The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that they’ll hear the case over whether Referendum 71 petition signatures are a public record, and Attorney General Rob McKenna will argue the case.

The Secretary of State’s blog has an excellent background post. Basically: The referendum asked voters whether the 2009 extensions of the domestic partnership law should be kept or repealed.

During the campaign, signatures on the petitions were requested under a public records request. The backers of R71 filed a court case saying the records weren’t public. The Secretary of State’s Office has been barred from releasing petitions from Referendum 71 since then. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest will be history as of April 28.

Meanwhile voters sided with the Legislature and Gov. Chris Gregoire and registered domestic partners in Washington are now given all the state-granted rights and responsibilities that married couples here have.

And to get it clarified in law for future issues, the Senate passed a bill last night that would make future petition signatures a public record.

Tags: R71

From host Jessica Gao: Washington voters make history with the approval of Referendum 71, which expands the rights of domestic partners to include all the state-granted rights of married couples. It is the country’s first ever statewide vote in support of a gay rights issue. We talk with State Senator Joe McDermott (D-Seattle) about what the vote means for Washington and for the national gay rights debate. Is this vote an anomaly or does it represent a shift for the gay rights movement?

Plus, we head out east to Yakima County to get a view of the Nile Valley Landslide. We’re updating you on the progress of the state and local agencies coordinating this massive emergency response effort. We also talk with the state geologist about monitoring the stability of the Nile Valley Landslide and other slide-prone regions around the state.

Here it is:

Tags: Domestic partnership, Nile Valley landslide, R71, The Impact

Voters approved Referendum 71, which means Senate Bill 5688 — to extend all the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners — stands. According to the Secretary of State’s blog, there’s a 30-day waiting period after the election for the law to take effect.

That means the expanded rights won’t be available to domestic partners until Dec. 3, 2009.

For more on that, go to their blog here.

Tags: Domestic partnership, R71

The Secretary of State has posted updated numbers on Referendum 71, which would give state registered domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities that married couples receive from the state.

Now: 52.48 percent of votes are to approve the measure, with 47.52 percent against.

As for Initiative 1033, which would control government growth and reduce property taxes over time, it’s still failing by a substantial margin: 57 percent to 43 percent. Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement on the failure of that measure already.

Tags: R71, referendum 71

This week, I interviewed Larry Stickney, campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington, which opposes Referendum 71. Below, you’ll find the complete text of our interview. When you’re done reading, check out Anne Levinson, on why she thinks voters should approve Referendum 71.

Q. Why should voters reject Referendum 71 (which would extend all state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage to registered domestic partners)?
Stickney: On Nov. 3, we’re facing one of the most hotly contested bills ever. Why is it so controversial? In effect, Senate Bill 5688 will legalize homosexual marriage. Legalizing homosexual marriage would be the most profound policy change in our history.
The “Accept” folks and the homosexual activists are claiming that SB 5688 is not about marriage but their own leadership has said otherwise. As Sen. Ed Murray told the Seattle times on Jan. 10, 2007, when he announced the Domestic Partnership bill, “the goal is marriage equality. It’s an important statement that our eyes are on the prize and the prize is marriage.” Rep. Jamie Pedersen told the Times, “SB 5688 will give homosexuals a bridge until they can legally marry.” Murray again told the Times that the expansion 5688 is “an incremental approach, a strategic plan. And we believe 5688 is the last incremental step to same-sex marriage in Washington State.”
We believe that this whole homosexual marriage agenda is being promoted over the objections of a majority of Washingtonians. As presently, marriage is a common social good. If homosexual marriage becomes legal, the next step for homosexual activists is to teach children that homosexual unions are normal, to require churches to perform homosexual marriages.

Q: Last week I spoke to supporters of Referendum 71 who said those statements about school curriculum and churches are false. I want to give you a chance to explain how this will require schools to teach about homosexuality and churches to perform domestic partnerships. Will it?

Stickney: That’s a possibility. What we’re running into is a clash between what they claim to be a civil right and freedom of religion.
That’s happened in Canada. You’ve got examples from around the world here. You’ve had issues like a Knights of Columbus hall wouldn’t rent their hall for a homosexual marriage ceremony and eventually they were sued and fined $1,000 because they wouldn’t acquiesce. This is in British Colombia. This would be a violation of the very tannins of the Catholic Church.
In New Jersey, there’s a Methodist organization and in 2007 they refused to rent a facility to lesbians for a civil union ceremony. A complaint was filed with the state division of civil rights. It ruled against the Methodist group, the state revoked their tax exemption for the property because they refused to back down.

Q. Domestic partnerships do exist in Washington State currently – this would extend the benefits. Can you explain how expanding them would lead to that?

Stickney: Yes, I can. We have a national laboratory — it’s called Massachusetts — on the same-sex marriage issue. There in a recent case, parents of a young elementary school student objected to the curriculum and classroom discussion that was meant to inculcate the idea that there was no difference between marriages between a man and wife and same-sex relationships. The court upheld that public schools have an interest in teaching tolerance, including on the issue of gay marriage.
They’re saying that because there’s no specific language (in the bill to require schools to teach it), but they don’t need specific languages. All they need is the statute and they will develop the curriculum from there. I’ve got examples on our Web site of what has happened even here in Washington now. The site has many references to the activism we’re seeing here in Washington.
Much of the state curriculum is developed by some folks that are very much interested in promoting the homosexual agenda here. The first domestic partnership couple, one of the parties is a very active and a director of the Safe Schools Coalition in Seattle.

Q. Do you have examples of education curriculum being changed in Washington?

Stickney: Yes, there is. We have several examples. Go to www.protectmarriagewa.com and go to talking points and scroll down, you’ll see many reference about same sex examples in curriculum. And it goes into the early learning benchmarks of our state school system. You can reference documents – the F.L.A.S.H. curriculum is the top recommended curriculum for public schools to use. They recommend showing the video “We Are Family,” which teaches that same-sex relationships are the same as marriage.
There are also some oddities — they don’t currently add requirements for educating children, but it does force a new definition of the word “family.” It’s not about allowing choice for adult relationships. This law will result in children being taught that there is a different definition of “family,” so that same-sex partners will be a recognized norm.
Study after study after study has shown that that’s not best for children. That’s simply what we’re trying to uphold here is the standard of marriage as the very best for society. We understand there are occasions when you can’t achieve that, but we believe that it is the institution that should receive entitlements and benefits of marriage. We simply cannot go and raid the public treasury for every group that’s lobbied its way into getting civil rights. (more…)

Tags: Domestic partnerships, R71, Thursday Q&A

This week’s Q&A is with Anne Levinson, chair of the Approve Referendum 71 campaign. I talked to her about why she’s in favor of the referendum and some things she wants to clear up about it. Next Thursday, I’ll talk to a representative from the opposite camp on why they want the referendum to be defeated. Don’t miss it.

Q: In your own words, why should someone vote to approve Referendum 71, which would extend the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage to state-registered domestic partners?
Levinson: We have a law in this state called domestic partnership law and in our state in particular it’s broken into three parts. So we actually have laws passed in 2007, 2008 and 2009 that, together, collectively provide basic legal protections to committed couples who are in domestic partnerships. The purpose of the domestic partnership laws is to ensure that all Washington families are treated the same with the same legal protections, the same rights and the same obligations as their neighbors.

So under the domestic partnership laws, same sex couples and opposite sex couples with at least one partner age 62 or older can register for a domestic partnership in order that their families have these legal protections.

In June of this year, a group of people who are opposed to domestic partnerships filed a referendum to appeal the domestic partnership law. Voters are asked whether they want to approve the domestic partnership law. In order to keep the domestic partnership law, voters have to vote to approve it.

It won’t go back to the laws passed in 2008 and 2007, but it will roll back a significant number of legal protections. It won’t wipe away all the laws. But that would be akin to saying to a married couple, We are going to take away some of the rights you have as a married couple but you can still be married.
Rejecting this law would irreparably harm a number of families across the state.

There are now more than 12,000 people in Washington who are registered in domestic partnerships. That is the number of people whose lives will be impacted.

These people live in every county, in every part of the state. So if the laws are rejected, their legal protections will be stripped away and they’ll be left without an essential safety net in essence and particularly in times of crisis. We’ve all seen the unfortunate tragedies that happen in life and what happens when a family does not have the protections. (more…)

Tags: R71, referendum 71, Thursday Q&A

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has blocked the release of signatures on the Referendum 71 petitions, the latest move in a saga over whether petition signatures are a public record.

We’ll have more information as it’s available.

Tags: public record, R71

Tomorrow, there may be more clarity on whether Referendum 71 petitions will be released: Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks has set a hearing for 1:30 p.m.

Last week, he blocked the release of any petitions, saying he wanted to hear the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision. They released a brief ruling — to release the petitions — last week, but they haven’t yet released the full opinion. Here’s more on tomorrow’s hearing.

And in case you missed Inside Olympia this week, here it is. Host Austin Jenkins interviewed a supporter and opponent of Referendum 71.

Tags: public records, R71

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Tacoma federal court’s decision today. What does that mean: R71 petition signatures are a public record, according to the court.

Here’s the (brief) ruling. A full opinion will be issued soon.

This court case stems from the public records request for copies of Referendum 71 petitions. One of the groups that requested the documents said they would publish the names of all the signers on a web site. That prompted the organizers behind the referendum to file a lawsuit blocking the release of names.

Over at the Secretary of State’s blog, they have this to say: “There is one more legal step the state must take before releasing the petitions to the six groups or individuals who requested the records: Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks, in a case brought by initiative activist Tim Eyman, on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order against the Secretary releasing any petitions, until he hears from the 9th Circuit.” Read the rest of the post here.

Tags: public records, R71

If you haven’t yet seen the video voter guide, now’s a good time. I’ll include all the clips below for your viewing pleasure. And if you’re interested in Initiative 1033, don’t miss my interview with Tim Eyman yesterday. Next Thursday’s Q&A will be with Mike Ragan of the Washington Education Association, a group that opposes 1033.

Here’s Tim Eyman and Doug Shadel on 1033:

Jane Abbot Lighty and Roger Stickney on Referendum 71:

Tags: I-1033, R71, video voter guide