Keep this part: except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage but add nor does it confer any of the additional 1,047(sic) federal-level rights of marriage upon same-sex couples unless otherwise mandated or allowed by the federal government, or, alternately, nor does it grant any federal-level rights unless otherwise mandated or allowed by the federal government by executive action or an act of congress.

It's true, succinct and not misleading.

I love the fact, though, that the AG basically obliterated the anti-equality activists' stance by adding the "except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage" part.
Time is so depressingly short for these gentlemen to fill their coffers before their supporters realize that it's a total lost cause. If I were Gary 'n Larry, I'd be pounding out the fundraising emails. Oh wait, they have been filling their pockets in this way for months on the promise of a referendum. My bad. Carry on.
For Christ's sake, if one of these "gay-friendly attorneys" doesn't file a challenge to delay the bigots and make their job harder, I'll drive myself down to Thurston County and file one on Tuesday. Any voter can challenge a ballot title. Why do the self-appointed professional homos presume to control the agenda for all of us?
@3 Actually, they're not self-appointed, they're appointed by people like me who contribute money to their organizations. No one is stopping you from exercising your right as a citizen. If you do decide to file your own challenge, have you decided yet what will be the basis? I think the one outlined above is excellent, but there are probably additional approaches that are also worth considering.
why "expand the rights"? This isn't about "expanding" this is about *equalizing*.

@4 The basis for the challenge is not particularly relevant. Claiming any basis, even a losing one, will necessitate a hearing and delay the start of signature gathering. It's a political move, not a legal one, in the same way the governor waited until this week to sign the bill even though it's been on her desk for a month.
I think it should be called by it's proper title:

The Initiative To Promote Hate Crimes Against Gays And Pretend We Live In The 18th Century And Are Bigots.

And then if you want to do those things you can vote "Yes, I am a bigot and hate the 21st Century and believe the Earth is Flat".
oh, wait, isn't this that Talibangelist initiative to deny gay marriage.

now I'm confused.
so ... if this is the repeal thing, then it should have two Yes boxes:

1. Yes, I am a rational intelligent Washington state patriot and live in the 21st Century; or

2. Yes, I hate America and am an unpatrotic slimeball who wants to live in the 18th Century as a bigot and pretend gays don't have rights.
If they can't get enough signatures for the next election, do they get the try again the election after?
I think if you're approached by a signature gatherer you should engage them in a long pointless debate about the issue. Don't worry about winning, just about the amount of signatures you're preventing them from gathering.

Or better yet, take their clip board from them, feed them the signatures the have gathered and then beat them with the clip board until their children can't grow anymore.


Let's post their picture and, if possible, personal information somewhere online (Slog?) so that everyone in their community will know to spit in their direction and shun them. Kind of like a sex offenders online registry for bigots.

Lets actually make this debate as personal to them as they pretend gay marriage would be. ('It'll destroy my marriage" and "it'll confuse my kids".)
I'm with Mason - if the attorneys for the equality movement don't file a legal challenge - I'll drive to Olympia and file one myself. Wanna carpool Mason? I can think of a challenge - that part of the bill that deals with benefits doesn't go into effect until 2014. That's an important qualification to "equivalancy" omitted by the ballot title and ballot summary. Besides, not filing a legal challenge gives Larry and Gary about 1-2 more weeks to collect signatures. To give you an idea of how important this could be, the Oregon referendum attempt fell short by only a few hundred signatures. One extra day could have made the difference there. Tim Eyman's R-65 could have qualified for the ballot if he had another two weeks.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.