The solution here is obvious and easy.

Instead of "This bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry... " the ballot language should read:

"This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry... "

Just take out the three unnecessary words.

"This law would bring us into modern times, treating all couples equally."

There ya go.

"Marriage has already been defined in this state" ...by legislators, that is, and not by the people.

@2

Why do you need to remove the words "redefine marriage"? For virtually all of American history, it's been defined as a contract between one man and one woman. Times are changing and people are now calling the definition into question. If the people decide they want to "redefine" the word, then so be it. But it *is* a re-definition. Why are you trying to avoid acknowledging that? Is that threatening somehow?

@4 Letting women vote did not redefine voting.

@4 Did you even read the story? Didn't you get the parts about the impact and importance of those words.

Besides, the law isn't about redefining marriage, it's about allowing people to marry. Marriage remains the same legal contract between two consenting adults with the same consequences for ownership of assets and liabilities and the same rights of attorney in fact, next of kin status, and inheritance. Marriage is not in any way re-defined by this law, it only changes who is allowed to partake in it. The institution isn't changed, just the people in it.

McKenna's language deliberately and calculatingly salts the issue with the opposition's propaganda. It's a slap in the face to the gay community.

The Prop 8 repeal proceedings in California clarified that gay marriage is not a 'redefinition' of marriage. Kristen Perry's sworn testimony speaks to (I paraphrase) "domestic partnership is not socially understood the way the word marriage is. We want marriage." She wasn't talking about something else.

Walker's well-reasoned judicial opinion on his ruling further emphasizes the importance of the term - his view is that marriage (his word) is expanded and socially reinforced.

Given the new stats about out of wedlock births it ought to be obvious that gays and lesbians are trying to SAVE marriage.

Vote to save marriage! A vote for Governor-wannabe McKenna is anti-marriage. He's against marriage! See how that works?

McKenna is trying to destroy marriage. Can we trust a man like this to be governor? I don't think so.

@4 Yes, marriage has been defined in this state by legislators, not by the people. It's the government that defines marriage in EVERY state. The "people" don't define it. What an absurd notion.

And how, exactly, would the "people" define it? Oh, yeah! Through their democratically elected legislature!

Asshat.

@4: I'll pile on. Marriage in WA is currently defined as a civil union of any two people, regardless of gender. How in the world could a referendum that *confirms* that definition be seen as "redefining"?

Asshat.

Bravo, @6!

While I understand the parsing that is going on here, and share the desire to phrase descriptive language in a light that favors marriage equality, my concern is over the crafting of the right sound bites to use in the upcoming election.

It looks like we can't avoid the Yes/No pairing of votes, and I worry about the uninformed and barely literate electorate figuring this out. I want to take the high ground, and say "Yes for marriage" in favor of equality but what is the other side? "No for discrimination"? "No for bigotry"?

Something a bit less volatile would be better. Good ideas welcomed here.

P.S. - Hate the fact that we are VOTING on a civil right.....

Wow, you all sound pretty defensive. Usually, confident people don't need to be... because they know they're right. Yikes, it certainly doesn't bode well for the movement.

Last I checked, words were defined by people, in use, and in practice. The government never decided the meaning of the word "chair" for example. It came out of use, by people. Just like a contract between opposite genders became part of the definition of marriage, thru use, by people.

It's only in a small handful of western (predominately white) countries worldwide that the word has been defined as a contract between any two people. Most of planet earth has opposite gender as a part of the definition of the word. Which is fine. But we are talking of a redefinition here. Forty years ago, about 99% of Americans would define it as a contract between a man and a woman. Today, not so. The definition is now changing because society has started to acknowledge the existence of gay people. Again, why does acknowledging it's a redefinition scare you all so much?

I think every gay person should be rioting in the street.

When has there ever been a "referendum" to decide if one group of people has the same rights as another?

It's more often than not been a legal challenge decided by judges and secondly a civil war.

Could I say, have a referendum that decides that certain religions are not allowable in the State of Washington?

This process is insulting, degrading and ultimately...horrifying.

@13 - You're being dense on purpose, right? We are not talking about a small handful of Western countries. We are talking about Washington State.

Right now, even though its implementation is delayed by these referenda, same sex marriage in Washington is LEGAL NOW - and by "legal," I mean it that is codified in law. You know - the way the word is defined by people, in use, and in practice.

So explain in your condescending way how rejecting the attempted nullification of this law would redefine the legal definition marriage in Washington State?

If any redefinition actually occurred, that already happened.

@6: yes, marriage was redefined in Loving vs Virginia. Before that: a black person and white person could not be married in Virginia. Not pay a fine or be closed down as in restaurant example but flat out could not be married. Period. The legal definition of marriage in that state did not allow it.

Sounds like a change in definition to me.

McKenna is being strategic, using "redefine" to appeal to his base. He's always strategic, which is why he's so dangerous.

But I don't think the law has taken effect yet, so until it does, marriage is still technically defined as man/woman.

Shouldn't the courts simply allow R-74 on the ballot and I-1192 off? It seems to me once the legislature has approved a bill, if we are going to have a referendum, the people merely vote up or down on that bill. Plus, if one goes pro-marriage equality and the other anti-marriage equality, what then?

Courts, please resolve this! The people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves!