Every year, King County Executive Dow Constantine holds a fundraiser at the convention center in downtown Seattle to benefit his reelection campaign. And last Friday's luncheon was no different, except more than 600 people showed up—more than 200 more donors than last year—to smack down $100 each and listen to speeches. And then something else happened, the sort of thing that almost never happens.

At that moment when, midway through the meal, some mucky muck steps up onto the podium to ask people to pull out their checkbooks and part with as much cash as possible for the candidate, Constantine stepped up himself. And he didn't ask for donations for his own campaign.

Instead, Constantine asked everyone there to write a check to the campaign to uphold marriage equality this fall.

"We got a giant pile of envelopes," says Zach Silk, the campaign consultant for Washington United for Marriage, which is trying to approve Referendum 74. The grand total: $11,300. "We are very grateful for Dow's support," adds Silk. And his campaign needs the cash: Washington is trying to become the first state in US history to uphold marriage equality at the ballot, but we're facing a hydra campaign from the likes of NOM, Republican Rob McKenna, the Catholic Church, and other groups building their efforts to overturn the state's gay marriage law. "Dow has been a champion on these issues, and we really appreciate that he was willing to ask his supporters to step up," Silk says.

Seriously and indeed. Good work, Dow.

LA Times:

In a move that some called historic, the county’s oldest African American civil rights group voted Saturday to endorse same-sex marriage.

The National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People passed a resolution supporting gay marriage at a meeting of its board of directors in Miami, saying it opposed any policy or legislative initiative that “seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens.”

....“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the 103-year-old NAACP said in a statement.

The man is Ukrainian, and his kiss was mistaken as sexual...

St. Mary Catholic parish in the Central District has made its stance official, as several Catholic parishes are revolting against Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain's call to join the campaign to repeal same-sex marriage. Tricia Wittmann-Todd, the pastoral life coordinator at St. Mary, sent a letter to her congregation this afternoon that calls the signature-gathering campaign for Referendum 74 potentially "hurtful and divisive to our parish."

"I am particularly concerned about our youth who may be questioning their own sexual identity and need our support at this time in their lives," Wittmann-Todd writes. Her full letter is after the jump.

This isn't just the Catholic laity and parish leadership demurring—they're hitting back with strong language that stakes their objections on moral grounds. Politically, it's a revolt from the local Catholic church's hierarchy. Socially, it's an acknowledgment that gay people are welcome—even beloved—members of Catholic congregations, and the laity will defend them from the bigoted bishops on high.

Thus far, we have also confirmed that St. James and St. Joseph are refusing the petitions. We're also told that St. Catherine, St. Patrick, St. Therese, and Christ Our Hope have refused the signature drive.

Continue reading »

Several Seattle priests have refused to allow anti-gay petitions inside their parishes, despite the the fact that the Catholic hierarchy invited petitioners into local churches as part of a campaign to repeal the state's marriage-equality law.

News first broke this afternoon when St. James Cathedral pastor Michael Ryan said he refused to circulate the petitions because it would "prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community." That bucked Seattle Archbishop, J. Peter Sartain's recent invitation to run a signature drive for Referendum 74 in all local Catholic churches.

But Father Ryan is not alone in drawing the line—more Catholic churches are also resisting Sartain's political dictates and, apparently, hewing more closely to the city's progressive Catholic laity.

"You may have heard about a petition drive concerning Referendum 74, which will be gathering signatures at a number of parishes in Seattle," says a statement on the home page of St. Joseph Catholic parish on Capitol Hill. "Please be aware that Fr. Whitney has decided that no petitioning will be permitted anywhere on the campus of St. Joseph. Please contact Fr. Whitney with any concerns."

Sources tell us that other parishes—while I have not confirmed, because it's just after 11:00 pm—are also bucking the hierarchy's invitation to run the anti-gay signature drive in the parishes. My own alma matar and former parish, St. Therese, has reportedly rejected invitations to circulate petitions for Referendum 74. St. Mary in the Central District and St. Patrick on north Capitol Hill have also taken the stand.

Interesting—this could be another big year for Catholic America.

In an email to his flock, St. James Cathedral reverend Michael Ryan has announced that he won't circulate petitions inside his parish for the campaign to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Here's his full email:

Dear Friends,

Archbishop Sartain has written a letter in which he has expressed his support for Referendum 74 and for the collecting of signatures in parishes. Media reports regarding this are somewhat misleading. While the Archbishop has given his support to the effort, he has wisely left it up to each pastor to decide whether to allow the collection of signatures in his own parish.

After discussing the matter with the members of the Cathedral's pastoral ministry team, I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.

Father Ryan

First things first: Father Ryan deserves serious praise from Seattle's LGBT community. This is bold.

Second: In saying some media reports are misleading, Father Ryan is probably referring to articles like mine and the one in the Seattle Gay News, which says Archbishop J. Peter Sartain and his auxiliary bishop have "ordered churches in their jurisdiction to collect signatures." In his letter letter to parishioners last week, Sartain explained he had "approved the gathering of signatures in our parishes over the next few months" and given priests "information regarding the signature drive." It seemed clear that the Archbishop had given petitioners permission to work the churches. And typically in the Catholic Church hierarchy, when the archbishop says he has allowed activity in his parishes, the activity isn't just allowed—the subordinates need to comply. For example, three months ago Sartain "asked" all his parishes to run anti-gay statements in their bulletins, and they complied, including St. James. Last week, I contacted the archbishop's office and his spokesman to ask if there was any option for priests to refuse to circulate the petitions or deny access to petitioners. They never replied. (I'll update my online article with a link back to this post.)

Anyhow, if priests can refuse—and they can call the archbishop's campaign "hurtful and seriously divisive"—that's great. But the Catholics I talked to didn't seem to think that was an option. "If priests spoke out, I think they would be silenced. They would lose their pulpits. That's a safe bet," Barbara Guzzo, who attends St. Mary's in the Central District, told me.

I hope Guzzo was wrong—that Father Ryan isn't silenced and that more follow his lead.

Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who oversees Washington State's Catholic hierarchy and nearly 250 churches, has angered local Catholics by ordering a petition drive in all parishes to repeal the state's gay marriage law. In a letter to parishioners, Sartain explains he has "approved the gathering of signatures in our parishes over the next few months" and given priests "information regarding the signature drive" that begins today.

"Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," says Sartain, adding, "All Christians are called to chastity, and sexual intercourse is so intimate and significant that it is intended only for a man and woman in marriage."

Although Sartain was welcomed to the city two years ago as a tolerant listener, his latest decree helps redefine that reputation by turning parishes into venues for right-wing organizing. The announcement also brings the Seattle Archdiocese—long considered a font of progressive thinking and social conscience—into cozy relations with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a virulently anti-gay national group trying to repeal marriage equality in Washington State. The campaign to put Referendum 74 on the November ballot is officially run by Preserve Marriage Washington. However, Sartain borrows repeatedly NOM's leading talking point, complaining that lawmakers have "redefined marriage."

Even in liberal Seattle, dissent from pastors appears unlikely.

"If priests spoke out, I think they would be silenced. They would lose their pulpits. That's a safe bet," says Barbara Guzzo, a Catholic who attends St. Mary's in the Central District. Along with an organizing committee, Guzzo has formed Catholics for Marriage Equality in Washington specifically to resist Sartain's campaign.

Continue reading »

After confronting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz at last week's annual Starbucks shareholders' meeting, a furious National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced an international boycott against the coffee company because "purchasing a cup of Starbucks equals support for gay marriage."

But so far, "We're not seeing any impact," says Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson. If anything, NOM's attack has endeared Starbucks to the public and sends a message to Fortune 500 companies that defending gay rights is safe political ground.

Not only is Starbucks unaffected, but as of March 27, NOM had reported barely 22,000 signatures on its petition. That's a drop in the coffee cup compared to marriage-equality advocates. Just one of several groups who began counter-organizing, www.sumofus.org, collected names for a "thank you card to Starbucks for standing up for gay rights." That petition, as of March 27, had a staggering 281,000 signatures—more than 10 times NOM's petition.

CONTINUE READING>>

Some things must be seen to be believed, so it's time to do some seeing of recent court filings by the National Organization for Marriage, which say the group is essentially trying to "fan" a race war. Via AmericaBlog:

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key...

Just incredible... that they'd put it on paper.

This is essentially the same strategy used by Pastor Ken Hutcherson, who has railed for years against comparisons between marriage equality and civil rights, and NOM is obviously hip to the incendiary post-Prop 8 fallout after exit polls showed many African Americans in California voted against same-sex marriage and gays lost their shit.

Washington State may be a something of a case study on the efficacy of this tack in the next seven months. Preserve Marriage Washington—the new group working with NOM and Focus on the Family to overturn marriage equality by getting Referendum 74 on the ballot and then rejecting it—has used stock photos of African American families in heavy rotation on its website. And while that's hardly evidence on its own, let's be real: NOM and Focus on the Family aren't particularly black organizations (and Washington State is a pretty white state). During the campaign, the rabid preachings of Hutcherson could serve to amp up divisions among progressive gays and racial minorities. We'll have to see if gays take the bait.

Since this news broke yesterday—and spread faster than santorum in a cracked pressure cooker—NOM director Brian Brown took a page from the Hutcherson playbook, saying on the group's blog, "Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage."

You can read the entire court record here.

After confronting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz at the Starbucks annual shareholders' meeting in Seattle today, a furious National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced an international boycott against the gay-marriage-endorsing company because "purchasing a cup of Starbucks equals support for gay marriage."

But Schultz was unflappable. Check out this video of his exchanges with NOM props/shareholders:

[UPDATE: The YouTube clip posted by nomvideofeed was suddenly set to "private"—but a screen shot and a partial transcript, taken while it was public, is below.]

"I assure you the the senior team of Starbucks discussed this, and to be candid with you, it was not something that was a difficult decisions for us," Schultz told the first questioner—to a burst of applause from the stock-holding crowd at McCaw Hall. "From time to time we are going to make a decision that is consistent with the heritage and history of the company that may be inconsistent with one group's view of the world... We made that decision in our view through the lens of humanity and being the kind of company that embraces diversity."

The another NOM prop then asked "if it is prudent to risk the economic interest" of the company by adopting a controversial political position.

Unfazed, Schultz explained that Starbucks employs 200,000 people—with the obvious subtext that the number including lots of gay people. "The success that we have enjoyed, that is linked to shareholder value, has a great deal to do with whether our people are proud of the company they work for," he said.

NOM is outraged. They've launched an international "Dump Starbucks" protest and are asking people just like you to visit www.DumpStarbucks.com "immediately to take action." The NOM Blog says the group will "place ads throughout the United States, as well as in the Middle East and Southeast Asia."

They would need a two-thirds majority to override a gubernatorial veto. You can watch the floor debate here. (My big faggoty thanks to tipper Eric.)

As I report in this week's paper: If someone makes a pledge to your political campaign, even if they haven't given you the money yet, you need to report it. That's the law in Washington State.

So last month, when Pastor Joe Fuiten went on Q13 television to announce, "Yesterday, there was a commitment of $1 million made to this campaign," political observers waited—and waited—for the group trying to overturn the recently passed same-sex-marriage law to name its anonymous major donor.

Then the reporting deadline came on March 13. While Preserve Marriage Washington did report $17,145 by the deadline—mostly in the form of in-kind donations—there was no mention of the $1 million pledge.

So who's this alleged big pledger?

CONTINUE READING >>

The blog for the National Organization for Marriage reports that co-founder Maggie Gallagher is walking into the Starbucks shareholders meeting in Seattle today—it began at 10:00 a.m.—to protest the corporation's unflinching support for same-sex marriage in Washington State.

"Does it make sense for an international consumer company to equate its brand with a hot-button moral/culture war issue, when so many of its customers, employees and vendors around the world disagree?" the blog asks. If Gallagher doesn't like what she hears from the board, "NOM may make a major announcement immediately following the board meeting."

The meeting is underway right now at Marion Oliver McCaw Hall at Seattle Center (321 Mercer St). Not sure when it ends, what Gallagher will hear, whether she'll be satisfied (she probably won't), if NOM and its piles of Catholic cash "may" really announce anything—but holy cow! Maggie Gallagher is IN SEATTLE AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

If you go, please be polite.

UPDATE: Slog commenter elaineinballard points to the live stream over here.

In a decision that cannot be overruled, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee handed marriage equality advocates a significant victory this afternoon. Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna, whose office is tasked with writing ballot language for all initiatives and referenda, had inserted biased language into a ballot title for Referendum 74, a petition filed by religious activists trying to overturn the state's same-sex marriage law. In McKenna's draft, R-74 was littered with the phrase "redefine marriage," which the National Organization for Marriage has long ballyhooed as its most effective talking point. McPhee struck down that charged statement in favor of language saying the measure would "allow same-sex couples to marry."

McPhee's orger (.pdf) decrees that the ballot title—which includes a statement of subject and concise description—must now read as follows:

Statement of Subject

The legislature passed Engrossed 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].

Concise Description

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

Ballot Measure Summary

This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnership are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement.

That new language hews closely to the neutral language requested by marriage-equality advocates trying to uphold same-sex marriage by approving R-74. By nixing McKenna's ballot language and rejecting Protect Marriage Washington's request for even more biased rhetoric against gay partners, Judge McPhee handed marriage equality what could be a decisive victory from swing voters.

Stopping short of an outright celebration, however, Washington United for Marriage's Anne Levinson explained the ruling's importance outside the courthouse. "The attorney general had used language that was prejudicial towards opponents of marriage for same-sex couples," Levinson said. For example, she cites "the use of the phrase 'redefine' in multiple places—and the judge agreed with us by eliminating that term. That is an advocacy term used by the other side."

Credit for the successful appeal goes primarily the League of Women Voters of Washington and the PFLAG of Washington Council, which filed the case. The appeal was argued by Paul Lawrence, the Pacifica Group, Legal Voice, and the ACLU of Washington.

Enriched with two contributions from a "Richard Long," the group trying to overturn Washington State's marriage equality law reported it first set of donors today to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.

You can check out the Preserve Marriage Washington reports here, which show $4,215.00 in cash contributions and $11,825.59 in in-kind contributions to the "No on R-74" effort. The in-kind donations are entirely from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Family Policy Action (an arm of Focus on the Family).

But here's what's missing from the records: that anonymous million-dollar pledge.

Last month, shortly before filing Preserve Marriage Washington's referendum petition, Pastor Joe Fuiten—one of the campaign's leaders—told Q13 that "there was a commitment of $1 million made to this campaign.” Since then, NOM has promised to help the campaign, leading many to believe NOM was the anonymous donor. That seemed to be confirmed when NOM's Christopher Plante flew into Washington State on February 13 and claimed that each side will spend $2 million to $6 million. But for now, there's no record of the pledge.

According to the PDC, Preserve Marriage Washington must file a record of any pledges made in February by midnight tonight. If they don't, either they're derelict in reporting or the money ain't there.

The latest on the back-and-forth over the R-74 ballot language comes in the form of a court filing by gay marriage supporters who want the November ballot to read as follows:

Note that the phrase both Rob McKenna and NOM prefer—"redefine marriage"—is nowhere to be found.

That "redefine marriage" language, says Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington, "is inflammatory, and it puts in jeopardy civil rights for all Washingtonians."

This language? Much better, from his perspective (and from the perspective of the League of Women Voters of Washington and the PFLAG Washington State Council, who are the petitioners of record for this filing).

A hearing on all of this is set for March 13 in Thurston County Superior Court.

The Maryland state senate approved marriage equality legislation today by a 25-22 margin, sending the bill on to Governor Martin O'Malley, who is expected to sign it into law. This makes Maryland the eighth state to approve gay marriage, following quickly on the heels of Washington.

Kinda feels unstoppable.

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!

So I just called up Steven Pidgeon to ask him about his "not true" claim that Washingtonians will soon be able to find copies of the anti-gay-marriage initiative, I-1192, in local Staples stores.

“That’s by arrangement with us and the individual Staples stores where they’re going to be available," Pidgeon explained.

What? Staples just told me that it won't allow its stores to be used for such political purposes.

“I’m not going to commit Staples to anything," Pidgeon then told me, rather confusingly, since it seemed like he already had.

So I asked him: Wait, didn't you already commit Staples to this?

“If somebody quoted me as saying that," Pidgeon replied, "they quoted me incorrectly.”

Um. Here, this is from your friend Gary Randall's blog on Feb. 17: "Steve Pidgeon said petitions will be available within the next few days and will ultimately be available at thousands of churches, some Staples stores and online."

“You’ve gotten disinformation," Pidgeon said. "Gary Randall doesn’t speak for me. I speak for me.”

Then Pidgeon said something about using Staples for uploads or downloads of I-1192, and then he abruptly hung up.

Today, in an interesting story on in-fighting among Washington's gay marriage opponents, the Seattle Times notes that Gary Randall and others have been saying Initiative 1192 petitions will soon be available for signing at local Staples stores:

According to Randall, initiative petitions will be available in the next few days and eventually people will be able to find them in thousands of churches, some Staples stores and online.

"Not true," Staples spokesperson Mark Cautela tells me. "As a matter of policy, Staples does not take positions on political issues."

I'll check in with Randall & Co. to see if they can explain why they're asserting this "not true" claim.

As mentioned last week, Republican Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Rob McKenna gets to propose ballot language for initiatives and referenda, and for this fall's gay-marriage-repeal referendum, R-74, McKenna is proposing NOM-approved "redefine marriage" phraseology.

(As in: "This bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry... Approve ___ Reject ___ ")

Interestingly, for Initiative 1192, this fall's re-ban-gay-marriage measure, McKenna proposed different language.

"Initiative measure 1192," McKenna's proposed language read, "concerns the definition of marriage."

(As in: "This measure would define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman and prohibit marriage when the parties are persons other than one man and one woman... Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] ")

McKenna's proposed I-1192 language has since been modified by a court after complaints, and his proposed R-74 language is likely to be taken to court too. But McKenna's first instincts on these matters tell us something.

Continue reading »

Gay marriage is signed into law in Washington state, a lesbian couple publicly states that they can't wait to get married, and they come home to a swastika and a middle finger spray painted onto their Tacoma garage.

Meanwhile, it's been four days since the debut of Whosigned.org, the searchable database that contains the names and addresses of Washington residents who signed 2009's anti-gay Referendum 71, which sought to repeal Washington's domestic partnership laws. And despite bigots' fears that they'd be subject to harassment if their bigotry were made public—that hoards of dapper gays would descend upon them like cocksucking locusts!—the internet is predictably devoid of stories of reprisal.

So, for those of you keeping score at home: The only people victimized as a result of Washington's gay marriage law appear to be a lesbian couple and their three children. (But hey, if any of you bigots out there have a story of being harassed or persecuted by the gay mob as a result of your R-71 signature or for speaking out against gay marriage, I'd love to hear it.)

Hat tip to Sir Spanks-a-lot.

Good news! This will almost certainly go to a referendum, but it's still a sign of progress:

After two days of contentious debate and the consideration of several amendments, the Maryland House of Delegates has passed marriage equality legislation with a vote of 71-67.

Never thought I'd say this, but thanks for your help, Dick Cheney.

Blogger Joe Mirabella says of Preserve Marriage Washington's web site:

The source of their “family” photos is a large database called iStockphoto.com that sells stock photos to anyone willing to pay a small license fee. One of the photos they purchased was called, “happy young family.” The company that took the photo is an Austrian based company called Ameridesign.

When Ameridesign found out what their work was being used for they wrote in an email, “Ameridesign was disappointed to learn our photograph is being used in an effort to take away civil marriage for same-sex couples in Washington by the organization ‘Preserve Marriage Washington.’ The organization purchased our photo from a large database of stock images without any contact with us,” They wrote, “Ameridesign supports the rights of loving and committed same-sex couples to marry.”