Monday, February 13, 2012

Marriage Opponents Already Divided on Referendum

Posted by on Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Pastor Joe Fuiten walked into the Washington Secretary of State's office this morning to file a referendum attempting to overturn the same sex-marriage law that lawmakers passed last week. One problem: Governor Chris Gregoire hadn't signed the bill yet. So election workers turned him away with a 3:30 p.m. appointment to return (after the bill was signed), says Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons. Also this morning: Family Policy Institute of Washington director Joseph Backholm waltzed in with his own, separate plans to file a marriage referendum. Same problem, of course.

"I'd heard for a few days that they are not in sync on this," Ammons says.

"It will be interesting to see if they can come to an agreement on running the referendum, otherwise they are dividing their energy and resources," Ammons continues. He points out that, while advocates can file multiple challenges to the same bill, "You cannot combine the signatures form 1, 2, 3, 4 petitions" to qualify for the ballot.

The divisions between anti-gay activists run deep. The somewhat more measured Fuiten, for example, has long feuded with incendiary Pastor Ken Hutcherson. Whereas both men run hardline mega churches on the Eastside, Fuiten spurned the 2009 campaign to overturn a domestic partnership law that Hutcherson and Backholm supported. Fuiten may have ties to the money, though. He announced earlier this month that he'd secured $1 million from an out-of-state donor, who, by all likely calculations, is the Catholic-church-linked National Organization for Marriage.

All that said, divisions in 2009 didn't stop their referendum from making the ballot (ultimately their campaign failed, though). If they make it to the ballot again with this bill—as seems certain with all that Catholic cash—marriage will remain in limbo until the fall election.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
bleedingheartlibertarian 1
Hmm...can't help but wonder what would happen if there were, say, 20 different challenges filed?
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on February 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM
2
@1 And all of the signatures were "lost"? I don't know the law on that, but it sounds like potential election fraud to me.
Posted by pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM
3
Who's to say the signatures were to get lost? File 20 different ones and sow confusion as to which of the many legitimate petitions any individual signed, but dutifully turn in all the signatures to all the failed, separate petitions. No fraud.
Posted by Sean on February 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM
4
Let them file three or four or five referenda. People will sign one, and then not sign the others with the mistaken understanding that they have already signed. End result: no one gets enough signatures to make the ballot, and the marrying starts on June 7.
Posted by TechBear on February 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM
5
@3 It still sounds dubiously legal, if at all. But, hell I'm game for some chaos.
Posted by pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM
6
@5 You never know until you try and end up in prison.
Posted by Sean on February 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM
7
NOM NOM NOM

Posted by ighjkghj on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM
8
I'm less concerned about division in the opponents' camp and more interested in unification in the law's defenders camps.

We can probably assume they'll muster the signatures like they did for Ref. 71. If they don't, great. If they do, which orgs will be the best ones to support the legislation against the inevitable FUD from NOW/Vatican/LDS?
Posted by madcap on February 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Baconcat 9
Washingtons United for Marriage is our pro-equality pro-APPROVE organization.

Can we get a donate link up on Slog and the front page, Dominic?
Posted by Baconcat on February 13, 2012 at 2:27 PM
10
If Ed Murray wants all hands on deck to beat off these idiots, he better not play footsie with the road-kill Dems. They want to bring back the charter school bill with his help. If these are the people he's going to help, I find it hard to understand how he can expect help later on.

He can't have it both ways; vote for my thing and I'll vote for their thing. He needs to stand by the people who REALLY stand by him (not Rodney Tom, a pseudo-Dem).
Posted by westello on February 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM
DOUG. 11
Defending bigotry is complicated.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on February 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Joe Szilagyi 12
He announced earlier this month that he'd secured $1 million from an out-of-state donor, who, by all likely calculations, is the Catholic-church-linked National Organization for Marriage.


The bolded bit is what the legislature needs to attack with maximum lethal force in the next session.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on February 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Joe Szilagyi 13
For those with knowledge of legality in Washington: can the actual existence of a referendum be challenged in a court of law?

For example--could someone with standing sue to keep the expected referendum itself off of the ballot, or declared beyond the scope of the referendum process?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on February 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM
14
Where is that searchable REF 71 database?
Posted by KnowMyNeighbor? on February 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Add a comment