What is the date that marriage licences can be issued? The day after the Gov. signs? Or is there a waiting period to allow the opposition to gather signatures (i.e. 90 days further down the line?)

And then, after marriages are actually being performed (in churches comandeered by jackbooted Government PC police, of course), how long until the sky splits open and the foot of God descends to squash Washington flat for its blasphemy?

I have some stuff I want to take care of before that happens, you see.

@1: As I understand it, the filing of the referendum (which will most likely happen immediately after the governor's signature) suspends the law.

So, if the referendum backers do file, and do get their signatures, then the law will be suspended until the November election.

If they do file, but don't get their signatures, the law is only suspended for the time it takes them to try and fail. (Which would be roughly mid-June.)

And if they don't file at all, then... gay marriages will be happening pretty damn soon.

If McKenna stacks the language, what is the avenue of appeal? Would be good to note that in the article.

@4: Avenue of appeal is the courts.

I think a referendum will go down in (purple) flames.

Middle America likes gay marriage.

It blends two things they like...marriage...and inclusive fairness. It's like the soccer mom trying to stop school bullying. Or sending missionaries and guardsmen in pickup trucks to help Katrina victims.

@3: "As I understand it, the filing of the referendum suspends the law"

Please let me know where this is provided for in law or some referecne to it being fact.

@5: "Any person dissatisfied with either the ballot title or summary prepared by the Attorney General may seek judicial review of those statements by petitioning the Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia. Such action must be taken within five (5) working days of the filing of those statements with the Secretary of State and the court is required to expeditiously review the statements and render a decision within five (5) days. The decision of the court is final."

@7:can't cite you law, but that's the way it is being reported in the Seatimes and other media outlets. Maybe everyone's repeating the same line...

What might be of concern if NOM et al get this on the ballot is how folks will be asked to vote on it (i.e. does a "yes" vote uphold the law or repeal it). that can make a big difference because when folks don't fully understand initiatives they ten to reflexively vote no.

@8: I just read that provision in the WA Constitution, the 90 days is correct

I'm probably being too optomistic, but I don't feel like they will get enough signatures. After losing R-71, do they really want to spend all of their time and money and effort to lose again?

Of course, I wish we could just be sensible and say that human rights don't belong on the ballot, but I guess that's a fantasy.

@9: Oh, you mad.

@ 11. Yes they will gather enough signatures, so be ready for it.

For R-71, the governor delayed her signature and language approval until the very last moment to limit the amount time they had to gather signatures, and they still gathered enough signatures.

So, unfortunately, for an issue that they feel is even more important, they will surely raise enough signatures.

What's next is easy.

Those who honor family and marriage in Washington State will teach legislators a lesson in the next elections.

A referendum will be filed, will gain the votes to be on the ballot, and will pass once and for all teaching the gay special rights brigade that in fact their self selecting minority doesn't get to set state policy from the freak show that is Capital Hill.

Legislators who demonstrated their contempt for marriage will pay a price when they come up for re-election. Be sure that their names and vote have been noted by those of us who actually don't hate families and marriage as you all do.

And Dan Savage and the rest of the whiners will continue to whine. It's all you know, so I can't imagine why you'd stop. That would require being an adult and accepting that your lifestyle choice has consequences, good and bad, and that if you want the good you must accept the bad. Since he and you are incapable of maturity, I see no reason why you'd behave in a mature fashion.

To all those who over-rode the good of the poeple of Washington state in voting for this abomination, I wish you long life and health. You'll need it to find the error of your ways and make restitution for the harm you've attempted to do this state.

180 rights down, only 958 more to go! If we're only patient and spend the next 50 years reaching out to our friends and neighbors to win hearts and minds, maybe gay kids born in 2037 can have marriage equality!

Leave it to me to to raise important questions other queers don't dare ask, but...

Is there anybody out there who thinks of "state" versus "federal" marriage? I mean, when we talk about marriage, we're talking about the whole thing. I've never heard anyone say "We're getting married, but only at the state level because those federal rights are just too much paperwork." So my question is: who came up with this strategy of having 51 separate strategies that each provide less than 25% of the full rights of marriage instead of having one united movement demanding full marriage equality now?

At this rate, it'll take another 204 years before all states have state-level marriage "not even equality".

Talk about job security for the gay 1%.

@15 what are you planning on doing if R-whatever fails in November, and we have same sex marriage in December?

@17

Taking an early retirement to Italy as soon as feasible, probably 4 to 5 years. Small villages rooted in centuries of tradition know how to treat with depraved perverts.

If the barbarians move from their siege on family and marriage and morality to breaking down the walls, I see little to keep me in a debased nation. Nor will I support with my tax dollars any gay couple calling themselves married one instant longer than necessary.

I've already written checks to opponents of gay marriage, and will continue to support with time and money the efforts to teach these senators a lesson in their responsibility to Washington state families.

Regardless what happens, all my employees have instructions to pull any bid they've written for a client they know to be gay or lesbian. I won't hire a known gay man or lesbian. I won't patronize professional services from a firm employing gays or lesbians, and have notified two firms of this decision and the reason for it. Of my rental units 2 are inhabited by gay couples. Their leases won't be renewed, nor will I rent to any other gay or lesbian couples. I won't support with one dollar of my money a depraved lifestyle at odds with simple human biology.

You folks want war, war it must be. You couldn't accept mutual tolerance of each others choices as sufficient. Intolerance is the only remaining response.

I'm invoking Poe's Law on Seattleblues. This dude for realsies, or an artful troll?

Regardless what happens, all my employees have instructions to pull any bid they've written for a client they know to be gay or lesbian. I won't hire a known gay man or lesbian. I won't patronize professional services from a firm employing gays or lesbians, and have notified two firms of this decision and the reason for it. Of my rental units 2 are inhabited by gay couples. Their leases won't be renewed, nor will I rent to any other gay or lesbian couples. I won't support with one dollar of my money a depraved lifestyle at odds with simple human biology.

And here he is, folks. The real Seattleblues, the one lurking behind the facade of civility. Ready to break the law and burn his own business to the ground because you faggots disgust him so much.

Will this mean that you'll finally stuff your phony apologies and false politeness? Gloves are off, after all.

@Mile High Matt

My business is safe, though I thank you for your concern.

See, gays and lesbians make up at most 3% of the population, usually concentrated in one area, such as Capitol Hill. I don't do business in Seattle's urban core very often. Even if I did, I sell tasteful and well crafted items, not rainbow flags or gaudy 'modern' furniture or trendy overpriced clothing or sex toys. In short, I don't think gays make up much of my client base anyway.

Nor am I breaking any law the Constitution should abide. With whom I associate in a business or personal capacity is my right to decide, not yours or anyone elses. Gays have decided to make war on our culture, I decide not to aid them financially or otherwise in doing so. If someone wishes to sue me for this decision they may win, but they won't get dime one out of me. I'd sooner go to jail than pay a morally and Constitutionally unfounded judgement.

"Faggots" don't disgust me, though I have no understanding of their sexual choices whatever. If they were willing to tolerate the majorities concern for marriage and family and respect their own culture, I'd have no issue with their personal lifestyle choices. Since intolerance of anything but whole hearted social and legal applause for their depravity is what they demand, intolerance of them is the only rational answer.

Phony politeness? You're confused. I'm what I am, here or elsewhere. In general I prefer dealing with people with good manners. If someone wants to insist on being an ill mannered barbarian, being treated that way is their own fault.

See, gays and lesbians make up at most 3% of the population, usually concentrated in one area, such as Capitol Hill.

It's not the 80s anymore. Even if your lowball estimate came anywhere near the true number, gays and lesbians live everywhere now. For example, my best gay friend lives in an unincorporated development near Everett, and he's not the least bit type of guy who could "pass" for straight, like most black people couldn't "pass" for white. Nor would he ever.

Nor am I breaking any law the Constitution should abide.

You want to test that? You know you won't win. Especially if your tenants suss out why you aren't renewing their lease - which, if you're a true Christian, you can't be anything less than honest about when the time comes. (If you're a normal Christian - that is, a false one who picks and chooses which teachings and commandments to follow as convenience dictates - you can lie to their faces and be good. But God, if he exists, likely won't take your rationalizations as an excuse.)

Not that this matters. You'll turn tail and give in. You're all talk, but all your verbal chest-puffing is the most you'll do.

If someone wants to insist on being an ill mannered barbarian, being treated that way is their own fault.

Blame the victim. Don't turn the other cheek. Be dishonest. That is who you are.

I kinda wish you would do all the things you say you would - being the Byron De La Beckwith of the sphere of homophobia, getting your ass reamed out in court, losing everything. It would be satisfying to observe. But someone as slippery as you can't do it. You type out your little screed, undoubtedly picturing yourself standing up like some two bit action hero with a deep, angry voice everyone can't help but heed. But you're not that man.

You're a loser, and this is your tantrum. Hope it made you feel better.

@Seattleblues:

If you are so committed to a war on equal rights for gays, why don't you identify your business outright? Is it because you know that the opposition isn't a smallish minority of gays but a growing majority of people of all sexual orientations who are offended by anti-gay discrimination?

And I have news for you: if you lose a discrimination action, you *will* pay a dime. Execution is not contingent upon the judgment debtor's consent, and no matter how carefully you have structured and hidden your assets, I highly doubt you are 100% judgment-proof. I hope you don't go to jail, though. I don't want to help pay for your three hots and a cot, and I'd rather see more of *your* money go to the people you discriminated against.

@Everyone else:

Yeah, I know I said I was installing the commenter-filtering userscript for SLOG and that Seattleblues would be the first in the hopper. But my browser has a memory leak and Greasemonkey may be implicated. As soon as Greasemonkey is off the list of problematic extensions, I'll be re-enabling it.

A good many of us who support gay marriage honor family and marriage as much as you do, Seattleblues; we just don't define--and by extension, honor--these institutions in the same way, or on the same terms. To imply that we hate these institutions--even those of us participating therein--is clearly your favorite (only?) rhetorical tool (indeed, I'm hard-pressed to find, in an analysis of your previous battles, another weapon in your arsenal), but you've yet to illustrate why we should give it any credence.

You may feel free to vote as you will, of course, and for whatever reason. We, in turn, will continue to oppose your interests. History appears to be swinging in our favor.

Of course, again you require correction (which you will neither accept nor logically refute [the latter being, perhaps, most significant]) when you assert that this is a matter of consequences for choices. The "consequence" of not being able to marry is a fabrication built into the construct. It's not a natural consequence of homosexuality, since marriage, in itself, is not natural. So again we ask why we, as a society, bestow that privilege, and whether that reason applies to same-sex couples. And again, I point out that none of the many benefits that we many childless opposite-sex married couples offer to civilization at large would be offered in any lesser quantities by same-sex couples.

Regardless what happens, all my employees have instructions to pull any bid they've written for a client they know to be gay or lesbian. I won't hire a known gay man or lesbian. I won't patronize professional services from a firm employing gays or lesbians, and have notified two firms of this decision and the reason for it. Of my rental units 2 are inhabited by gay couples. Their leases won't be renewed, nor will I rent to any other gay or lesbian couples. I won't support with one dollar of my money a depraved lifestyle at odds with simple human biology.

See, I've been rather solid in my policy of never referring to you as a bigot. This goes beyond opposing policy, however; this is an active campaign to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. Do you have any argument as to why this position is one of anything other than bigotry?

You folks want war, war it must be.

You should hope not. As things stand, you could still be given quarter.

See, gays and lesbians make up at most 3% of the population . . .

Depends on what you're measuring. Those who engage primarily or exclusively in homosexual acts, as a result of having little or no heterosexual interest, will tend to fit your mold; however, if you include all those who engage periodically in such acts, the numbers tend to be closer to 10%. If you expand to include anyone who has had just one such experience, the percentage is likely to be considerably higher.

. . . usually concentrated in one area, such as Capitol Hill.

Usually, but not because that's the only place they grow. In fact, study after study has shown that homosexuality occurs at nigh identical rates in all cultures (numbers in, say, Iran being identical to those in the Netherlands). This suggests that superficial differences with regards to population density, class, or IQ only reflect that, upon reaching age of majority, smart, financially solvent homosexuals will tend to move where they will be allowed to function socially and economically in order to "come out."

Of course, with regards to your business, I think you'll find that those who support homosexuals constitute far, far more than 3% of the population . . . or of your market share.

I don't do business in Seattle's urban core very often. Even if I did, I sell tasteful and well crafted items, not rainbow flags or gaudy 'modern' furniture or trendy overpriced clothing or sex toys. In short, I don't think gays make up much of my client base anyway.

My guess is that you'd be pretty surprised. So far as there is a "gay aesthetic" (and that's a dubious assertion to begin with), it tends to be more conservative than you're assuming it is.

Nor am I breaking any law the Constitution should abide. With whom I associate in a business or personal capacity is my right to decide, not yours or anyone elses. If someone wishes to sue me for this decision they may win, but they won't get dime one out of me. I'd sooner go to jail than pay a morally and Constitutionally unfounded judgement.

The voice of my compassion hopes you would not leave your children to grow up fatherless out of a principle that suggests the myths in which you believe and/or the socio-economic institutions, defined according to tradition and undefended by logical argument, to which you hew earns you the right to relegate those who define these institutions differently to second-class citizenship. That voice hopes equally that if you did so, the lesson your children would learn from it would center on your profound errors in moral and philosophical judgment.

I'm not proud of the fact that there's another part of me that relishes the idea of your doing some time, but I'm clearly not too ashamed to admit it. So it goes.

If someone wants to insist on being an ill mannered barbarian, being treated that way is their own fault.

I, for one, have given you every opportunity to engage politely and rationally; you, in return, have offered not one logical rebuttal to any point I've ever made. Instead, I've been accused again and again of "hating" marriage (despite being married), with no illustration forthcoming as to the truth of this accusation. That is to say, I have treated you politely, and you have responded barbarically. By your reasoning, at this point, my treating you barbarically would be justified. Is that really the message you meant to send?

If you are so committed to a war on equal rights for gays, why don't you identify your business outright? Is it because you know that the opposition isn't a smallish minority of gays but a growing majority of people of all sexual orientations who are offended by anti-gay discrimination?

Good point. If you're going to institute what amounts to a blacklist, you should be willing to risk a boycott. If you're going to declare war, behave like a warrior. What say you, Seattleblues?