Leave a Comment Sagesse
Washington judge releases final ballot language for marriage equality initiative
March 14, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Yesterday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee released his decision on the final wording for Referendum 74, the proposed ballot measure to either uphold or overturn Washington’s recently passed marriage equality law. Judge McPhee’s decision, which is final and cannot be appealed, is a victory for marriage advocates because it removes language about the law’s intent to “redefine marriage” and instead opts for more neutral wording. Supporters of the initiative will now have to collect 120,577 signatures by June 6 to qualify it for the November election.
Here is the finalized ballot language for Referendum 74:
Ballot Title:
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute 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].This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.
Should this bill be
___ Approved
___ Rejected
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 partnerships 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 licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
29 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | March 14, 2012 at 9:04 am
Hooray!
2.
Sagesse | March 14, 2012 at 9:18 am
@
3.
Bob | March 14, 2012 at 9:19 am
Love it when the courts help with the wording of the bill!!!!!!!!
4.
Ed Cortes | March 14, 2012 at 9:31 am
I love the way it shoots down most of the H8rs arguments before they even get a chance to make them!
5.
rocketeer500 | March 14, 2012 at 9:37 am
Good choice of language. Clear, understand, and to the point.
6.
Seth from Maryland | March 14, 2012 at 9:39 am
thank goodness we have judges who are there to check to make things fair and balanced
7.
Seth from Maryland | March 14, 2012 at 9:44 am
http://youtu.be/lJjyQCXy1Xg
North Carolina Libertarian Party Joins Coalition Against Discriminatory Amendment | The North Carolina Libertarian Party has officially declared its formal opposition to Amendment One, joining the broad coalition seeking to Protect All NC Families. In a new video, Party Chair J.J. Summerell described the measure as “badly designed” and “fraught with far-reaching, unintended
8.
marriedinmd | March 14, 2012 at 10:04 am
Seth,
If you are in Maryland please take a moment to request your voting data not be shared by the state with third party sites such as http://www.mdpetitions.com They link to the State Voting Registry and "auto fill" petitions so that an exact match of data is locked in. I am not comfortable with the State sharing my registry information with ANY third party as the information includes my name, address, and date of birth. I requested my info not be shared for any reason without my expressed consent. This is a matter of PRIVACY, and third party petition sites have no need or right to know my info. Petition gatherers are also not allowed to fill in any information without the expressed consent of the signer. How can that be if EVERY REGISTERED VOTER"S information is locked in ahead of time? I sent State Atty. Gen. Gansler my request to NOT SHARE my personal information with any third parties. Please feel free to do the same: mailto:oag@oag.state.md.us
9.
Gregory in SLC | March 14, 2012 at 10:20 am
Excellent message : ) well reasoned and presented well
10.
Seth from Maryland | March 14, 2012 at 10:41 am
yea i agree
, you know, it seems to me the ProtectNCFamilies's campaign has done a pretty good job of showing how horrible amd 1 is
11.
MarcosLB | March 14, 2012 at 10:49 am
If not posted already, good news from Omaha: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/03/omaha-city-counc…
12.
AnonyGrl | March 14, 2012 at 11:16 am
Well done Judge McPhee!
13.
AnonyGrl | March 14, 2012 at 11:21 am
We do, of course, know that signature gatherers will be loaded down with other literature that is covered in "redefine marriage" and "protect the children" and all the same propaganda they always have. Let us hope that enough noise is being made to cut through all of that, and that Washington voters will read the actual referendum literature and act appropriately.
14.
_BK_ | March 14, 2012 at 11:34 am
Exactly! Which is why they hate the ballot language… That makes my day.
15.
Glen | March 14, 2012 at 11:51 am
"Engrossed" Who's idea was it to use THAT word?
Is that a word that Washington voters are familiar with in regard to legislation?
Yeah, in the legislative context I'm sure that word is pretty benign, but seriously ENGROSSED, that just sounds bad. Probably because it contains the word 'gross'. "Ewwww…. Hey voters, the legislature passed this really gross bill, do you agree with THAT!" "No? I didn't think so. Yuck."
Otherwise I guess the wording is okay. I think it could still use improvement besides, but I'm sure it's still way better than anything the anti-equality forces wanted.
16.
Mark M. (Seattle) | March 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Our local groups will be out in force starting this weekend keeping tabs as it were on the signature gatherers. We will damn sure be correcting them as we can about what the bill actually SAYS and what Marriage equality actually MEANS.
I have a lovely t-shirt I made to wear: 'Tho shall NOT lie'
During the Ref 71 days I managed to get into a fist fight with one signature gatherer…..hope I can avoid that this time around…..black eyes don't look good on me
17.
Ann S. | March 14, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Good luck and stay safe, Mark M.!
18.
Phillip K | March 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Nice to see more neutral language. I agree with Glen in that it could use some improvements but on the same token, I think the language may end up favoring our side if so. Not that I mind that too much! Fair is fair though. This is definitely an improvement overall.
19.
Seth from Maryland | March 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm
oh, ok lol , i thought you were asking me to sign @ mdpetitions.com , sorry about that, anway i just did requested my voting data not be shared by the third party sites as well, thanks for letting me know about this , thats just crazy that they can get ahold of that information , this really kind of bothers me and makes me mad, i will also be sharing this with my family and friends, again thanks
20.
peterplumber | March 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Remember tho, that most of Eastern Washington is right wing AND back woods. That is where they will gather the signatures from. Watcom, Skagit, King, Thurston, Kitsap, Jefferson & Clallem counties all are very liberal and the combined population of those counties is greater than the rest of Washington combined.
21.
NancyH | March 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I absolutely love it! The language is PERFECT. “The preserving rights of clergy” is a great kicker.
22.
Lesbians Love Boies | March 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm
OT: Overruled! The Case that Brought Down Sodomy Laws (Complete)
In 1998, on a September night in Houston, police stormed into John Lawrence's home and arrested him and Tyron Garner for violating Texas' "homosexual conduct" law. "Overruled!" highlights their story and the courtroom drama behind Lawrence v. Texas — the case that led the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down all remaining state sodomy laws and launched a new era in the LGBT rights movement.
Learn more about the case: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/lawrenc…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZWjVh7OdFc
23.
Eric | March 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I like to sign the petitions down at the bottom, where the notarized signature is supposed to go. It invalidates the whole petition.
24.
Lesbians Love Boies | March 14, 2012 at 1:58 pm
hmmm doesn't seem that the embedded video will go through…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZWjVh7OdFc
25.
Mark M. (Seattle) | March 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm
That is mostly true yes…however what we learned during the Ref 71 days is that even though eastern WA is primarily more conservative the percentage of voters affirming equality was much higher than expected.
Here's hoping that holds true this time around as well
26.
Pal | March 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm
It will go to the ballot and the people will vote for hate. Just watch. Too much Christian influence this country has.
27.
smokeywga | March 14, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Even though I like the judge's wording for the upcoming ballot, being neutral, clear, and to the point, I still don't like this because it again puts people's rights to a vote, which violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution.
28.
Bob | March 14, 2012 at 9:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed… wanna feel what love is? watch this,, tribute to Brokeback
29.
WeTheSheeple | March 15, 2012 at 7:41 am
The anti-gays will get their signatures regardless of the language used, but at least now they have the perfect excuse then the voters approve Ref 74. They can just blame it on another "activist gay judge".
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.