Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Referendum 71 in WA: Businesses and people, pro and con
Share:
by smkovalinsky | October 27, 2009 at 01:23 am
255 views | 2 Recommendations | 2 comments
Videos
Photos
A continuation and an addendum update of this Now Public story by NP author Rhonda J Mangus on Referendum 71 in the state of Washington:
Referendum 71 in the state of Washington is designed to protect all domestic partnerships and rights of couples. It is receiving, of course, both support and opposition from individuals and businesses. From Starbucks to WalMart to local newspapers and diners, from residential areas and to the blogosphere and beyond, here is a sampling of what the experience of Ref. 71 on the Nov. 3 voting ballot has been like for Washingtonians:
Lawmakers in the state originally passed Senate bill 5688. This was a piece of legislation granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of marriage, minus the name. The bill applies also to unmarried heterosexual unions, and is considered controversial even in 2009.
One stipulation for unmarried hetero partners is that one member of the couple must be age 62 or older. Areas of state law which provide for married couples would now add all of these provisions about the aforementioned.
These provisions involve sick leave and wages and benefits and death benefits as well.
The divide with regard to Referendum 71 in Washington can be compared to Question One in Maine, Proposition 8 in the state of California, and to newly proposed ballot referendum in the District of Columbia.
The 114-page law gives partners the right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, insurance rights, policy rights after the death of a domestic partner, conversion rights and continuing coverage rights. It also allows same-sex couples equal rights affecting adoption, child custody and child support.Social conservatives, some church groups and conservative lawmakers fought passage of the legislation. They lost, but vowed to overturn the new law by filing a referendum.
They did and Referendum 71 was born.
All summer supporters and opponents have been tied up in court proceedings.
One federal court battle was over the release of the names of voters who signed the referendum petition. Gay rights advocates said they were going to print of list of signers so people could educate their friends and neighbors who signed the petitions. It was a thinly disguised attempt to intimidate voters — to dissuade them from signing Referendum 71.
The opposition camp, fearing violence, has asked a federal judge to keep the signatures secret. The judge came down on the side of secrecy. They also asked the state Public Disclosure Commission to keep the names of campaign donors secret, but that request was denied.
Starbucks: said that approving R-71 “ensures that basic benefits and important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis.” Starbucks wants voters to approve the measure “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.” :
Starbucks hasn’t contributed to the campaign, but they did send this message out to their employees. Starbucks has 3,000 employees in its Seattle headquarters and maintains 667 stores in Washington state, and each of them got this statement. That’s quite a venti.Starbucks’ endorsement follows similar appeals from Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, and many other companies that employ large numbers of people in the Pacific Northwest.
With all the attention being paid to Maine, Washington’s LGBT citizens are feeling ignored. Karen Ocamb says they’resweating bullets because they may well lose their hard-won Domestic Partnerships. Please show them your love by donating to Approve Ref. 71 today.
A Walmart was heavily opposed to allowing a table to collect signatures for Ref. 71 and called police:
At about 2 pm today I went to WalMart, Hazel Dell, to join Eric at a table set outside the store, in the sun, to gather signatures for Referendum 71. Many people came to our table freely asking what we were there for and willingly signing our petitions. Eric had been there from 9 or so in the morning and said that he got about 20 signatures an hour. While I was there for about an hour, we continued gathering signatures.
Then this older woman came by, very aggressively against us, speaking in an angry tone, using language I do not use. Eric said that he would go in and talk to the manager, which he did. A man with her took our pictures. Then some time later the police came telling us we were trespassing and that we had to leave.
And some of the logic for this is stated:
SB 5688 is a Trojan Horse that was crafted to deceive voters into believing that it's not about marriage. Its writers know that a large majority of American are opposed to homosexual marriage. SB-5688 gives homosexuals every right of marriage, except the name. If a majority of Washingtonians are duped into voting to accept SB 5688, believing that it's about "domestic partner benefits," homosexual activists will then simply litigate through the courts, claiming discrimination, as they did in California, and overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act. That is their plan.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 09:36 on October 27th, 2009
This is very complicated legally.
The signatures being secret is a bad, bad precedent. The donors must be known.
For another thing, you cannot fix discrimination by adding discrimination against hetero couples by age.
Secondly, if the couples are legally couples, they lose individual Social Security pensions, a reason why older couples don't marry.
Same for gay couples. You are a couple? You get one Social Security pension.
This would only be the beginning of important points that need a lawyer to comment, not me.
- reply
I signed... (not verified)at 14:29 on November 3rd, 2009
Roy... did I misread this article? I read that the signers were kept secret, but donors and contributors were made public. So how again is signatures being kept secret a bad bad precedent? If it's a matter of donation, you are wrong wrong. I signed, but did NOT donate. I agree with you, those who donate should be known, but those who sign a petition should be kept secret so that referendums in the future are not subject to fear tactics, as THAT would be a bad bad precedent. Here's some controversy... could lawmakers be keeping this a gay/straight debate so that we squabble rather than focus on perhaps the true problem? I mean, why can I not collect social security if my wife passes before me? Give EVERYONE the right to name their beneficiary and leave sexual preference as much out of it as we should religion. It seems to me as if we are asking the law-makers to validate our lifestyles/morals... something they have no right or responsibility to do. Let's get down to benefits for everyone, and then watch how lawmakers squirm to find ways to pay all the new beneficiaries... THAT would be interesting.