RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM's new conspiracy theory: Census Bureau making changes to hide marriage equality's ill effects » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/31/2009

Washing( away a )ton of progress

by Jeremy Hooper

WA-1Shitty news out of Washington state:

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A referendum that could overturn Washington state's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law has qualified for the November ballot.

The secretary of state's office said Monday that sponsors of Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid petition signatures - enough to put the newly expanded domestic partnership law to a public vote.

APNewsBreak: Gay partnership foes make ballot [AP via Seattle PI]

So it's now official: We have autumn fights in both Maine and Washington state. In both states, we need passion, we need funds, and we need warm bodies. We need to tell our stories to any and everyone who will listen. We need activists monitoring every last fart that eeks forth from the opposition, clobbering it with the sweet smell of truth before the fallacious stench takes hold.

In both states, they chose to turn what should be a benign measure of progress into a costly, time-consuming fight. They chose to antagonize our lives and loves. They chose to tell society that our taxes don't entitle us to full citizenship. We have no choice but to engage and engage big!

*AND REMEMBER: In this case we actually want to APPROVE the referendum:

Approve Referendum 71

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

There's still a pending lawsuit in Washington that could keep it from going to a vote. It looks like it has a decent chance too.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Aug 31, 2009 9:30:22 PM

I don't get it. The anti-marriage equality people yammer on about how all they care about is keeping "marriage" as between monogamous heteros. More often than not, they'll concede domestic partnerships.

Things like this are more and more proof that the opposite marriage-only folks don't give two bits about homosexuals. Being OK with domestic partnerships is just a political position. I've got a gut feeling that many of marriage equality's opponents would rather homosexuals just be removed from society.

Posted by: Brian | Aug 31, 2009 9:43:00 PM

Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST.org) needs YOU to help preserve the domestic partnership law. DONATE or VOLUNTEER! Referendum 71 asks voters to reject or approve the domestic partnership law, so tell everyone you know to vote "APPROVED" on REf 71.

Posted by: Lurleen | Aug 31, 2009 11:28:44 PM

Let us hope other states learned from the debacle in CA and the people there are mobalized, organized, and energized!

Posted by: Pomo | Sep 1, 2009 12:42:43 AM

UMMM. Brian you did read/hear the Signorile interview right? ... Here is partial transcript.

Anderson actually told me that, though he wouldn't encourage it, he would not condemn any person who killed President Obama or call that person a murderer. He does not believe that the man who allegedly killed Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor who performed late-term abortions, a murderer. And he said he would not call someone who shot a group of gays and lesbians with a machine gun a murderer:

MS: You want all gay people to be executed, correct?

SA: That is correct. It is what the Bible teaches.

MS: If somebody were to go out with a machine gun and spray down a crowd of gay and lesbian people, would you think that was okay?

SA: , I would not think it's okay because I believe in due process.

MS: Would that person be a murderer?

SA: No, I would not judge them as a murderer, no.

Toward the end of the interview, as he went on a rant calling all gays child molesters, I let him know I was gay, something I can't believe he didn't already know:


MS: You know, I'm gay..I'm gay, and I don't molest any children. What do you think of that?

SA: Well, I'd say you're lying.

MS: You think i must be molesting children, right?

SA: Exactly, right.

MS: Do you pray that I'll die tonight?

SA: If you're a homosexual, I hope you get brain cancer like Ted Kennedy.


Click. He hung up (though I didn't realize it until a minute later, and offered my final thoughts.) Listen to the full interview:

.... so yes I would say that there are extremists who we should not invite to the wedding.

Posted by: LOrion | Sep 1, 2009 12:00:41 PM

Proof positive that only marriage equality is acceptable.

Posted by: SammySeattle | Sep 1, 2009 12:43:24 PM

These "everything but marriage" "domestic partnerships" are such bullshit. It shows that the opponents are only trying to protect a word and a word itself, a word which they never had the right to define in the first place.

Posted by: wat | Sep 1, 2009 2:25:12 PM

I know this opinion will be in the minority, but I don't think it's so bad that this qualified for the ballot. The polls I've seen show most people favor the domestic partnership law. We could use a win at the ballot box, it would send a powerful message and would energize our community. It also gives us an opportunity to expose our opponents real agenda. They've said they only object to marriage but here they are trying to over turn a domestic partnership law. Their goal is to eliminate ALL rights for gay people and the public needs to understand that. And so what if we lose? This is a "seperate but equal" law that no one is totally happy with, the fight for marriage equality in Washington will continue either way. And actually the elimination of partnerships could help expedite marriage equality because no one could make the arguement that "we already have the same rights".

Posted by: Ken | Sep 1, 2009 9:17:46 PM

Ken, you bring up a good point, that some might vote no because of the fact that separate-but-equal isn't acceptable. We see this as a step forward, and we need to make sure that everyone who does support us sees it that way too. It isn't perfect, but it is a progression toward something that eventually might be more perfect.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 1, 2009 10:38:10 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails