More on Referendum 71: secret signatures

From Pam's House Blend, more about Referendum 71. Remember, if enough signatures were gathered (which is questionable), it will put a referendum on the ballot asking the voters to approve the expanded domestic partnerships bill.

We must VOTE "APPROVE" to preserve the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 (SB 5688).  Yes, I said APPROVE.  This is due to the way the ballot was worded by the Attorney General:
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved __X__
Rejected ___
......

There has been some misinformation that if we don't vote APPROVED, the entire DP system will be repealed.  This is false.  Referendum 71 is about approving an incremental enhancement to existing DP law.  Existing DP law will remain intact no matter what.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Not surprisingly, the opposition are trying agin to hide their hatred under the cloak of anonymity. They tried the same thing in CA, and were fortunately thwarted. Despite their claims that PropH8 supporters would be harrassed, they weren't. And if we're talking harassment, howabout the ultimate harassment of denying a citizen their right to marry, or the right to protect their family? Remember just WHO the real victims are here!

Democracy only works in the sunlight. Or as my mother would say, if you are ashamed to be known for doing something, that is a clue that perhaps you shouldn't have done it.

Another reason for secrecy may be the reports that the signature-gatherers lied about the petitions, and claimed that signing them actually supported GLBT rights (Again, from Pam' House Blend. They may not want to have people who support GBLT rights finding out their signatures were collected under false pretenses. A version of this also happened in CA where marriage equality opponents would show up to pro-equality rallies and tell people to vote YES on PropH8 if they supported gay rights.

Finally, the referendum supporters stand to make money off the sale of those names and addresses to political campaigns, etc etc, if they aren't public. There's a simple explanation for their claims of victimhood. It starts with G and it ends with D and it spells GREED.

This leads me to wonder at the values and integrity of a movement that is based so heavily on lies and misleading people. If they don't have sufficient confidence in the rightness of their cause so that they have to lie about it, what does that tell us?

Support Washington's Referendum 71

Approve Ref. 71
Preserve the Domestic Partnership Law
SIX SIMPLE THINGS YOU CAN DO

Phonebank at our campaign office to spread the word
Donate to support the Approve 71 campaign
Change your Facebook photo to the Approve 71 icon and talk about Approving 71 in your status messages
Link to Approve 71 from your email signature.
Change your voicemail message to tell your friends and family to Approve Referendum 71.
Print out and distribute the handouts from our website.

For more great things you can do check out: WWW.APPROVE71.ORG
Facebook icons are under Spread the Word at the top, and handouts are under Handouts on the right.
Now: Go tell 10 friends to do these things, too!

Attacking DPs: WI, WA

In Washington, the state has passed a generous domestic partnership law which as I've discussed here, and also here, is under virulent attack by the forces of hate.

You see, although they insist that they only care about the word "marriage", it's clear that they oppose any civil rights for gay people. It's not about marriage. And we need to call them on it over and over.

So, under Washington law (and not unlike Maine's), with enough signatures they can hold a voting referendum against this new law. So the forces of evil have been busy collecting signatures on what is called Referendum 71. It's been a bit of a challenge, because Washingtonians actually support recognition of gay unions (remember, this isn't marriage, just domestic partnerships/civil unions). So the bad guys have been lying about what's on the petition, claiming that it supports marriage equality (a trick they also used in CA). And they've been lying about the referendum itself.

Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons says, "The state supreme court has said you can lie in campaign utterances and campaign materials. We have no jurisdiction over extra words and sales pitches that sponsors choose to put on petitions." In other words, the Referendum 71 petitions could claim that the measure would ban abortion, impeach the governor, guarantee salvation... almost anything (short of threats or bribery) to persuade people to sign it.

Wow. Just wow.

This weekend the Referendum 71 supporters handed in their signatures. It will take awhile to know whether they got enough to get it on the ballot, or whether Washingtonians were smart enough to see through their lies. If it does get on the ballot, expect another expensive fight as in CA and ME. The alliance here is Washington Families Standing Together.


Meanwhile, the same sickness has hit Wisconsin. A group has challenged, yes, a domestic partnership bill as being "unconstitutional" because of the state constitutional ban on same sex marriage. But it's not marriage, you say. I agree. The problem is that Wisconsin's Hate Amendment also bans " legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals". So is a domestic partnership substantially like a marriage? Or not?

"We are hopeful that the state Supreme Court will recognize that domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriage, and will arrive at a fair and just decision that upholds these basic protections for same-sex couples," Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, said in the statement.

Here's the problem. Even amongst states, the term "domestic partner" or "civil union" does not have a common meaning. In California, DPs are supposed to have all the rights of marriage (until every one of those rights is litigated, we'll ahve to see). In Wisconsin, DPs have few rights. In Washington, it's something in between. And the forces of hate attack gay couples state by state. Support FairWisconsin.


The conflict is neatly summed up in this US News article:

Conservative Christian groups criticizing the president's memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees are alleging that the president is approximating the benefits of marriage—that he's basically creating "marriage light." It's an interesting line of argument because polls show that most Americans support benefits for gay partners but oppose gay marriage.

I'm not saying religious conservatives are acting purely politically—many do believe that providing benefits to gay couples is a sneaky way of legalizing gay unions. But given those poll numbers, it also makes political sense for religious conservatives to try to reframe the benefits issue as a gay marriage issue.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, see benefits and gay marriage as much different issues, since extending some benefits to gay partners still excludes key benefits of marriage.

Finally, some revealing quotes from the other side. First, from the NY TImes, about the conflict over 2010 vs 2012 for repeal:

For opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, the debate among gay rights advocates has been entertaining.

Because, of course, denying faithful couples any rights is SO funny.

Second, the LA Times quoted a leader of the movement that is attacking domestic partnerships in Washington state:

"It's the last incremental step to gay marriage for gay activists," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, who is helping coordinate the signature campaign. "We're not trying to take anything from anyone. We're simply trying to defend and keep marriage as it has always been throughout all of human history."

So what do you call it when you repeal a law that grants people basic rights? If that's not taking something away from someone, what is? We know they lie. But really, isn't it time someone call them out on it?

Bad news: Referendum 71 on Washington Ballot

From the Seattle Times:

A referendum that could overturn Washington state's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law has qualified for the November ballot.

The secretary of state's office said Monday that sponsors of Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid petition signatures - enough to put the newly expanded domestic partnership law to a public vote.

A secondary check of rejected signatures was not complete, so the number could increase.

The new law was supposed to take effect on July 26, but was delayed until the signature count was complete. Now, it won't take effect unless it is approved in the Nov. 3 election.

The measure would expand existing domestic partnerships to give gay and lesbian couples all the state-provided benefits that married heterosexual couples have.

Remember: Vote YES to approve rights for gay couples. Vote YES to protect ALL families. MOre info: http://approvereferendum71.org/

Meanwhile, the Times reports that donors cannot be hidden.

Earlier Thursday, the PDC denied a request by Protect Marriage to redact and seal the names, addresses and occupations of donors. Donor information already had been made public, in accordance with state law.

The group had cited threats of violence against supporters and churches in its request.

Larry Stickney, a key organizer behind R-71, told the PDC he's received death threats and hundreds of "vile, obscene, threatening, nasty" e-mails. He said he found someone in his yard a few weeks ago photographing his house.

But the commission said the group had not proved that disclosure of the information would result in "unreasonable hardship" to contributors, and that keeping the names from the public would thwart the purpose of the public-disclosure law: to avoid secrecy in campaigns.

While Protect Marriage did provide the commission with some threatening e-mails and blog postings, it "provided no evidence from or about donors that have demonstrated that they have received threats of violence against their lives or property," or that they were being targeted for boycotts, PDC Assistant Director Doug Ellis said at the hearing.

That ruling applies only to donors to R-71.

Time to take the white hoods off, finally. The state should not hide people who vote against the rights of their fellow citizens from facing their compatriots.

SCOTUS and equality opponents: the courage of conviction?

As the Federal Prop8 trial (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) enters its second week, we are all relying heavily on the live-bloggers and tweeters to keep us informed, given that the SCOTUS agreed with the Defendant-Intervenors (the Bad Guys) and banned broadcast of the trial.

This decision was based ostensibly on the fear of the Prop8 proponents that their witnesses would be harassed, threatened and injured if people knew who they are. Because you KNOW how much violence there has been, right? Right? Yes, not so much. Despite the endless claims of roving bands of homos beating up on people, there is a paucity of evidence that anything dangerous has actually happened-- even though donor lists pro- and con- Prop8 were public in CA. Sure, there have been a few boycotts, but that tactic goes both ways.

In fact, in the aftermath of Prop8, its supporters made numerous unsubstantiated claims of violence. They accused the marriage equality supporters of terrorism --they even compared us to Al Qaeda for daring to march and claim the right of free speech! Let's not forget this.

And these experts and proponents of Prop8 who are reputedly so fearful, were certainly unafraid to be seen on camera during the run-up to the election, when you couldn't escape from them. Perhaps more telling is that, despite banning the broadcast, the Prop8 supporters' fearful witnesses have still retreated. It seems more likely that their withdrawal has something to do with the fact that their bias may actually be exposed-- see for example William Tam, who attempted to withdraw as a defendant-intervenor. His issue may be less about safety, than privacy, as noted by the Box Turtle Bulletin

I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs.

Of course he had no such qualms about sharing those beliefs to deny GLBT people of equal rights for months and years. (He also thinks the "gay agenda" is based on sex with children and was founded in Chicago in 1972. I am looking forward to his examination by the Olson / Boies team.)

Or perhaps it has something to do with the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, because some of them apparently don't look so good in the deposition tapes where they had to backtrack on their testimony.

In the end, these experts might end up blowing up in the defense’s face. If Boies and team is able to show what he claims, that their testimony was without basis, the experts have opened themselves to charges of perjury. Removing the possibility that the defense team knew about the baselessness of the depositions, because such a circumstance would be an egregious violation of professional responsibility, this also has huge implications for the case. If the defense experts admitted that there is no basis to say there is harm to straight marriages, that point becomes a big longshot to recover for the defense.

This embarrassment tends to happen when you are wrong, or careless, or somewhat ....stingy with the truth.

Both the LA Times and NY Times Op Ed pages decried the SCOTUS decision to hide the case. From the LA Times:

"Reasonable minds," the majority wrote, can differ over televised court proceedings. Fair enough, but some significant number of them also will be troubled by the five justices' blanket adoption of the assertion that televising the testimony of expert witnesses called to defend Proposition 8 -- including those being paid -- would create "irreparable harm" by exposing them to embarrassment and "harassment." If you accept that, you're on a path whose logical conclusion is secret testimony. It's easy enough to excerpt trial transcripts and post them on the Web. Doesn't that "expose" witnesses in any socially or politically divisive case to potential harassment? Television may accelerate the process, but the way text and photographs ricochet around the Internet these days, it's just a matter of degree -- and a rapidly diminishing one at that.

Moreover, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out in a 10-page dissent, in this particular case the witnesses "are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a 'yes' vote on Proposition 8." What is there about these proceedings that will make them more vulnerable to reprisals than they already are?

That brings us squarely to the majority's troubling subtextual suggestion that there is something uniquely threatening -- even sinister -- about the activities of gays and lesbians advocating marriage equality. It's true that a tiny handful of activists on the movement's fringe have behaved outrageously toward opponents of same-sex marriage, but that criticism can't be made against the plaintiffs in this case. They've simply sought vindication of their rights through the courts, the very definition of law-abiding.

The Courage Campaign reminds of what's at stake in this:

The legal system exists precisely to counteract those kinds of situations, to provide those who have had their rights attacked or taken away the ability to confront those who have done so and take back their rights. And that in turn is precisely why ProtectMarriage.com wants to undermine the legal system in order to undermine marriage. If they can’t win fairly, then they’ll try to undermine the systems and institutions that ensure fairness.

Secret courtrooms and hidden testimony are antithetical to our principles of justice. And for an issue discussed almost exclusively in superficial media soundbites and advertising hyperbole, it is particularly disheartening to have hidden from public view the reasoned discussion of evidence in a courtroom that actually relies on facts and data, not lies and misinformation.

There's now another SCOTUS case, this one not just a request for an injunction, but a full-blown case, that the Court has agreed to hear, called John Doe vs. Reed. You may recall in Washington state last year the referendum on civil unions, in which the voters only narrowly approved generous partnership benefits. (The campaign against Referendum 71 provides yet another example of how the argument isn't about marriage, it's about ANY recognition of our families).

Washington has a law that releases the names of people who sign petitions to put referenda on the ballot. The proponents of discrimination want their names hidden, and in the case John Doe vs Reed, ask the SCOTUS to allow them to do so. From Pam's House Blend, a discussion of this case which asks the Court to

a. Declare Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.070 unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the Secretary of State to make the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, submitted to the Secretary of State's office available to the public;

b. Enjoin Defendants from making the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, available to the public pursuant to the Public Records Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.001 et seq., or otherwise;....

ONLY for this issue, note. They are seeking to cover up ONLY the opponents to marriage equality and civil unions. Unlike NOM, which is trying to overturn completely the campaign transparency law in Maine, the Washington folks want protection specifically, and ONLY, for petitioners involving same sex marriage or civil unions.

The irony is noted by the NY Times Opinionator :

Has anyone noticed that now that lesbians and gay men have left the closet to assert their equal rights as citizens, their adversaries seem to be running for a closet of their own?

But the Opinionator comments, more disturbingly,

A question now is whether the opponents of same-sex marriage can plausibly claim, as their court papers have sought to do, that they face threats to their lives and property comparable to those faced by civil rights workers in the Deep South in the 1950s and 1960s.

Did you catch that? Let's make this clear. The opponents of marriage equality (AND civil unions) are claiming the mantle of honor for themselves, and as they strip the rights away from a persecuted GLBT community, they have the utter audacity to compare themselves to freedom marchers in the Civil Rights movement.

It is gob-smacking: those hiding under the hoods are pretending to be forces for justice. And it is even more outrageous if the courts let them get away with it.

David LInk at the conservative Independent Gay Forum writes,

People who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed — neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. That’s what lesbians and gay men have had to do to get where we are. Perhaps that’s harsh, but I’m having a very hard time seeing how name-calling really counts as a similar sort of abuse, or how risking some loss of government funds equates with actual peril in a way that would justify refusing to air arguments in a public forum like a court of law.

And Firedoglake chimes in, remarking upon the hypocrisy of the conservative viewpoint:

Sure, harassment is fine and dandy when you’re the one brandishing firearms and shouting down congresspeople at townhalls, or yelling at women going into family planning clinics, but when there’s even the slightest chance that someone might call you a bigot, well, that’s just as bad as the KKK killing Freedom Riders.

It’s a truly amazing lack of perspective. Gays are persecuted, discriminated against, bullied, beaten, raped, and murdered; many of them feel they have to conceal the very essence of who they are to fit in and be safe. Gay marriage opponents? The worst that’ll happen to them is that they’ll get picketed or insulted, or get the cold shoulder from residents of the 21st century. But apparently the risk of facing intolerance of one’s own intolerance is too steep a price to pay for defending The Most Important Institution Evar.

Many of these people who want to hide under a hood claim to be Christians (which insults the many, many Christian faith groups who support fairness and inclusivity.) Perhaps it is time for them to actually READ the Bible that they thump so passionately:

And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’
John 3:19-21

SCOTUS: Signatures must be public

Doe v Reed is a case that came to us from Washington State in the aftermath of Referendum 71 that tried to overturn their state Domestic Partner law.* As I told you before, the Forces of Darkness brought a case up to the Supreme Court claiming that the signatures of the people who signed the petitions putting Referendum 71 on the ballot should remain private, because of their fictitious fears that the Rampaging Homos would injure them if they knew who they were.

More likely this had to do with verification of signatures and fraud, but then, I'm a cynic.

The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the signatures must be made public. Only Justice Thomas, which seems ironic, supported the metaphorical hood of secrecy over hatred.

It's important to note that this is not a complete victory for this case. What they do is send the case back down for consideration. They found that generally things should be public, but several justices seemed to say that there might be times where secrecy could be justified.

Not Justice Scalia, though. I'll hand it to him, he's for transparency all the way:

Plaintiffs raise concerns that the disclosure of petition signatures may lead to threats and intimidation. Of course nothing prevents the people of Washington from keeping petition signatures secret to avoid that—just as nothing prevented the States from moving to the secret ballot. But there is no constitutional basis for this Court to impose that course upon the States—or to insist (as today’s opinion does) that it can only be avoided by the demonstration of a “sufficiently important governmental interest,” ....And it may even be a bad idea to keep petition signatures secret. There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

The real question will be whether everyone who signed that petition, (a) really signed it, or (b) knew what they were signing. During the campaign there were numerous allegations of fraud and there were barely enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

UpdateGood background from the Keen News Service:

[Washington State Attorney General Robert] McKenna added, and the majority clearly agreed, that Protect Marriage plaintiffs had failed to offer any evidence to support their concern for harassment. And, noted McKenna, three other states with public disclosure laws held gay-related ballot measures and offered “no evidence…that anyone who signed any of these petitions in those three States was subjected to harassment.”

There's an amicus brief about the lack of credible threats. I'll track that down and tell you about it here.

*Aside: this kind of campaign proves that it's not marriage the bad guys are after, it's any recognition of GLBT couples, because this was about DPs, NOT civil marriage. And still the right opposes it.

Why Referendum 71 matters (video)

Because each of us is protected only when ALL of us are protected.

Washingtonians: Approve Referendum 71. Every family matters.

Upcoming votes: Vote No on 1 in Maine, Yes on 71 in Washington

Do what you can to help our brothers and sisters. The biggie is Maine: this is the M-word, folks, marriage. The lies have started with the successful PropH8 campaigners up to their usual tricks. The vote will be close. Stand up for equality in Maine: we really, really want to win one at the ballot box. Can you give money? fly out to help? Whatever you can do, please help preserve equality in maine and VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1.


The Washington election is about domestic partnerships, NOT marriage. But, proving that they LIE when they say it's only about marriage, the haters are out in force claiming that DPs ARE marriage. This is simply bigotry. Help keep the DP law intact in Washington state: VOTE YES ON REFERENDUM 71.

The good, the bad, and the ugly: Top Ten 2009 landmarks for GLBT couples

GREAT post from Pams House Blend on landmarks, for good or ill, in 2009 in the struggle for equality for GLBT couples. Read the whole thing for explanations, but here's the list:

10. Obama Extends Some Health Care, Other Benefits to Domestic Partners of Federal Employees

9. Congress Amends the Hate Crimes Act to Include Sexual Orientation as Protected Class

8. Colorado and Nevada Pass Limited Domestic Partnership Laws

7. New York Senate Rejects Gay Marriage

6. D.C. Council Votes to Legalize Gay Marriages and Recognize Ones From Other States

5. California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

4. Washington Passes Everything-But-Marriage Law, Citizens Affirm Through Referendum 71

3. Wisconsin Passes Domestic Partnership Law Despite Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

2. Maine Passes Same Sex Marriage Law, Voters Overturn It

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont Legalize Gay Marriage

GLBT cases in front of the SCOTUS, 1

We're all anxiously waiting progress on the Prop8 federal case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which at the moment is awaiting a series of legal maneuvers because the bad guys (the defendent-interveners, who are defending Prop8) want campaign documents from groups who opposed the initiative, even though those groups are not parties to this suit. This case will eventually be decided by Judge Vaughn Walker in US District Court, and then almost certainly will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, it may get to the SCOTUS, depending on if it is appealed there, and whether SCOTUS chooses to hear it. So there is a long, long way to go.

As that wends its way through the legal arcana, there are two other cases affecting our rights that are already on their way to the Supreme Court. I'll discuss them in turn.

The first is Doe #1 v Reed in which arguments are scheduled for Monday, 19th April. That's Doe, as in John Doe: an anonymous! We have talked extensively here about the new right-wing anti-equality meme, that it's THEY who are the victims of those EEEEEvvvvvviiiiillll rampaging homos. This appears to be based entirely on a few incidents post-Prop8, and the mean things said about them in the papers and on the internet. Most of the incidents are completely unsubstantiated, and moreover, they conveniently ignore substantiated incidents where the conservatives attacked GLBT supporters.

In the wake of California Prop8, a web site was published that contained all the donor information from the pro-H8 side. (The information from BOTH sides was published by the state and freely searchable). This led to howls of outrage from the right, and fears that they would be attacked. And you know what happened? Absolutely nothing! That's right, no one was firebombed for being a donor. Oh, I'm sure some words may have been exchanged, but there was no evidence of violence.

Still, pointing at this, the supporters of referendum 71 in Washington State (which wanted to overturn domestic partnerships--remember this next time They claim it's only about marriage) have filed suit to prevent the release of the names of those who signed the petition to put its intolerance on the ballot,

Washington's laws, like California's, have transparency rules that require the release of names. So this is nothing special. But Their Side claims they fear intimidation. There's again absolutely NO evidence that this has or would occur.

Our side has two major arguments, I think. First, there were widespread accusations of signature violations on the petitions, in which signatures were invalid, or obtained under false pretenses. It seems to me that the rule of open government works on the side of release, here. Petitioners had no expectation of privacy and there is a legitimate public interest in seeing those names.

Second, we do not allow people to wear hoods and attack the rights of others. If you are ashamed of what you are doing, you are doing the wrong thing.

The problem for Our Side is that this Supreme Court has already bought into the intimidation argument EVEN THOUGH there is no evidence for it. As Chris Geidner reports,

The broad issue — the intimidation question — already has arisen twice in recent months at the Court, when the Court rejected the attempt to allow a live-streaming of the Proposition 8 trial to other courtrooms and in Justice Thomas’s opinion in Citizens United.

. That's the stunning case in which the court ruled corporations are people and can spend freely to influence elections.

I have just about lost any respect for Justice Thomas, but I really expected better of Justice Kennedy who is generally the swing vote between the sensible liberal side and the reactionary conservative bloc.

So although it seems obvious to me that Doe should be decided in a way that maintains an open government, I greatly fear that the current Supreme Court will decide in favor of secret cabals and blackballing.

Washington Governor comes out for equality

From the Advocate:

Sounding ready for a fight, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced today that she will press for passage of marriage equality in Washington during an upcoming special session. 

"It is time," she said. "It's over time for us to ensure gay and lesbian couples have equal rights, and that means marriage in Washington State." 

Washington's domestic-partnership law already grants many of the benefits that marriage would; it was often called the "everything but marriage bill" when it was being considered in 2009 and then when some tried to repeal it via Referendum 71 at the ballot box. But Gregoire repeatedly emphasized that her push for marriage isn't just about rights.
"I don't think about the legal protections of a marriage license," she said. "Instead I think about love, I think about commitment." 

Marriage, she said, is "not a contract." Gregoire argued that same-sex couples want the right to stand in front of their friends and family and marry just like she had done with her husband. Research from the Third Way has shown that arguments about commitment are more persuasive with voters than those about rights and benefits — which voters don't relate to as easily.

way to go, Governor!  Way to go, Washington!

Text and video here.

The ethical dilemma of Mr Pugno: did he break the law for Prop 22?

Before Prop8 in California, there was Proposition 22, the "Knight Initiative" that outlawed same sex marriage. This was struck down by the Supreme Court of California n 2008, as unconstitutional under the state Constitution, which led to legal same sex marriages during the California Interregnum. Proposition 8 sought to amend the state constitution to once again outlaw marriage equality, and as we know, it succeeded.

The "Knight Initiative" was written by Pete Knight, a State Senator from Lancaster, CA. Its dislike of GLBT people is all the more striking because Knight's middle son is gay and he came out during the campaign to oppose his father. Some dad, eh?

But I digress. Yesterday, an investigative reporter published evidence that one of CA State Sen. Knight's staff, Andrew Pugno, worked in the Senator's office using official letterhead to coordinate the strategy for Prop 22 with the Mormon church.

The Mormon church's involvement and financial support in California's gay marriage debate is well documented. But Pugno's newly unearthed memo, written on state government letterhead, is striking evidence of how closely the Mormon church has been involved in the gay marriage debate in California for more than a decade.

So what? Well, there's a problem. Seems California law is explicit that there has to be a bright line between the business of the people's representatives using the people's money, and campaigning. Basically, you can't spend your senate budget, use your senate letterhead, or your senate fax machine for a political campaign.

As for Pugno using Senate letterhead for a political issue – and asking Wardle to use the government fax machine and phone lines – the law is fairly strict. One regulation does allow for "incidental" campaign use, but Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said about cases like this in general: "The use of public funds for campaign purposes is unlawful." (The statute of limitations on any violation from 1998 has likely passed.)

So the progressive Courage Campaign is filing a complaint for an investigation of Mr Pugno.

Why does this matter? Well, as the Courage Campaign explains it best:

Pugno is of course the general counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District State Assembly seat. He is a key figure in the campaign strategy used for both Prop 22 and Prop 8, and for the legal defense of Prop 8 in both the California Supreme Court and in Judge Vaughn Walker’s federal courtroom. As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get this website shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at this site.

At some level, the PropH8 supporters think that the laws don't apply to them: campaign transparency, openness, funding sources--all dispensible if they choose. We've seen this for PropH8, as well as for Question 1 in Maine and for Referendum 71 in Washington State. They even now have a case before SCOTUS about whether or not on the issue of marriage equality in particular, campaign transparency laws should be put aside. All because of false claims of violence--apparently if they say it enough they think someone will believe that there are marauding bands of 'mos attacking them. (More in my previous post, SCOTUS and equality opponents: the courage of conviction?).

Now, we have further evidence that they think they are above the law. The law is for the little people and the homosexuals.

So it will be interesting to see what happens to Mr Pugno. My prediction? Not a thing. Being a gay, married Californian has left me very cynical about the other side.

What about the threats?

In Doe v. Reed, marriage equality opponents from Washington argued for secrecy for the signatures on the petitions that qualified Referendum 71 for the ballot (and thus allowed people to vote on whether or not domestic partner benefits should be expanded). They claimed that to reveal the signatures would expose the signers to violence.

As we know the Supreme Court decided that generally, signatures should be public. (See my previous post here). So the bad guys lost this round.

One of the amicus briefs filed with the court to support the good guys specifically addressed this claim of violence and intimidation. Several social scientists who study direct democracy and the initiative process actually did the research to see whether there is credible evidence that publicizing the names of petition signers leads to threats.

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
The take home message?

More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the internet. Yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retalia-tion or harassment by reason of that disclosure.

First they looked at Washington state petitions on all subjects

Petitioners do not, however, identify a single case in which a voter signing a petition has actually been subject to any form of harassment or intimidation as a result of public disclosure of that voter’s signature, name and address on the petition.
...
The lack of any demonstrable threat of intimidation or harassment is not limited to Washington. In fact, it is difficult to identify any case of intimidation or harassment of a petition signer occurring during the entire previous century.

Then they take on the claims about one particular organization around the gay marriage issue:

Petitioners state that an organization called KnowThyNeighbor.org, an organization supporting equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples, “posted the names of traditional marriage supporters signing petitions in Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, and Oregon.5 ” .... Upwards of a million names and addresses of these individuals in three states (Arkansas, Florida, and Massachusetts) have been posted online by KnowThyNeighbor. org. Petitioners, however, have not identified a single individual who has actually faced any threat of intimidation, retaliation or harassment as a result of merely signing any of these petitions and having that signature publicly disclosed.

And, in a sting to the tail, the publication of the signatures actually helps weed out fraud, which they show is epidemic in proportion in these initiative campaigns:

In Massachusetts, the public disclosure on the web by KnowThyNeighbor.org of the individuals who signed petitions to ban gay marriage led not to harassment or intimidation of those signers, but rather to the realization by thousands of citizens that they had been duped into signing the petition, thinking they were signing a petition to permit gay marriage.

The anti-gay side is fighting hard to make themselves the victim. Those marauding homos, doing violence against old ladies! Those terrible gays, destroying straight marriages! Those Godless 'mos, viciously attacking religious values!

It is imperative that we challenge these lies. The harassment that there was during Prop8 affected both sides --almost certainly, ours more than theirs. As I've said before, I was spit at, cursed, cut off on the freeway and had my car vandalized. During the post-8 mega-marches I attended, the only arrests were of THEIR side. And it's their campaign who wrote threatening letters to pro-equality donors.

No straight marriage ever failed because two gay people married. And plenty of GLBT and GLBT-friendly folks are very religious (just check out the crowded Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego for an example). The right-wing does not own the term "Christian" (and it's past time progressive Christians managed to wrest that name back again, but that's a subject for a different post).

And NO ONE has ever been harassed or threatened because their petition signature was made public.

Facts matter. Get them out there!

Update a great review of this and another relevant amicus brief at LGBT POV.

Also see another amicus brief at GLAD

Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden. This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't.  And the consequences have been mild.  Some rude remarks.  A business boycott.  (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses.  Goose, gander?)   Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%.  Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.  

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.