| HeraldNet - Snohomish County's online news source |
 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 12:03 pm |
ADVERTISEMENT |
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Local News 
|
|||||||||
Gay marriage issue can wait, say Referendum 71 partisans Both sides agree it's too soon to take gay marriage to the ballot OLYMPIA — Those who opposed each other on Referendum 71 agree on one thing: Don't look for gay marriage on a ballot in 2010.And don't expect the Legislature to make it legal or a judge to decide the issue. Leaders on both sides say it's too soon to revisit the issue. “I think we have to be engaged in a prolonged conversation with the people of Washington before we can achieve marriage equality. I think 2010 is too soon,” said Joshua Friedes, manager of the Approve R-71 campaign. That's fine with Arlington's Larry Stickney, a leader of Protect Marriage Washington, which unsuccessfully sought rejection of the measure. “Yes, they won. But while they won, I think they need to slow down and take into consideration that they barely got a majority,” Stickney said. “I am going to encourage them to halt their efforts, but why would they want to listen to me?” Referendum 71 let voters approve or reject a law passed earlier this year by the Legislature to give gay and lesbian couples equal footing with married spouses under state law. It expands the state's domestic partnership law, which also covers heterosexual couples in which at least one partner is 62 years of age or older. On hold since July 26, the law will take effect when the election is certified Dec. 3. Its approval is a mathematical certainty even with tens of thousands of votes to be counted. It led 52 percent to 48 percent Friday with the margin of difference of about 65,000 votes. Many untallied ballots are in King County, where two-thirds of the electorate are approving it. Throughout the campaign, foes argued the law targeted by the referendum is the last stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered the debate on marriage is a conversation for the future. The election, they said, was about preserving a law giving same-sex couples vital legal protections and rights. That future is now with both sides examining vote results and pondering options in the Legislature, on the ballot and in the courts. Proponents know they must build support in those rural areas before a marriage measure gets pushed to a statewide vote. As of Friday, voters in 29 counties were rejecting the measure — and in some places, by more than 70 percent Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, introduced a bill legalizing marriage for same-sex couples last January. He said he's not expecting it to receive a hearing in 2010. “The closeness of the results indicates we have a lot of work to do before we move marriage legislatively or on the ballot,” said. Murray, who authored the law put before voters. “The Legislature has done its part,” said Rep. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds. “Now it's time for the gay and lesbian community to take the next step and talk to the residents of Washington on what marriage equality means and are we ready for that. “We can't make civil rights and marriage equality a King County or Puget Sound issue only,” he said. Stickney said another reason the Democrat-controlled Legislature won't take up the issue in 2010 is they fear it could hurt those members facing re-election in areas that opposed the referendum. Using the ballot is also not an option under consideration by the religious and social conservatives, he said. They may want a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but state law bars such changes from being made by initiative. Both sides say they aren't planning to use the courts to press their cause, though they think their opponents will. Stickney, during the campaign and again Friday, predicted an effort to win gay marriage by judicial fiat would be attempted within a year because that's been the strategy that's worked in Massachusetts and other states. In Washington, the goal would be overturning the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The state Supreme Court upheld this law in 2006 but Stickney expects a new challenge is coming. “I think it's going to be very difficult to stop if the courts weigh in and overturn DOMA,” he said. Friedes said Stickney was repeating one of the “scare tactics” used in the campaign. In reality, it's Protect Marriage Washington that might try to the court route but Friedes said he didn't think they'd “have a legal leg to stand on.” Alex Hays, executive director of Mainstream Republicans, which backed approval, said the two sides need to pause and recharge in 2010 while the new law sinks in. “It is only a step toward gay marriage,” he said of the election. “This is going to be long term. It is not going to happen as immediately as 2010.” Everett attorney Steve Pidgeon shares that view. “I think the voters were able to vote their conscience. Let's live with it for a while and see what it looks like and how it plays out,” said Pidgeon, adding he is not speaking for his client, Protect Marriage Washington. In time, he said, people will see if students in public schools are taught gay marriage is acceptable and if the state incurs unexpected economic costs from implementing the law. “We'll just have to see,” he said. Friedes said few will notice any changes. “The radical right has always talked about this parade of horribles if we have this domestic partnership law,” he said. “Now people will see.” Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623, jcornfield@heraldnet.com. |
- A revolutionary 747
- Fire breaks out at Everett car dealer
- Everett rethinks boutique wineries
- A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood
- Snohomish County's bargain housing won't last
- Boeing's 747-8 takes off after weather delay
- Plan for I-5 closures this week
- A new bowling alley for Monroe?
- Lake Stevens man homeless after fire
- I-5 bridge joint may give you a jolt, but it isn't damaged
- A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood
(10) - Vote on school levies by Tuesday (9)
- Everett police officers cleared in 2008 shooting death (5)
- 1949 travel aid shows how few places blacks were welcome in Washington (4)
- Everett rethinks boutique wineries (4)
- Three politicians who want Gregoire's job in 2012 (3)
- Toyota has powerful D.C. friends (3)
- Snohomish County's bargain housing won't last (3)
- Life story: Man fought depression courageously, family says (3)
- I-5 bridge joint may give you a jolt, but it isn't damaged (3)
- Edmonds educator, famous announcer dies
- Mill Creek to appeal ruling on annexation
- Through the air, with the greatest of ease
- E-W thriving under new coach
- The path to citizenship
- EUUC puts on ‘Pants & Shoes’
- Wolfpack wins the ‘Battle'
- Lynnwood’s annexation plans OK’d
- Arlington's Cascade Valley Hospital celebrates expansion, national award and 100 years of service
- Business Licences Feb. 2010
- Technology tips for launching your own business
- Business Events Feb. 2010
- Tech Talk: No excuse today for going without a Web site
- State already raising fees and rates that restrict business growth
- Some legislators again targeting people’s initiative petition rights
|
 
|
|
|
|
| TODAY'S TOP JOBS |
| View All Top Jobs |
| Top Cars |
|
| Top Homes |
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|Contact Us
|Advertiser Services
|Home Delivery
|Newsstand Locations
|Classifieds
|Feedback
|About the Company
|Work@the Herald
|Site Map |
|
COMMENTS
Log in or register to post a new comment.
To read other terms and conditions, click here
Until this latest go around which threw a carrot to old people, all gay rights proposals specifically excluded defining parent/children, aunts and uncles, cousins . . . as "family." Gay rights people confuse "family" with two people amusing themselves by playing with each other's sexual organs. Parent and child don't stimulate each other's sexual organs and therefore do not "love" each other and and can't form a "family."
"Gay rights" supporters work harder at hating the traditional churches and traditional morals than obtaining civil rights for themselves. If it was a civil rights issue the homosexuals would be fight for civil rights and leave the churches alone.
I propose that all references to "marriage" be stricken from all legislation. "Married" and "marriage" should be replaced with "domestic contract" and "domestic contractors." Every traditional marriage would be "grandfathered in" as being legally domestically contracted. The size of a domestically contracted unit should not be numerically limited and children born to domestically contracted people would be included in the "domestic family."
Each church would then be free to "marry" whomever they chose as a religious rite or sacrament. The church would regulate marriage as it does communion. If the state can control marriage then the state should also control communion. A sacrament is a sacrament is a sacrament . . . .
bill wald | Nov 8, 2009 9:00 am | 2 replies | Request removal
Post reply
-Mildred Loving, namesake of the Loving v. Virginia case, speaking on the 40th anniversary of "Loving Day", June 12, 2007.
Gray Coyote | Nov 8, 2009 9:47 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Until the Defense of Marriage act at the Federal level is overturned there isn't much incentive for an effort to go for full marriage equality now that Ref. 71 was passed. With "everything but marriage" a huge misnomer, gay partners still won't be recognized as married anywhere else in the US. Their DP status means nothing in neighboring states. If they could legally marry in WA it would only gain them recognition in a few states. As a married woman of 40 years, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to know that a weekend drive to Oregon would "unmarry" me at the border should something horrible happen, like an accident or illness. The anti gay folks know this is true. They just are afraid more and more straight people will learn the inequality of Ref. 71 and choose to correct it by working to overturn DOMA at the federal level.
Wendy Wartes | Nov 8, 2009 5:44 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Government should stay out of the definition of "marriage." "Marriage" is a function of faith, family, and community and that's where recognition of what constitutes marriage should reside.
Civil unions are within the scope of government. There needs to be some means of recognizing such partnerships for purposes of official business such as benefits, taxation, kinship, etc. Civil unions should be offered to 2 competent & consenting adults regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and should encompass the same rights and responsibilities regardless of the attributes of the partners in the union.
If government would stay out of the business of defining "marriage" then maybe the special interests involved would quit wasting our time trying to leverage it to further their own social agendas.
Mojojojo | Nov 8, 2009 1:40 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
The government CANNOT regulate who churches marry - and who they refuse to marry.
It's called the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
All you homophobic bigots afraid that the government is going to force your church to marry same sex couples must have slept through U.S. history and American government classes in school.
This is the same provision that prevents the government from collecting taxes from religious organizations.
Religious institutions are protected from government intervention. If only the reverse was also true.
Doug Vavrick | Nov 8, 2009 9:40 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
It will take every ounce of patience I have to wait for this to pass.
I hope we give our children a brighter future by allowing everyone their basic civil rights. Gay marriage is one of them. I KNOW it will happen if we all open our heart and mind.
With Love and Gods Blessings.
cynthia worthen | Nov 8, 2009 8:42 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
If a loving couple's civil rights can be put to a vote, then we should be able to vote on who can worship where and when, if at all.
Civil rights should never be put to a vote. They should just be rights granted to us by our founding fathers.
R N | Nov 8, 2009 7:39 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply