Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Art Underwater in New York | The Apology Tour Starts Here »

Friday, November 2, 2012

2012 If Marriage Equality Is Approved, It Will Be in Part Because Rob McKenna Failed to Get Anti-Gay Ballot Language Approved

Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I voted last night, and was struck by the clarity and helpfulness of the ballot language for Referendum 74. It succinctly gives the history of how we got to this odd moment when we're putting minority rights up for a popular vote, it notes that voting to "Approve" same-sex marriage does nothing to harm religious freedom, and it specifically knocks down one of the most common misconceptions about R-74 by spelling out that R-74 won't force churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they don't want to.

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.

This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:
[ ] Approved
[ ] Rejected

Which reminded me that back in February, Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna was urging a Thurston County judge to place conservative-approved, anti-gay talking points on the ballot instead of the language above.

If Seattle attorney Anne Levinson and others hadn't fought McKenna's strategy of casting R-74 as an attempt to "redefine marriage," I think we'd be seeing a much different outcome in the current polling.

Pollsters read the ballot language to poll respondents before asking which way they're going to vote, and McKenna's "redefine marriage" language would almost certainly have struck voters differently than the current language about "religious freedom."

FacebookShare

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

The idea that anyone thinks that government could possibly have the power to force churches to perform same sex marriages against their will makes me want to weep for their dumb asses. Gullibility-it's not just a river in Egypt.

Posted by MR M on November 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So readers trying to piece together what McKenna's proposed language actually was, will have difficulty even with all the links in this post. So where was the sentence, and what was the sentence (about redefining marriage) and how exactly would have that sentence been placed on the ballot? Or was that even known?

I'm not saying McKenna wasn't doing this, I just want to see the exact verbiage he was proposing.

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney

on November 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

And yet there's the distinctive Teabaggy language of Advisory Votes 1 & 2...

"The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the people, a business and occupation tax deduction for certain
financial institutions’ interest on residential loans, costing $170,000,000, in its first ten years, for
government spending. This tax increase should be:"

"The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, expiration of a tax on possession of petroleum products
and reduced the tax rate, costing $24,000,000, in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax
increase should be:"

Posted by Geocrackr on November 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM

@2 you can read the failed McKenna version here http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/20…

Posted by Lurleen on November 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

@2, when your boyfriend has his ass handed to him Tuesday night what are you going to rename yourself?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews40_09/mobile/p…

'The bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, apply marriage eligibility requirements without regard to gender, and specify that laws using gender-specific terms like 'husband' and 'wife' include same-sex spouses.'

Posted by protected static on November 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

@4, @6: Thanks
@5: I will simply expire. My last commentary will be on Wednesday.

Posted by Gay Dude for Romney

on November 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

So did you lose your left forefinger up your ass somewhere, @2, and can't type the two g's in "google"? Look, here's some other links that haven't been mentioned yet:

http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…

http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…

http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…

http://purpleunions.com/blog/tag/ballot-…

Posted by rob!

on November 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

"My last commentary will be on Wednesday."

That will be sufficient proof you're a paid shill. If otherwise, you'll stick around and either whine about how Obama continues to plague your wallet, or exult that he's at least improving your pud life.

Posted by rob!

on November 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Remember, traditional marriage is: (choose one)

a. where one clan raids another clan and abducts and rapes one or more "wives";

b. a property transaction between two clans or powerful families;

c. a binding relationship between a biblical king, his wives, his concubines, his slaves, and his soldier's wives after he kills their husbands;

d. a method of forcing women into indentured servitude and why women couldn't vote until two centuries ago.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on November 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I had a wonderful dream last night. I was having a blazing row with McKenna, and I made him cry. I was so mad at the alarm clock for disturbing that scene.

Posted by originalcinner on November 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I noted the language on the ballot as I happily voted to Approve. I was encouraged, as this is the biggest point the whiners & poor-me's usually trot out. I had forgotten that McAsshole had fought to change it.

I would usually vote for a lesbian for Governor of Washington state, but not this one.

Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Rob McKenna is one of those very bright, ambitious people with a terrific education who has decided to use all of his talents and privileges to protect the rich. He's a Karl Rove, a shill. In an earlier era, in Dixie, the homeland of the current Republican Party, he'd be the foreman on a plantation who oversees the slaves for wages of pork chops and bourbon.

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on November 2, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I think, when this subject first arrived at Slog, I was dismissive of the anger and heat regarding Rob's choice of ballot language.

It seemed innoccuous to my untrained eyes, and, honestly, the 'hate every action Rob takes' Slog meme was growing tiresome.

In hindsight, on the ballot language part, it's really clear how wrong I was. I was naive then. I am a little wiser now.

Posted by NotSean on November 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I'll support marriage equality if it's the law of the land.
How could an attorney general take any other stand?
But give me an excuse
To slip in some abuse
And you will find those laws on quicksand.

Posted by JustSayn on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I'll support marriage equality if it's the law of the land.
How could an attorney general take any other stand?
But give me an excuse
To slip in some abuse
And you will find those laws on quicksand.

Posted by JustSayn on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM