CNN iReport

With one week left before the November general election, I thought I’d post some more recent activity regarding this issue.

Those who’ve been following this story know that the group that put together R-71 to fight the expansion of domestic partnership rights and benefits, won their lawsuit to keep the names of petition signers private rather than be a matter of public record.

The reasoning behind that lawsuit……”because those mean, nasty gay people will harass us if they know we signed!”  Okay, fear tactics, nothing new.

For all these peoples’ blustering and belly-aching about how the gay community only wants “special” rights not equal rights, who is really asking for special rights?

From the Seattle Times:

“A federal judge has denied emergency requests from a group called Washington Family PAC, which wanted to suspend a ban on large campaign contributions and a requirement to identify donors.  The brand-new political action committee said that the laws were blocking its ability to collect last-minute political contributions in the week before Washington’s general election.”

“Family PAC says the state campaign finance laws violate free speech rights.  But state attorneys are defending the campaign finance laws.”

“The PAC had challenged the state’s public disclosure laws requiring those who give over $25 to disclose their names and addresses, and those who give more than $100 to disclose their names and employers.  It also challenged the $5,000 contribution limit in the last three weeks of the election.”

“If Family PAC is ultimately successful, the state’s cap on contributions to initiative and referendum campaigns could be eliminated and more donors would be allowed to remain anonymous.”

So again, who exactly is asking for “special” rights in this debate?  The whole “keep the names private so we can’t be harassed by gay people” tactic was one thing, they were asking that public records laws be ignored for their benefit.  Now they are asking that they be allowed to skirt around the campaign contribution laws that this state has in place.

I was originally upset that they are still trying to go this far, but then I looked at it from another perspective; if they’re that desperate for contributions to support their campaign that they would need to try to get around the laws then their campaign must be struggling.  So now I have to just hope that some idiot judge doesn’t grant them this “special right” like one did when he allowed them to keep the petitioner names private……against state law.

A few other notable occurrences regarding this referendum:

Google’s local offices, as well as Starbucks, have shown their support for approving R-71:

“Google has a reputation for actively participating in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy.  However, we do not generally take positions on social, legal or political issues that arise beyond our normal, day-to-day business.  With that said, there are issues that are so important and so clear cut that we feel compelled to lend our voice.  Supporting Referendum 71 is one of those issues.”

“To be clear, we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument.  Nevertheless, we see this debate as one that comes down to equality, plain and simple.  If we believe in equal protection under the law we must, in our view, support a man or woman’s right to enjoy the legal benefits of domestic partnerships – no matter whom they love.”

Last Tuesday, Starbucks said it endorses and supports the approval of Referendum 71 because “it is aligned with our business practices, providing domestic partner benefits, and one of our core values of treating people with respect and dignity.”

And some other good news:

Recent polls from yesterday show that voters approving R-71 are currently in the lead at 53%, while opponents have lost support since the last poll was released and are now down to 36%.

One week to go!!

And still opponents are trying every dirty trick in the book.  Even now, they are still running ads and trying to get the message out there that if R-71 passes and is upheld it will force public schools to teach about homosexuality!

From a local news source:

“Here’s what the Reject 71 campaign is saying about Washington’s ‘everything but marriage’ law:  “This new law has far-reaching consequences, like allowing public schools to teach that gay marriage is normal and healthy whether parents approve or not.”

“The argument from Protect Marriage Washington is this:  if the state gives gay domestic partners all of the same rights as married couples, then public school lessons will have to reflect that.  State Representative Jamie Pedersen sponsored the domestic partnership bill in the House.  He’s also openly gay and has four children with his partner.  Pedersen says there’s nothing in the law about schools.  He says what gets taught in the classroom is up to local school boards.”

Does the truth stop these people from making these claims?  Of course not, because these type of tactics are the only way they can hopefully trick people into believing what they do so they will vote for their cause.  Otherwise, what real reasons and excuses do these people have for opposing this bill?

None that anybody can think of is a valid reason, period.  It’s all based on belief and self-righteousness and those are, as I said, not valid reasons for denying equal rights to anybody.  Neither are speculation and paranoia of what might happen!

Lastly, I was going to post a link to this but it wasn’t wanting to cooperate with me.  So instead, if anybody is interested, Colbert did a piece on this Referendum on his show last night.  If you are so inclined I recommend taking a peek, it’s hilarious!

And even if you don’t search for it online, here’s a small excerpt regarding what he said:

“On last night’s episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen devoted “The Word” segment to R-71, the referendum on the state’s ‘everything but marriage' same-sex domestic partnership law that will be on the ballot in Washington next week.  (Don’t forget to vote!)”

“In particular, Stephen focuses on the efforts by those in favor of R-71 to get the names released of those who signed petitions that called for the law to be overturned.  The US Supreme Court heard the case last week, but blocked the release of the names.  Of course, Stephen, in his trademark roundabout counter-intuitive way, comes out in support of R-71 (since that will allow the petition-signers to stay in the closet).”

Like I said, hilarious!  Check it out if you get a minute!  J

Anyway, one week to go and so far things look good.  But of course complacency is not what we need right now either.  But all things considered, I am optimistic that R-71 will be upheld by voters!

-

-

-

-