Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Ballot Language That Gay Marriage Opponents Would Prefer to See for R-74

Posted by on Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

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):

Ballot Title:

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.

Huh?

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.

Stay tuned!

 

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
R-3967, the Swede Disenfranchisement Initiative, has been gathering votes!

Well, not really, but I'm not the sort of satirist who goes out and makes phony websites and all.

I mean, you get the joke, right?

Don't have to spell it out. Leave that to Colbert and Savage.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on February 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 2
awesome; the longer it takes for the petitions to come out the better
Posted by passionate_jus on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
Zebes 3
Well, since McKenna just wants to stack the ballot language with all sorts of irrelevant shit, why stop there?

"This bill would do absolutely nothing to stop the terrible reign of fundamentalist Islamic warlords in rural Afghanistan."
"This bill encourages the takeover of America by Martian Mindslavers by contributing nothing to the Martian Defense Fund."
"This bill doesn't give puppies to orphans, so therefore it stands to reason the people who favor it hate both."
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on February 22, 2012 at 4:14 PM · Report this
switzerblog 4
These poor rubes really can't utter a phrase without including "fair and balanced" anymore, can they? The Foxification of the right is complete!
Posted by switzerblog on February 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM · Report this
switzerblog 5
Also, that bit about allowing minors to marry? Get used to seeing that repeated in every editorial, LTE, newspaper and TV ad in favor of R-74. It's kinda helpful of them to give everybody a heads-up on the PR plan.
Posted by switzerblog on February 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM · Report this
raku 6
"Domestic couples under age 62 must submit to the government to be assigned their mandatory same-sex marriage partner. All marriages, including those of children, shall be redefined to include homosexual sex. Men are now wives and women are now husbands. The existence of eternal hellfire remains unchanged."
Posted by raku on February 22, 2012 at 9:22 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 7
#5 Approval of Ref 74 will allow loving adults to marry. Being in favor of Ref 74 I think means you're for marriage. Rejecting Ref 74 means you don't think the Gay folk should have the same civil rights as Het folk. So when folks talk about kids getting married, they will as us to reject Ref 74, they are not in favor of it as I think you suggested. "newspaper and TV ad in favor of R-74" - switzerblog
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM · Report this
watchout5 8
The government is under obligation that if they provide a benefit to one set of people over another they must give a valid reason for not giving that benefit to another group. If not valid LEGAL reason can be had this issue has been decided. Nothing out of any bigot's mouth about this issue changes the fact that the government is engaged in discrimination. This is like constitution 101. If Rob McKenna is willing to put the constitution aside for whatever personal reasons he might have for wanting to treat an entire class of citizens differently than another I see no reason why anyone should take him seriously. It was a funny joke that someone who hasn't read the constitution wants to be governor of washington, but I guess that's what the republicans in this state really like about the guy?
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 23, 2012 at 4:21 AM · Report this
9
It's really revealing that NOM and their followers can't defend their positions without repeated lies or misdirections. My guess is that Washington law currently allows a minor to marry a partner of a different sex with court approval (i.e. a 16 year-old female to a 20--or 40--year-old male), so of course gender-neutral changes to the marriage law would allow minors to marry same-sex partners with court approval. But framed in this way, McKenna and NOM are throwing red meat to the crowd that sees a card-carrying NAMBLA member in every gay person they meet.

Posted by Clayton on February 23, 2012 at 8:19 AM · Report this
10
Wait, it automatically converts domestic partnerships to marriages? Is that for real?
Posted by Ben on February 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report this
Rebecca F. 11
Will the Stranger be making the complaint from League of Women Voters & PFLAG available online, like it did with the Preserve Marriage Washington complaint? I've seen a Seattle PI report that a second challenge was filed, but I can't seem to find details anywhere.
Posted by Rebecca F. http://www.smartconservativewoman.blog.com on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
Rebecca F. 12
Ben, yes, that's for real.

Right now, domestic partnerships are available to couples if one of them is over 62 years old, or if they are both of the same sex.

If R-74 is approved, same-sex couples under 62 would no longer be able to enter into domestic partnerships.

After a certain date, which I think was in 2014, same-sex couples who already have a domestic partnership, but are both under 62 years old, would be considered "married" in the eyes of the state. There's an exception if they are in the process of having their domestic partnership dissolved when that part of the law takes effect, and I think the exception might include if they are legally separated, but I don't remember that detail for sure.

Domestic partnerships would still be available for couples if at least one of them is over 62 years old, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. Domestic partnerships for seniors will not be converted into marriages.
Posted by Rebecca F. http://www.smartconservativewoman.blog.com on February 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
Rebecca F. 13
Ben, see Section 10, Subsection 3:

"(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, any state registered domestic partnership in which the parties are the same sex, and neither party is sixty-two years of age or older, that has not been dissolved or converted into a marriage by the parties by June 30, 2014, is automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of June 30, 2014. (b) If the parties to a state registered domestic partnership have proceedings for dissolution, annulment, or legal separation pending as of June 30, 2014, the parties' state registered domestic partnership is not automatically merged into a marriage and the dissolution, annulment, or legal separation of the state registered domestic partnership is governed by the provisions of the statutes applicable to state registered domestic partnerships in effect before June 30, 2014. If such proceedings are finalized without dissolution, annulment, or legal separation, the state registered domestic partnership is automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of June 30, 2014."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdoc…
Posted by Rebecca F. http://www.smartconservativewoman.blog.com on February 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this

Add a comment