Excellent post and great news.As an ex-Seattleite, I know that if the Eastern part of the state is on board with a progressive issue, this fight is over.  Won’t it be amazing when we finally put the anti-marriage industry out of business?

I think marriage equalityis an issue where progressives, libertarians and traditional republicans all see eye to eye.  Perfect fit for Washington State, wouldn’t you say?

The correct term is “Jim Crow marriage”And I am working on a website to push the “decline to sign” meme and, if it comes to it, to push for a no vote on the referendum. Any suggestions on content would be most welcome.

Oregon Gary admits needing to trick the votersI just remembered this letter I got last week from Gary Randall, which states

If our referendum effort can demonstrate that SB 5688 “is” homosexual marriage–and it is, I believe we can win this.

They’re not even trying to hide the fact that they’re trying to dupe the public about what the DP expansion bill (SB 5688) is and that the referendum is about DP law, not marriage.

Yes, I agree that that is a very apt term for it.Fantastic about your website!  Contact me at the email in my profile if you want to chew to website fat.

Ref – 71There seems to be an uncertainty as to what, if anything, local equality organizations (i.e. Equal Rights Washington) are doing in terms of direct and proactive action in response to the referendum threat.
It seems they are taking a “wait and see” stance to see the referendum actually qualifies for the ballot before beginning any significant and direct action against it.  It seems to me that the “Decline to Sign” campaign is preaching to the choir.  No hint of any more direct measures like the “Bigot Busters” campaigns from the 1990s.  

A very real problem with DPsIn California, our dosmetic partnership law requires that the two people live together and continue to live together so if my partner, who is considering a job in Silicon Valley, moves from LA and I need to stay here to run my business (and I do), our existing DP would be invalidated by CA law because we would no longer live at the same address, even though we were both in the same state.  
He will have to choose between a job and basic rights.
Crazy!

That’s horrendous.I didn’t know about that aspect of the CA law.  I know plenty of married couples who have lived separately – sometimes for years – because of career needs.  You provide another illustration of how the only thing that equals marriage is marriage.

The Decline to Sign campaignonly preaches to the choir if you don’t help make sure that the whole congregation hears about it.  Have you clicked on the graphic above and gone to the Decline page?  It is, among other things, a networking tool that helps “members of the choir” get the word out to their extended families, friends, co-workers, etc. who in turn can further spread the word.  The idea is to keep enlarging the choir to people who aren’t even in the church.  Have I tortured the metaphor enough?
As for other pre-petition plans, I’m not in the loop and so don’t know what is planned.  However, I can tell you that several news stories have noted how a challenge to the ballot language is a standard legal procedure which may be employed.  Besides the technical reasons for challenging ballot language, I would imagine that it might also be done to facilitate more opportunities for the media to comment on the referenDUMB, and further eat into the number of days The Larry & Gary Show have to collect signatures.  Such a challenge can’t happen until after the governor actually signs the bill, and that may not happen for another week.

I watched.The Everett Herald is owned and run by a zealot .. this is not and has never been a debatable fact.
Not an issue of this publication hits the doorstep without a fawing article about some church activity.
But still, today the Herald is a local paper which gives free advertising to the catholic school . . . “Now more than ever” it’s important to enroll the kids in their school . .shield children from the gay abortionistas.
I grew up in this town . .and we live here. . .I’ve interracted with many and most of the politicians over the years. . .the term “good old boys” doesn’t even begin to cover the subject.
Please don’t allude to thinking that 40 miles north of Seattle that things have changed. . .the occasional supportive editorial is an obligation to “outsiders”.

This is what you shuld do
You need to “move” with him, but keep the place in LA. Change your all state info to the new address in the Bay Area.
Then the place in LA is a business expense, because you have to be near your business and you live in the Bay Area, the rent, electric, etc is now a tax deduction on the place in LA. This will make the cost of two homes less by the tax rate of your business.
So look at the bright side, you get to save some on your taxes to help pay for having to keep to homes

good idea for me…but if I didn’t have my own company, and wanted/had to stay at my job, I would be in real trouble

Yes you wouldTha CA DP law knida sucks, huh.

I remain amazed at the absence of scare quotes around the word “marriage”.If you want just a single sign that we’ve already won, look at how often the bigots and anti-marriage industry employees put scare quotes around that word when they refer to marriage equality.  It was 100% the norm as recently as last year and for at least a decade before that.  Now, it’s only the extreme lunatic fringe who do it.
When even the bigots know that marriage is marriage, it’s all over but the fighting.

Same in WAThe same requirement exists in the Washington law, so, no, not the same as marriage without the name.  Marriage does not require a shared residence.

R-71Of Course I support the “Decline to Sign” campaign. Of course I’ll sign the letter.   And of course I would spread the word.  But would that be enough?  I don’t think so.  The best way to deal with an anti-gay ballot measure is to spare no effort to try to prevent it from making the ballot.  Once they qualify for the ballot, it will be an uphill battle.  We, unfortunately, have not done well in successfully beating back ballot measures once they qualify for the ballot.
 Decline to sign is a good idea, but there should be a multifaceted approach to fending off hostile ballot measures.  I’m also in favor of more direct action such as that taken by the Bigot Busters when we faced successive anti-gay ballot measures during the dark days of the mid 1990s.  The bigot busters approach is this:  There would be widespread notices in local papers, websites, etc, inviting people to call an 800 number if they saw signature gathering activity.  Trained volunteers would be dispatched, armed with talking points, to politely engage would-be signers and inform them of what exactly the ballot measure would do. The local leadership has no interest in reviving this model, even though it played a large role in stopping four separate hostile ballot measures from qualifying in the 1990s.
I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is – I’ll donate generously to such a group.  And I’ll get my hands dirty.
I’m aware that there will be a legal challenge.  That’s the least that could be done.  There is an additional legal move that the law’s supporters can undertake, in cooperation with the state, and it’s quite simple, and it would likely set the opposition back three weeks or more.  (And this is important when they have until July 25 to collect 120,500 signatures, plus an additional margin of 20% to cover invalid signatures – and signature collection has not yet begun).  I won’t get too specific about it because I know the opposition also reads this site.  But the local leadership knows about it and chooses not to pursue it.
I think everything that can be done should be done.  To fail to do so is the error of complacency.  As we have seen in California, that invites disaster.

Please….To register as CA DPs you need to have a common residence…There in no requirement to continue living together.  

Cal. Fam. Code 297(c)
Quote from NCLR fact sheet:

“‘Have a common residence’ means that both domestic partners share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two people have a common residence even if one or both have additional residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.” Cal. Fam. Code § 297(c).

Sounds like you have everything you needto solve the problem, not just say someone should.
Why are you waiting for someone to lead you?
The monetary and time costs to starting the blog, marketing it online, holding online info sessions and offering in-person training are pretty low.
It’s not that much work to find out whether anyone else in WA agrees with you that this is worth trying. If a lot of people agree with you that it’s worth trying, and all of them help a little, you’re done.
What we saw in CA, in my opinion, was a class of people so accustomed to paying a professional organizer class to do the thinking for us that we forgot to fight for ourselves using every possible means.
On behalf of my family, I fired my state’s equality organization on Nov. 5th and got to work organizing. Not another dollar, not another hour, until there is transparency and accountability. The options are not complain or comply anymore, because it’s just not that expensive or complex to organize what  think needs to be done. If others hadn’t jumped on board, that would have told me that I was either early or off-base with my ideas.
Come on in, the water’s fine!

“Yes” votes only, please!Don’t forget in your messaging that being against the referendum means voting YES to ratify the DP law, if the referendum makes it to the ballot.  This is always confusing to people, so be sure you are clear and careful in all your wordin, and maybe use the same phrasing over and over to help people remember.  Something like this, maybe:
VOTE YES for Equality on Ref 71.
VOTE APPROVE on Ref. 71
VOTE YES for Domestic Partnerships
VOTE YES to Expand Domestic Partnerships
Say YES to Domestic Partnerships
etc. etc.  It will probably help to adopt the language ERW settles on, since they’ll probably be handling most of advertising.  The other side will surly try to confuse the voters, so we need to be crystal clear.
h/t Susan

Do we really need to explain to you how offensive “Jim Crow marriage” is?If you want to get any Black votes in WA I woudlnt use the term “Jim Crow marriage.”
It wrong n multiple levels.
1) DPs are NOT ANY KIND OF MARRIAGE.
2) Denial of marriage equality is not the same thing as de jure and de factor racial segregation!
VOTE YES TO EXPAND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS sounds good to me

ref. 71I was over at Washblog reading some of the comments from prominent would-be supporters of the referendum, and it is surprising (at least to me) that the general consensus seems to be: a) they don’t have enough money to run a campaign, b) they don’t have enough organizers and staff to win, c) they think conservatives are generally not attuned to GLBT issues as they once were (what with the economic problems), d) that a loss would seriously set them back, and e) that now is not the right time to run a referendum.
But I doubt Stickney and Randall are going to back-out now.
Lurleen, your point about DP not getting federal marriage rights is key. You can see that’s where the phrase “it’s marriage in everything but name” breaks down, because there are a whole range (1138) of differences from the heterosanctioned variety of marriage. (Sorry, I just wanted to make that word up
At least for the signature campaign, it does seem clear that they are going to go after the most conservative folks in the state, and I don’t doubt that they have lists. So I’m still not convinced they can’t get the signatures, even though some comments over at Washblog seem to paint the endeavor as a hopeless. (Maybe just to rile up the troops?)
I hope I’m wrong…

separate but equalis what DPs are.  that’s jim crow.  no one is claiming that denial of marriage equality is the same as racism.  but it is bigotry in another form, and separate but equal/jim crow hasn’t been reserved for and applied only to black people.
i agree that VOTE YES TO EXPAND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS is a nice option.

well, i’m of two minds on this.first, i do think that larry ‘n garry will certainly not give up, but i think they will fail miserably in trying to get signatures.  they failed in 2006 on the anti-non-discrimination referendum, when support for DPs and marriage was lower and the bill in question was controversial.  the current DP bill is only controversial with gary ‘n larry.  and, they need something like 20,000 more signatures this go-round.
however, although i think they’re being foolish and are doomed to failure, i am NOT taking anything for granted.  the time and effort i put into this blog should attest to that.  if they land a big chunk of cash to pay signature gatherers with, they have a shot at getting the signatures (although they had payed signature gatherers in 2006…).  you will find no complacency here, although i may not agree with every tactic that is presented from opponents to the referendum.  but we’re all adults and can decide for ourselves how we want to proceed in helping larry ‘n gary fail.

That was my pointComplaisance will get us nothing. . .To sit back and think that these phobes have lost over something as simple as Domestic Partnerships is foolish. . .didn’t we learn anything last fall in CA?

Evidently, yes. Someone does need to explain it.Let me take a stab, no murderous-violence-with-impunity pun meant by that.
Lurleen, I respect your work and efforts and hope that you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended:
‘Jim Crow’ does not mean ‘segregation’ literally. It means something closer to ‘apartheid, but without ubiquitous video cameras keeping the bad guys constrained’. Jim Crow started after Reconstruction, and had gotten a lot gentler by the time Emmitt Till was murdered.
Does that clarify how the two things are different? And why ‘Separate isn’t ever equal’ sounds VERY different than ‘Jim Crow marriage’?

at the same time . . .explain what isn’t accurate in the quote:

“It is everything but marriage without the word, but it elevates the homosexual relationship to the same level as marriage,” he said. “There’s no legal difference. All it is is the name.”

Other than the “homosexual relationship” verbiage .. this is, quite frankly what our State has approved, and what our State legislators have worked on. . .so why exactly is this quote a problem since it’s the truth?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m on the side of the fence who won’t settle for anything but equality, however. . .pointing out a quote from Randall that is fact & trying to make it look like he’s over the edge? I don’t get it.

okayRandall is over the edge, but you get my point.

read my bulleted points above.

Well obviously Jim Crowmeans different things to different people.  So be it.  I see a similarity, you don’t.  OK.

return?..if you had to set up another house because you took another job or got transfered your status would be questionable…NOT THE SAME!

I cringed when I saw the “Jim Crow” reference.I understand why you chose it, but am afraid its use may get in the way of what you’re trying to do. Aside from the feelings it evokes for plenty of black people that we’re unfairly associating our movement with theirs, or that the Jim Crow laws are NOTHING like we have to face, have you considered that many (most?) young people these days probably have no idea what Jim Crow means?
Keep it simple.  Keep it positive.

I did.and I still don’t get it. . .Randall is a bigot, carpetbagging monster, but exactly how does quoting something he wrote that is factually true make the case? . .Seriously. . the legislation passed in our state is “everything but marriage without the word” and “There’s no legal difference. All it is is the name.”
That was and is the whole point of the legislation.
The bullet points are speculation.
We both know how this went with the supreme court in WA the last time. . .it’s gone beyond a State issue this time.

Feh! You are correctIt is best if the referendum does not collect enough signatures, and it is allowed to go into effect in July. If it does go to the ballot, we want to motivate a YES vote.
Damn, that means I registered the wrong domain. Ah, well, that means the opposition can’t get it. Off to fix the problem.

I use the term deliberately, with full knowledge of the implications and baggageJim Crow laws were the laws that created and enforced segregation in the United States. They were the laws that established “Whites Only” lunch counters, train cars, hotels, restaurants and swimming pools. They were the laws that forced non-whites to leave town by sunset, to go to poorly built and severely underfunded schools and to sit at the back of the bus. They were the laws which Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled to be in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
See the similarities?

Separation is inherently unequalThat was the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Even Washington’s “marriage in all but name” law falls far short of equality.

Governor expected to sign DP bill Monday, May 18th.According to the Sec ‘o State, the governor is expected to sign the bill on the last-possible day, May 18th.  The SOS won’t release ballot language until then, because the governor has the option of vetoing all or part of the bill, which would affect the ballot language.  Until The Gary & Larry Show get finalized ballot language, they can’t print their petition sheets.  Read more on how the mechanics of the system are eating into the finite number of signature-gathering days, here at Dominic Holden’s pad.

What you never plan to visit each other?If you never plan to see each other again at a place where one of you lives, probably not the best idea to get notarized then.
Otherwise, remember, DPs in California are governed by the same rules as hetero spouses, save there requirement to have a common resident when you get notarized and registered as a DP.

hmmmmcrickets.