They do not want to run a referendum; they want to run a fundraising campaignActually going out and collecting signatures will cost money. They don’t want to SPEND money, they only want to COLLECT money.
By running the referendum, they can use the threat as a fundraising tool. When their referendum fails, they can go back to their base and say, “We tried, but you didn’t support us enough. Give us more money!”
That seems to be the only rational (sic) reason for how things are unfolding.

Let them Stay a beat behind.  Forever….

What a shame Larry isn’t in charge of NOM et al, huh?  

too true!he’d have nom in the crapper faster than michele bachmann can say ‘lip-lock me, daddy george!’.

Thanks for that image, Lurleen. . .Especially while I was eating!! You owe me a keyboard!

….and just as soon as people sign they will be outed.This on 365 Gay News:

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington’s same-sex partnerships.
WhoSigned.org says it’s partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.
In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.
Sponsors of Referendum 71 have until July 25 to collect about 121,000 signatures to make the fall ballot. The referendum seeks to overturn the latest expansion of the domestic partner law, which would give partners the same state rights as married couples.

Lurleen, I am glad that you are staying on top of this.Techbear has a good take on the situation. Making money on a suspect referendum scheme may not have been Stickney’s first thought, but it probably came to him pretty fast.
He could have acted without thinking [am I stating the obvious?] about what was required to effectively stage a referendum. Or maybe his “friends” egged him on and made promises of support without thinking or sincerely intending to provide material backup. Maybe smarter people are using him as a diversion. There are a number of ways Stickney’s referendum could be going down that have little to do with what is being publicly said and done.
As long as he continues to screw up his own referendum and his “friends” do not step in and help him, he probably will further his reputation as a loser, and who wants to continue giving money to a proven loser? [Except other losers.] And we will not have to dedicate too much of our resources fighting his failure-prone, petty exertions in the future. And if he is somebody’s stooge, he could be useful to us.
Still, he needs watching — more than one comic actor (e.g. Hitler and Mussolini) has not been taken seriously by reasonable people until it was too late and ended up doing a lot of damage.

no and yes.The Secretary of State releases the names of petition signers if enough valid signatures were returned so that the referendum is certified for the ballot.  So “as soon as they sign” is quite an exaggeration.  And as I already said, the Sec’y of State releases this info for several good reasons.  My diary about it is here.
People are only just now getting up in arms about this 50-year old public information law because they want to hide their bigotry.  Simple as that.  Well, they can hide their vote, but they can’t hide their advocacy for a referendum.  That’s the way the system was built.

I think that the reason he is so anti-gayIs that some queen called him a troll in an adult bookstore backroom and he never got over it

Larry isn’t operating alone.He has a large board of directors who together have many decades of political and legislative experience.  This, and the sum of their bizarre actions, indicates to me that TechBear is completely on track with suspecting that they know this referendum will fail, so they’ve decided to milk the donors for all they’re worth before it goes down in flames.
The Protect Marriage Washington board includes the following scam collaborators:
Larry Stickney
Bruce Craswell
Cindy Honcoop
Bryant Adams
Gary Randall
Representative Jim McCune
Representative Matt Shea
Senator Dan Swecker
Pollyanna Stickney
John Ahern
Ron Boehme

unhelpful comments by WhoSigned.orgI support the publishing of names of persons who sign petitions.  When citizens act as legislators to sponsor legislation, there is no right to secrecy.  There is also a strong public mandate for transparency of all matters that are intended to promote or oppose a candidate or ballot measure.  And transparency is the best way to detect and deter fraud (as Lurleen explained in great detail).
It’s not helpful for WhoSigned.org to suggest that persons who sign should expect unwelcome phone calls or visits.  It’s an invitation to harassment, which I completely reject.  They have the right to hold their opinions.  It may be legitimate to choose to no longer associate with a friend, neighbor or coworker whose name is discovered on list.  Our freedom of association is just as important as their freedom of belief.  Both are found in the First Amendment.  I think it’s an extremely bad idea, however, to initiate “uncomfortable talks” about their views.  I hope the backers of Who.Signed.org will back off their statement about wanting to initiate “uncomfortable talks”.  In any event, I believe those who sign the petitions have a much greater chance of receiving telephone solicitations and junk mail from right wing religious/political organizations than of an unwanted confrontation.  The right wingers would be delighted that someone would take the effort to create a nice database of new potential supporters and donors without having to pay for it.  (I doubt that Larry/Gary would have gone through that trouble)

Back in 2006,Gary and his then-partner Joe Fuiten dropped their protests to Tim Eyman over what they thought was misleading petition language that would undermine the success of the referendum, in exchange for Eyman promising to give them copies of the signed petitions.  Clear as day, what was most important to them was names and addresses.  I have no illusion that these guys dont’ have a negative opinion of LGBTs, but what is clearly of paramount importance to them is lists.  Lists to raise money from, lists to sell to conservative politicians and perhaps business concerns.  Beating Teh Homosakshul Agenda is secondary.