed only 112,440 valid signatures. This year they’ll need 120,577. The sins of omission are mounting. 3. A Referendum to roll back SB 5688 (which grants full spousal rights for homosexual couples in everything but the name) will keep the law from going into effect and put the measure in front of the voters in November. If we wait, the new law goes into effect in June and the Defense of Marriage Act will be challenged in the courts and likely overturned this same time next year. We have no time to waste, we have no other recourse, they are inside the wire.
Larry is bearing false witness. No legal challenge to the state’s DOMA is possible because the Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled that it is constitutional. Gary Randall recognized the finality of the ruling, stating, “We consider this a decisive victory that upholds the values of the faith community.”. But the mental image Larry tries to create of gays creeping over the ramparts is certainly a good effort at scaring money from the pockets of frightened women. 4. Hate crimes laws were enacted within months of the passage of same-sex marriage in Canada. The federal “Hate Crimes Bill” passed the U.S. House on Thursday of this week. We may be running out of time to address this issue without fear of jail time. I believe it would be foolish to wait another 10 months to two years to run an initiative under the current circumstances.
Jail time? Verbalizing homophobia is not and never will be a crime in and of itself. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that. The real reason he doesn’t want to attempt an initiative is he knows it is just as doomed to failure as a referendum, but twice as expensive. 5. A Referendum to the people to roll back Senate Bill 5688 would force our opponents to get the “YES” vote, which is always more difficult. People tend to vote “NO” if confused about an issue. I am told that the advantage for the “NO” side can be as high as 9 – 13%.
Interesting that Larry admits to banking on confusing the voters by calling DPs marriage. 6. From a fiscal standpoint, raising money for our side is always a challenge and we expect it will be this year. However, waiting until next year to run an Initiative would be even more difficult in that we would have to compete with important legislative and congressional races. The economic downturn plays no favorites and has hit our opponents as well. The leading homosexual rights group here in Washington has been forced to trim staff.
Translation: My pockets are empty. Please refill them now. 7. By running the referendum now, we will not be taking something away from someone. Instead, we are bringing a controversial proposed law to the people of Washington State for ratification or denial.
Larry already admitted in #3 that the act of filing a referendum puts enactment of the new law on hold at least until the signature-gathering period is over. This most certainly would be taking something away: the civil equality that the governor and legislature have already recognized for DP’d couples. 8. By running a referendum now, we can carry on the momentum we gathered during this year’s session when hundreds packed out the hearing rooms and thousands came to the Stand Up for Marriage Rally on the capitol steps. We do not know what the political climate will be like next year. Right now, this issue is HOT and front and center with the people of Washington. Your legislators and the folks at the legislative hotline will attest to this.
Certainly time is not on Larry’s side, since public support for DPs and marriage equality have grown steadily for years. If the issue is hot, it’s Larry’s donors who’ll get burned. 9. I believe that Christians are paying more attention to the issues at hand during these rough economic times (because of a new found reliance on the Lord) and are more willing to get involved in political matters than they were during the good times. Our best volunteer this year had time to help our organization because he was unemployed for many weeks. It may be that others temporarily out of work will be able to provide a wealth of volunteer time and labor to the referendum campaign.
It is unseemly to have a vested interest in people becoming or remaining unemployed, then using scarce cash to run a doomed referendum rather than helping them. 10. Faith and Freedom Network has up to date polling data by Elway that asked one simple question: “In your opinion, should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?”A majority said NO. Conclusion: This is a winnable issue for our side and not a fight we should run from.
Too bad for Larry that the referendum would be about the most recent DP bill, not marriage. This is not a winnable issue for Larry’s side. Donor beware. *************
There are scores of courageous men and women who have gone before us to defend liberty. It is now our turn to take to the battlefield!
Larry is confusing “liberty” for “tyranny”.
Cross-posted at Washblog.
17 Comments
I guess it could be ‘baring false witness’…..But that makes me itch. I always thought it was bearing false witness…. as in picking it up and carrying it around like a cross or something.
Thou shalt not bear false witness
thanks for catching that – fixedspelling was never my strong suit. or is that suite? or soot? ;D
The Real 10 reasons (just like the rest of the industry)$
$$
$$$
$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Want that new car you just saw? – better gin up a scary email!
Anybody can do that.Last week Pam posted a press release from the “Liberty Counsel”, I thought then, and apparently Dave over at Orcinus also, that it should be “Liberty Council”. The dictionary supports my choice over theres. (Insert Smiley)
Wording on Domestic Partnerships Bill to be signed by GovernorHey Pam, thanks for the great info! I had to look up SB 5688 for myself on the Washington State Leg site and found the wording for the bill.
Just an FYI…The bill does state that Domestic Partnerships are equal to marriage and uses that terminology all throughout the bill. Here is the link if you would like to look it up:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documen…
The wording in Section 3, Line 23 is as follows:
For the purposes of this code, with the exception of chapter 26.04
24 RCW, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow,
25 widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying
26 equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in
27 state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital
28 relationships and married persons, and references to dissolution of
29 marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships
30 that have been terminated, dissolved, or invalidated, to the extent
31 that such interpretation does not conflict with federal law. Where
32 necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband
33 and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to
34 be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered
35 domestic partnerships.
Nice analysisLurleen,
Nice job picking apart those statements.
It’s funny to me that Stickney mentions the Elway survey data, but then presents it as if things were going in their favor, instead of showing that they are losing support at a startling pace. Surely that fact could scare the faithful into coughing up a few more bucks, for the cause, so I’m surprised he plays it down. On the other hand, maybe they’d figure they lost and save their money.
With shifting demographics, these efforts do appear to be nothing less than a fleecing of their flocks.
The oddest part of the piece you quoted (at least for me) was what seems to be their foundational premise:
1. “If we lose marriage, we will lose our culture.” (Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS)
Obviously these people have a different idea of what “we” and “our culture” mean than I do, They have different perceptions about what “losing marriage” entails – or should I say fantasies? And of course under all this is an implicit linkage between what appears to be “modern biblical interpretations of right and wrong” and the laws of the land.
Then there is the hysterical nature of the comment, almost begging the question, “do you lose marriage all at once, or slowly, over time?” And more so: “how can the status quo practice be ‘lost’ when it is the dominant practice?” It is strange to see the majority playing the victim, but yea, it probably does bring in some donations.
Although I now live in Oregon, I’ve followed Wash. politics for years while living there. Thanks for doing such a great job posting on developments.
thank you!i’ve revised that section.
When I read Stickney’s stuff, I’m reminded of Paul Harvey.Stickney doesn’t tell “the rest of the story”. He only tells the fraction of the story that bolsters his point, and neglects the elements that might lead one to draw an alternate conclusion. He really does prey on people who don’t do due diligence, and that is dishonest hucksterism at best. As you say, “these efforts do appear to be nothing less than a fleecing of their flocks”.
….and a victim status…especially for children.
De Nada…Lurleen…I know you were just thinking of our little Carrie Prejean.and her baring falsie witness.
A question:So in Washington, DOMA stands, and marriage is defined as between a “man” and a “woman”? But at the same time, the new DP law says that same sex couples get all the same rights, excluding only the title and ritual of getting married?
Right, or just about almost not quite.That’s basically it, except that several provisions of the law dealing mainly with estate tax and public-employee pensions won’t go into effect until 2014, so we won’t be fully separate but equal in the eyes of the state until then.
The most important differences between being married and DP’d in Washington state is that our DPs largely are meaningless in other states and countries. And most importantly, civil marriage but NOT DP automatically gives access to the 1,138+ federal rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage regulated at the federal level. As GLAD put it,
As Washington State Registered Domestic Partners, my wife and I are denied access to those federal rights, benefits and responsibilities. Until our civil contract is bona fide marriage, we will be denied the fullness of our citizenship (while we pay higher taxes), and that is unacceptable.
Christine, I have a question for you.Was Gary Randall as involved in the marriage and DP battles in Oregon as he has been here in Washington?
Referendum filed by Larry Stickney.It’s official. Mr. Washington Tradition Values has filed a voter referendum to over turn DPs due to go into effect July 25th. They only have to get 120K signatures to qualify. When it does, it suspends the July 25th date until the elections. What a tool.
They can *try* to get 120,577 valid signatures……and of course they will try, but they will also very likely fail. As I mentioned above, they failed in 2006 to get enough signatures to put a referendum on the new anti-discrimination law on the ballot. And this year they need even more signatures than they did in 2006. It isn’t impossible if they can get the Mormons, James Dobson and other non-Washington organizations to funnel money into the effort. But it’ll be a stretch because they’ll have to collect their signatures in only about 60 days. That’s 2,000 signatures per day. Since Washington state is highly UNchurched, they will need to got to “populations centers” in the more rural/red parts of the state to collect. Good luck with that.
Even if they do manage to buy enough signatures (by using paid signature gatherers to collect them), the electorate will reject this repeal.
In short, what they’re doing is wasting everyone’s money during a severe downturn. Just like those Mormons in UT who thought donating to H8 was more important than helping family avoid foreclosure. Real xtains.
I don’t knowI haven’t really followed GLBT politics in Oregon for several reasons, mainly that I’m not sure I plan to stay here.
But it seems to me that he’s probably involved in both states since the cast of opposition characters seems so small that they have to rotate the position of Grand PooBah among, what, a handful of men?
From what I understand, the folks in Portland who seem to be organizing the marriage fight don’t want to try for same-sex marriage in this state until 2012. Apparently they’re afraid of posing the question to the voters next year. It’s understandable given the shifting demographics. They probably want to avoid a narrow loss that takes years to overcome.
The thing that really irritates me though is the idea that voters should get a say in who gets rights and who doesn’t. When the majority of voters are born cis-sexual, and through no effort or work on their part, easily and naturally were attracted to the “opposite” gender. And because of this lack of effort on their part, they get to enjoy 1100 some-odd federal rights, that people who weren’t so “lucky” don’t get?