Tweet
Today was the last day anyone could file a challenge to the ballot language that the Washington State Attorney General proposed for 
Referendum 71. Referendum 71 seeks to repeal the recently-passed Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009 which gives same-sex couples all the state-level rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage.
All eyes were expectantly on Equal Rights Washington, but who showed up at the courthouse today to protest the language of the referendum? None other than the referendum’s daddy, Larry Stickney.Remember that Stickney and his puppet master, the Oregonian Gary Randall, rely on people believing their oft-repeated lie that domestic partnerships are marriage. They perpetuate this lie because they know that 66% of Washington voters support domestic partnerships or better for same-sex couples, so a referendum on DPs is a non-starter. In contrast, opposition to marriage equality is at about 50%. Thus, their odds improve greatly if they can convince people that Referendum 71 is about marriage, not domestic partnership.
The Spokesman-Review (Spokane) describes the changes that Larry proposed.
Here’s the summary language originally proposed by the Attorney General’s office (the bold-facing is mine, to highlight the differences):Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
Here’s what Stickney proposes instead:
This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations of registered domestic partners to be equal to the rights, responsibilities and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples, except that domestic partnerships will not be called marriages.
Similarly, here’s the original description wording proposed by the AG:
“Concise Description: 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.“
And here’s how Stickney would like it to read:
“Concise Statement: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations of state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partnerships, to be equal to the rights, responsibilities and obligations of married couples, except that domestic partnerships will not be called marriages.”
I’m not surprised that Stickney didn’t like the AG’s ballot language, because it would make his bait & switch much more difficult. However, it is stunning that he waited until the last minute to file this challenge, running down his own clock. Petitions can’t be printed and circulated until a judge has ruled on the challenge. He could have filed this challenge a week ago and had 7 more days to collect signatures. Now, the earliest the court will hear this challenge is May 29, but the Secretary of State’s office is quoted as saying that June 5th or 12th are the more likely dates. Larry only has until July 25th to turn in 120,577 valid signatures.
And by filing the challenge at all, he all but guarantees plenty of extra scrutiny by the press and plain folk of his dishonest tactics. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Is this guy on our payroll? If not, why not?
11 Comments
I’m not surprisedI think I was right in assuming he’d try to force full equality out of the legislature next session. What better way than to give everyone a false sense of victory? By that point, he’d have a large warchest and a sense amongst supporters that the liberal media is out to get them.
I think this is a fundraiser for 2010. Swecker and Shea are probably going to be doing some hard work pounding out the inevitable marriage equality bill early in the session and force it to committee and get it voted on quickly. They’ll do their obvious “oh no, not here!” thing and give the Murrays and Walshes of the state some false hope that they are in their last gasp. They’ll vote on it early and get it signed ASAP.
And then Randall, Stickney, Swecker and Shea will come marching in, probably with a referendum AND an initiative. I doubt anyone is prepared for that. I bet they can sneak this in under a mix of liberal euphoria and conservative rage.
In Larry’s dreams!First off, Larry is showing himself to be a total buffoon, and people don’t forget that with characters who live off of referenda and initiatives (think Eyman). People aren’t taken in by him now, and will be less so in the future.
I agree that he’s milking this for money, but little to none of it will end up in any war chest, it’ll end up in Gary & Larry’s paychecks.
As for a marriage bill, key legislative committees are controlled by us and our allies. No bill will move in those committees until we know we’re ready for it. Earliest estimate so far is 2 years from now. The staggering success of the 3-step DP bills shows that our side can and does outwit their side.
Time for Larry to get another construction job.
Well, this is assuming, of course……that they succeed in any of that, so yes, it is probably all in his and Gary’s dreams.
Swecker and Shea did play their hand, though. They basically said “alright, you want to have this conversation, we’ll have it”, so even if they fail to bring it to a vote next year, they can very well try and at least gain the rightist currency they want. And I do think there will be at least an effort to sock away enough to be the first interested party out of the gate to combat a marriage bill. That doesn’t take much, though, mere hundreds of dollars is all.
At this point, caution and patience should be the rule. Doesn’t mean there can’t be optimism, though.
sj1009suja
—-
FTP Automation
Actually, I’m not at all surprisedTalibangelicals like Stickney aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. I expect that he would not have acted except that his puppetmaster got annoyed, then he had to rub his two brain cells together to come up with alternatives. By the time he had managed that, he had to sprint down to the country courthouse in Olympia.
The next step, of course, would be for defenders of existing language to present themselves and fight against the changes. At the very least, that will delay a court ruling on the language, narrowing even further the window they have and making it more likely that the referendum never sees the ballot box. And I’m ok with that.
Great news
We have enough for now …let’s not risk losing it allWhile we should not take the opposition for granted, and presume they are serious, it is possible that the R-71 effort may fold, but the money is banked for an initiative in 2010.
It is possible that Joe Fuiten (who has much more respect from the right wing than Gary Randall or Larry Stickney) and his allies can be convinced to join the effort. If that happens, we’ll have an even greater threat on our hands.
Joe Fuiten specifically left open the possibility of an initiative in 2010. He also said there was some merit in saving his ammo for the the actual fight on marriage, which is yet to come.
My advice to our friends in the Legislature: DO NOT propose a marriage equality bill. A marriage bill will fuel the efforts of our opponents and may cause some who might have left the DP law alone to get involved because they now see marriage itself as threatened. An initiative could threaten the entire DP law, not just the recent extension. I suggest we wait the opposition out. Time is not on their side and public opinion is gradually changing in our favor. After a few years the DP law will be more secure because the public will have become used to having it around. We can then push for full marriage equality without placing in jeopardy what we already have. Let’s be smart about this and proceed carefully. If we keep mum on the word “marriage”, I think we can survive an initiative attempt in 2010. Then we can talk about a marriage bill in 2011 or 2012.
I know that recent polls say that more than 60% of the public supposedly supports domestic partnerships. But I wouldn’t trust the polls too much. Remember I-677 – a proposal for a very modest employment non-discrimination bill? It failed by 20 percentage points. The polling before the election, however, predicted that we either would win or it would be a close loss. It wasn’t even close – we got creamed.
Don’t rely too much on the polls. Don’t be impatient.
I’m not hearing any indications of rash actionson the part of our legislative champions. Murray, Pedersen and McDermott are cautious, patient and smart. They won’t move until the groundwork is well-laid. That means 1) knowing the legislative votes are there, and 2) knowing enough of the voters are with us so we can defeat the referendum/initiative we know will follow.
And speaking of legislators, I need to get on the emails and thank my rep, Scott White, for coming to the rally yesterday. But if you’re reading Rep White, it was great to know you were there! I would have said ‘hi’, but there was a sea of 500 people between us, lol!
put the marriage bill on ice for a couple of yearsI recall that Sen. Murray has been proposing a civil marriage equality bill each session for the past two or three years. It’s a symbolic gesture because the bill goes to some committee (Like Senate Judiciary) where it dies. Next year would be a good time to forego the symbolic gesture. Once the DP law is more secure, in 2011 or 2012, then proceed with a marriage bill and/or another legal challenge to the state DOMA.
i think those timing decisions can never be madetoo absolute too far in advance, because a lot depends on what happens in the state and country between now and the next legislative session.
while we’re on the subject,…http://www.gallup.com/poll/118…
Here is a link to a recent gallup poll dealing with marriage equality and other issues