RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

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

09/02/2009

Washing (away a )ton of bias? Well, not quite yet

by Jeremy Hooper

A mixed-bag legal opinion today in Washington state:

A King County Superior Court judge said Wednesday she had serious concerns that thousands of invalid signatures may have been accepted for Referendum 71, but rejected an attempt to block a public vote on expanded same-sex domestic partnership benefits in Washington state.

Judge Julie Spector issued her ruling just as Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the measure that aims to overturn the new "everything but marriage" law for the November ballot in Olympia.

Spector said challenges to a referendum must be filed in Thurston County Superior Court after certification - and supporters of the "everything but marriage" law still had that option for trying to get R-71 off the ballot. The group that brought the original lawsuit - Washington Families Standing Together - said it would go to court in Thurston County to try to block R-71.

Judge rejects challenge to anti-gay rights initiative [Seattle PI]

So basically, the judge agreed that there is merit in this legal challenge. Now at issue is whether or not the Secretary of State should have accepted signatures (tens of thousands of them) that were wrongly/fraudulently/improperly obtained, a question that will move to Thurston County (where the capital of Olympia is located).

So keep the faith, fellow 'mos. We have not yet begun to fight (and we may not even have to).

**Lurleen at Pam's House Blend has more on what this all means: BREAKING: Judge validates facts raised by Washington Families Standing Together [PHB]

**Here's the full ruling:


Referendum 71

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


Your thoughts

This particular judge does seem to be convinced that this petition has not satisfied the requirements of the law - on multiple counts - and that as many as 37,000 (but not less than 2,500 based on the resounding decisions from other states) of the signatures are invalid. And, that the issue of committing fraud in the collection of those signatures might be within the purview of the court to decide as well.

It may be too early to call, but, it sounds like these petitions aren't worth the fraudulently obtained, scrawled ink overlaid on their pages.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 2, 2009 2:44:18 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails