Leave a Comment Sagesse
Washington United for Marriage
November 14, 2011
By Adam Bink
Just launched this morning. One of the key folks is Josh Friedes, a friend and one of the smartest people in our movement. Seattle Times:
Two years ago, Washington voters backed a broad guarantee of legal rights for same-sex couples, endorsing the Legislature’s passage of a domestic partnership law nicknamed “everything but marriage.”
Now, gay-marriage backers say the time has come to take that final step. This week, they’ll roll out a campaign to make Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage for lesbian and gay couples.
Leaders of Washington United for Marriage, a coalition of dozens of gay-rights, civil-liberties, labor and religious groups, say they’ll pressure the Legislature to pass a marriage equality law in 2012, and are prepared to defend it from any referendum challenge.
Their effort will begin Monday with a Bellevue news conference, followed by a series of suburban town halls designed to show support for gay marriage outside of liberal Seattle.
A group of Democratic state lawmakers has committed to introducing and advancing the legislation. While expressing confidence about their chances in the state House, backers cautioned they do not have the votes at this point in the state Senate.
“We’re going to push it,” said state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a gay lawmaker from the 43rd district and a leader in the marriage effort. “I believe 2012 is the best chance we’ve ever had to make marriage equality a reality.”
But opponents will be ready, too, and they say despite public acceptance of same-sex civil unions, lawmakers may not be willing to change the definition of marriage.
“I’d give them a 50-50 chance,” said state Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, a leading legislative opponent of gay marriage.
“My goal isn’t to demonize anybody, but my assertion is we’re all better off if we preserve marriage in its traditional form,” Swecker said. “At what point does the institution of one man and one woman become eroded to the point where all kinds of other alternatives exist?”
Swecker added that lawmakers may be unwilling to take up such a controversial subject in the midst of what promises to be another difficult budget.
Democrats hold a 27-22 majority in the state Senate and a 56-42 advantage in the state House. But some conservative Democrats in the state Senate have voted with Republicans when it comes to extending rights to same-sex couples. That means some gay-rights supporters will have to sway some suburban Republicans to their cause. “We cannot win with just Democrats,” Murray said.
Leaders of the newly formed gay-marriage coalition say their strategy will include a simple appeal for all gay and lesbian couples and their supporters to share their personal stories about what marriage equality would mean to them. They’ll begin that effort with town halls this week in Vancouver, Puyallup, Lakewood and Gig Harbor, followed by others across the state.
“That is going to create the conversation we need … so we can win in the Legislature,” said Josh Friedes, Director of Marriage Equality with Equal Rights Washington, one of the group’s organizers.
Murray said the coalition’s commitment to organizing and fundraising was “a big deal,” and one of the final steps he was waiting on to press ahead with a gay-marriage bill in the Legislature.
The marriage-equality campaign is the culmination of decades of slow and steady work for Murray and other backers of rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Washington Legislature first passed a law in 2006 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, lending and insurance.
Since then, the rights of same-sex couples have been expanded in a series of subsequent laws, culminating in 2009′s “everything but marriage law,” which was upheld by a public vote on Referendum 71 that fall.
Currently, gay marriage is legal in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
While Washington’s 2012 gay-marriage campaign will target the Legislature, the matter may ultimately wind up on that fall’s ballot — either because a referendum clause is required to get enough legislative votes, or if opponents gather signatures to challenge it.
If that happens, Washington would be in for a nationally watched fight over gay marriage. Such fights haven’t survived a public vote in any state so far, according to gay-rights organizations.
Gay-marriage backers contend they’d have a good shot at winning a public vote. At least two recent polls have shown opposition to gay marriage slipping — including one commissioned by gay-marriage opponents.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
41 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | November 14, 2011 at 12:07 pm
§
2.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:10 pm
∞
3.
DaveP | November 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm
From the article: “My goal isn’t to demonize anybody, but my assertion is we’re all be better off if we preserve marriage in its traditional form,” Swecker said.
What utter horse crap. How would ALL of us be better off? How would gay citizens be better off? How would their family members who want equality for their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters be better off? How would their CHILDREN be better off?
The only people who would be 'better off'' would be a dwindling MINORITY of straight people who get satisfaction from denying equal rights to gay citizens. And in fact, even these people wouldn't really be 'better off' at all, since they don't actually benefit from doing this. They just like the way it makes them feel when they harm this particular group. It's anumis, plain and simple.
And clearly their goal IS in fact to demonize people by using the law to classify another group of citizens as unworthly of equal rights and equal legal protections. The fact is self evident. It's what they are doing right now.
4.
Bryce | November 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm
This is a bit off topic, but do we have any word on the documents that were supposed to be filed today in the Prop 8 appeal? I think it was in the part specific to releasing the tapes.
5.
peterplumber | November 14, 2011 at 1:19 pm
In 2007 Washington pass their first Domestic Partnership law. Carlson & I were among the first to apply and receive our partnership.
In 2009 when the state passed the "everything but marriage" law which added to the rights & responsibilities for domestic partners, I was ecstatic…until Larry Stickney reared his ugly head and created R-71. When planning for this assault, Stickney's friend, Gary Randall, told him not to push this because they didn't have enough money and they should save what they have to fight the REAL fight which would inevitably come, full marriage. Let's hope they wasted all their money trying to hide the signatures on the R-71 petitions and can't fight this now.
So now they want to go for FULL marriage. I am all for it! As long as they don't lose what they already have. The biggest obstacle they face is that Washington has its own DOMA law, banning same sex marriage in the state.
6.
peterplumber | November 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Speaking of "the signatures", I have the full set of petitions and all the signatures. As soon as Judge Settle said to release them, I applied for a copy and have received the DVD. It is too big for me to display anywhere, and all the names and signatures are hand written to running an OCR program on them is not going to help me convert them into plain text. But as long as James Bopp and the Protect Marriage Washington people are still trying to appeal the release of the names, it might be good to post them somewhere. Does P8TT have the space for that?
7.
Ronnie | November 14, 2011 at 1:31 pm
"My goal isn’t to demonize anybody,"……. Then in the rest of his statement he, in so many words, does just that….. oxyMORON…… subscribing & sharing…..
James Hormel, the First Out Gay Ambassador, Speaks Out About DOMA, LGBT Rights: VIDEO: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/11/hormel.html
"James Hormel, who was appointed United States Ambassador to Luxembourg by President Bill Clinton in 1999, and was the first openly gay ambassador ever to serve, spoke with ABC News about his new book Fit to Serve, as well as DOMA, and what he sees as the #1 problem for LGBT rights today."
<3…Ronnie:
[youtube -RKxLNkUQJE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RKxLNkUQJE youtube]
8.
Rob in CA | November 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I'm a software engineer with most of my work having been in electronic document management. OCR works great for normal fonts but handwriting recognition isn't there yet. What's the format of the pages of signatures? Are they image files of some sort, (*.gif, *.jpg, *.bmp, *.pdf, etc.), one image per page or what?
If there is some way we could communicate offline I'd be willing to put my head to the task and try and come up with some kind of collaborative platform wherein the community could work together to manually extract these signatures and background data and save it to an electronic format such as a spreadsheet so that it would be searchable, sortable, etc.
I'm not sure how to break through the barrier of anonymity here in order to contact someone directly but perhaps someone could tell me how.
Rob
9.
bjasonecf | November 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm
UPDATE: Perry Unseal Trial Videos Appeal
Media Coalition's Principal Brief
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72734552
10.
Carpool Cookie | November 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Hello, All!
What is the website a member here made, that details the children/teens/students individually, who've killed themselves as a reaction to bullying?
Thanks….I know someone (ie, some lug-head) who needs to see it!
11.
Mark M. (Seattle) | November 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I believe it was JB but could be wrong
Here is one from towleroad.com http://www.towleroad.com/2011/04/study-gay-teen-s…
12.
Rich | November 14, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Hurray for Washington in 2012…but here's news from Maine: As of today, it has come to my attention that a petition to put Marriage Equality on the ballot in Maine in, 2012, now has in excess of 100,000 signatures. We need something in the neighborhood of 57,000 to do this. Word on the street is that Maine citizens are now ready to right a wrong and fix the mistake of three years ago. Maine's motto: "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" may yet address the true belief in Marriage Equality and our state's desire to lead in the cause. We do not need to reach this level until January. Stay posted for a monumental and exciting announcement in the weeks to come.
13.
frisky1 | November 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Seattle Weekly made the dvd available and they reported that a group called knowthyneighbor.org is working on making it searchable.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/1…
14.
AnonyGrl | November 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Wow! That is some fantastic news!
15.
DaveP | November 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Ooh, I like it! A bit wordy, but it opens strong and closes strong. And I couldn't help noticing something in the closing sentences. See if you can spot it:
"To foster the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system that is fully engaged to decide legal challenges regarding this social issue of the day, the video recordings of the trial should be unsealed to ensure that the public has the information it needs to understand and accept the decisions ultimately rendered by the Court. Thus, the Non-Party Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court affirm the district court’s order unsealing the video recordings, to permit release of those recordings as soon as practicably possible."
Notice the phrase "understand AND ACCEPT". Not 'understand and decide if they agree or not'. Apparently, all of these folks in the mainstream media agree with us – they are all confident that once people see what happened in the trial, they will obviously be convinced that Walker made the right ruling. To them, this is a given. Nice.
16.
Adam Bink | November 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Sure, drop me a line.
17.
Adam Bink | November 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
This still has to go to the Legislature, it seems.
18.
Jacob | November 14, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Maine doing what California should have!
19.
Renecito1 | November 14, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I have nextgenformarriage. Net and someone here has .com I have tons of server space to host the files. Count me in nextgenformarriage@gmail.com or renecito1@me.com
20.
Thark | November 14, 2011 at 8:40 pm
they ALWAYS seem to forget us 18,000 in CA; they leave CA off the list of states with recognized married gay citizens.
And we aren't going ANYWHERE, so CA *is* a Gay marriage state 18000 times over.
Antigays of "Amerikkka"…DEAL. CALIFORNIA IS A MARRIAGE EQUALITY STATE, (Only CA style…and the fact we 18,000 exist here, explains in no uncertain terms that marriage equality WILL be restored to this Marriage equality state…
*Like it or not*.
(just saying)
21.
Drpatrick1 | November 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I'm all for legislatures and public votes that expand rights…but why is this the only option? Or even the best option? For states like Maine and Washington it seems like the right path…but what about other states…like New Mexico? Here we r in this terrible limbo. There is nothing specifically in the law against marriage equality, but they won't let us marry here. We have an ultra crazy republican gov(vp candidate in 2012???heard it here first!) so no legislative victory in near future. If we lose, we r no worse off, and a win could b huge. So why doesn't an lgbt org target a state like ours? A court victory means more, as it would require a constitutional amendment to overturn(a la prop h8). And it forces bigots to play by the rules of law (a la prop 8 trial). Seems to me, small downside potential, but huge upside. If we believe in our rights, let's fight for them. Frank Kameny was a hero because he fought, fought and lost, but fought. Because he fought, it made it easier for those who followed to fight and win. We need that spirit now too!
22.
renecito1 | November 14, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Full List of Anti-Gay-Marriage Ref. 71 Signers available now list 1 of 27 (view or download) more coming as I type https://picasaweb.google.com/10407099253487027350…
23.
NormalGuy | November 15, 2011 at 4:07 am
Because the courts are not the voice of the people, thus a court decision is not viewed favorably towards rights (i.e. roe v. wade).
Also it doesnt take a constitutional amendment to overturn a court decision. The legislature can easily override the courts by passing a bill legalizing something the court says is currently illegal.
24.
peterplumber | November 15, 2011 at 5:32 am
They are TIFF, but I could make them JPG for space saving. the entire DVD is 3 GB
25.
Bill S. | November 15, 2011 at 6:02 am
Every state thinks it's "As our state goes, so goes the nation." We heard it in Iowa, we heard it in California. Everyone knows the correct phrasing is "As Rhode Island and Providence Plantations goes, so goes the nation."
26.
Bill S. | November 15, 2011 at 6:05 am
If a court holds it to be unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples marriage, then a mere law would not suffice to change that: you would have to amend the state constitution.
I do not understand why court decisions are not viewed favorably: they are much more permanent than laws, and public opinion still improves just as it always does afterwards.
27.
peterplumber | November 15, 2011 at 8:41 am
When the court rules against discrimination, the people who feel discrimination is just view this as "legislating from the bench". Of course, the group who favor the court's decision feel the judgment was moral and sound.
In California, when the State Supreme Court found that not allowing same sex marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional, the right wing(nuts) got together and forced a state constitutional change. Therefore the discrimination was now fully constitutional.
The question now is, does the California constitution (with this change) comply with the US Constitution.
28.
luke from canada | November 15, 2011 at 8:55 am
washington is right next to british columbi which had had mariage equality for 8 years, 5 months, and 12 days and we are still there, thank you very much. are we worse off? i don't think so
29.
NormalGuy | November 15, 2011 at 9:53 am
No, you can legislate around that. For instance, you can legislate that two men do not have the legal capacity to contract for marriage.
Thus, you are not denying a same sex couple marriage, you are saying that they lack the legal capacity to enter the marriage relationship, which is completely different.
30.
Kate | November 15, 2011 at 10:00 am
Yep. Just like when a man and a woman of different skin colors couldn't enter into the legal contract for marriage because they lacked the legal capacity.
31.
Martin Pal | November 15, 2011 at 10:08 am
"Like."
32.
Leo | November 15, 2011 at 10:12 am
It's a distinction without a difference. It would end up right back in court and would be found to be just as unconstitutional.
33.
Gregory in SLC | November 15, 2011 at 10:53 am
I was thinking about that….how AWESOME it would be to have equality in Canada, Washington, Portland, CA, and Mexico…like a big geographical wave of equality….
34.
drpatrick1 | November 15, 2011 at 11:40 am
Though, we wouldn't have the 18,000 in CA if not for the court case. AND we wouldn't have the current PROP 8 trial which is ongoing in fed courts if not for the CA marriage case. I hate inequality, but I hate even more an illusion of partial, kind of, sort of, a mimic of similarity, which when tested falls through. DP's in states like WA with everything but marriage, still don't come close to having everything but the title. It's not about a title, it's not about acceptance, it's about accessing real rights in real time. Even with R vs W, women today still have an actual right to choose (admittedly that right in reality is often limited by access, and is not protected the way it should be today). People may not like it when women express that right in a way they do not agree, but they still have the right. I don't care if others accept, or are happy with my rights. I just want to have the same rights as everyone else!
35.
AnonyGrl | November 15, 2011 at 12:14 pm
With a corresponding wave coming from our end over here… the east coast is getting it together as well. Plus drops here and there in the middle. The pond that is the US is soon to be all full of equality ripples.
I like that image… I am going to work up a graphic for this, I think. Thanks for putting that picture in my head, Greg! Smoochies!!
36.
_BK_ | November 15, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Be sure to let us know if the graphic works out!
37.
Gregory in SLC | November 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm
back @ you Anony!
38.
Bill S. | November 16, 2011 at 12:21 am
It's not even a "distinction without a difference" because there is no "distinction" period. When a marriage license application is denied it is either *because* the partners lack the legal capacity to enter into a marriage (in the case of same-sex couples) or there was a procedural issue (the form was filled out incorrectly, someone lied about his date of birth, etc.)
39.
Steve | November 16, 2011 at 5:58 am
By that logic Maine should be a gay marriage state too. Yeah, there are lots of married gays in CA, but gays can't marry there now
40. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
[...] response to it. You may remember Lassen was one of the largest donors to Prop 8. We also covered a new effort to win marriage equality through the legislature in Washington, and a new brief from the media [...]
41.
Brian Murphy | November 21, 2011 at 7:15 am
I'm the Director of WhoSigned.org in Washington State and along with KnowThyNeighbor.org we will be making a searchable database of the Referendum 71 petition records accessible to the public as we've stated from the beginning of the campaign. The work is time consuming but we are making good progress.
In the meantime, Protect Marriage Washington continues trying to prevent the further release of the R-71 records. Their appeal of the US Federal District Court ruling releasing the petitions continues in the US 9th Circuit Court and they are seeking a writ of injunction from SCOTUS Associate Justice Kennedy to prevent the Secretary of State and Intervenors from making the petitions available while that appeal is underway.
While we do our work making these records more accessible, every new place that the petitions are available underscores the argument that PMW's appeal and motions are moot – the public already has access to the petition records and that isn't going to change.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.