For foes of gay marriage, it's not enough that Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna proposed NOM-approved talking points for the R-74 ballot language.
No no, they would also like some references to potential child homosexual
husbands wives spouses thrown in too, please.
From the "Petition to Challenge Proposed Ballot Title and Summary on Referendum 74" that was filed today in Thurston County Superior Court by R-74's own sponsors, here's the language that they would much prefer to see on the fall ballot (bolds added):
The legislature has passed Senate Bill No. 6239 concerning the definition of marriage and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill. This bill would redefine marriage from a civil contract between one man and one woman to a 'civil contract between two persons' and makes 'husband' and 'wife' gender neutral terms. Should this bill be [ ] Approved [ ] Rejected
75 Word Summary:
The bill would redefine marriage from being between one man and one woman to any two eligible persons regardless of sex. It construes terms like "husband" and "wife" to be gender neutral. The bill permits minors to marry a person of the same sex by waiver of a superior court judge. The relationships of same sex domestic partners under the age of 62 that are not dissolved by 2014 are converted to marriages.
Anyway, as I noted in this week's Stranger, there's going to be a challenge and some new proposed language from Washington United for Marriage, too.
"Both the proponents' language and the AG's language are not reflective of what's required for a fair and balanced ballot title under the law," says Anne Levinson, lead attorney for Washington United.
Next up: A court hearing, after which a judge will issue final ballot language.