Posts tagged ‘R-71’

April 26, 2012

Homosexual Mob Vandalizes Portland Church. Will Washington Be Next?

by lewwaters

If you read the Columbian, you probably missed the small blurb Tuesday, April 24, 2012 Vandals break windows at Portland church, since apparently a conscious effort was made to hide that those claiming responsibility for the vandalization are a self proclaimed homosexual activist group labeling themselves “Angry Queers.”

What they did not minimize was that homosexual group’s dislike the Mars Hill Church in Portland “for its views against homosexuality,” meaning they believe in biblical scripture and do not embrace the homosexual agenda.

KOIN 6 received an anonymous email claiming responsibility for the cowardly act of smashing century old stained glass windows at the church. They report,

“A gay-activist group, identified only as ‘angryqueers@’ in an anonymized email address, has claimed responsibility. In an email to KOIN, a reported member of the group said ‘Mars Hill is notoriously anti-gay and anti-woman’.”

“The sender took issue with Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill’s head pastor, saying Driscoll has said women need to be subservient to their husbands and that gay people are a cancer. Members of this southeast Portland church deny these claims.”

The act has drawn the condemnation of several different religious and homosexual group representatives, reports the Portland Mercury.

read more »

January 9, 2012

Initiative Filed To Redefine Marriage as One man to One Woman

by lewwaters

On the first meeting day of the 2012 legislature, Everett attorney Stephen Pidgeon has filed for an initiative “seeking to clarify the definition of marriage. ”

See proposed document here

Currently, marriage is considered as a “civil contract between a male and a female.” Pidgeon’s initiative would redefine marriage as “between one man and one woman.” Pidgeon, addressing the current strong push from our lame duck governor for homosexual marriage rights says he is concerned legalizing homosexual marriage “will lead to the liberalization of marriage laws to allow for polygamy and other forms of relationships.”

He adds, “We believe this issue is even more volatile than domestic partnerships. The voters should get to vote on it. Let’s see what they think.”

Democratic Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen seems to agree as she says “unwilling to support any gay-marriage bill that didn’t allow a vote of the people.”

Lame duck governor, Christine Gregoire recently came out in full support of homosexual marriage rights, placing it high on her list of priorities, demanding the legislature pass it and have it on her desk within the next 60 days the legislature will be in session. That the state still faces a $1.5 Billion budget gap an a Supreme Court decision saying the state has been derelict in their duty to fully fund education is of little concern as the full court press is on to legalize homosexual marriage rights in the State of Washington.

read more »

October 20, 2011

Will Rob McKenna Accept Responsibility for “Uncomfortable Conversations?”

by lewwaters

After some two years in an out of court, Washington State Attorney General and candidate for Governor, Rob McKenna, has succeeded in granting requests of Gay Activists to obtain the names and addresses of all those people who signed the petition that placed R-71, placing the states “everything but marriage” bill before voters in 2009.

Activists have maintained all along their intent to place those names and addresses on a website with a search engine in order for others to identify people they know to engage in “uncomfortable conversations” with people who signed the petition.

Ordinarily, knowing who signed a petition is of no worry, but with at least 6 Gay Activist Groups obtaining the state supplied DVD’s listing all 130,000 names and addresses by the end of the day the DVD was made available and due to several threats issued towards those support traditional marriage, I am not convinced the notion of transparency is best served in this case.

A look back at California’s Proposition 8 passing in 2008 also gives a prime example of intimidation & harassment as well as calls for violence against people who do not support same sex marriage. Much of what was seen then came about due to personal information being obtained and posted online.

read more »

June 24, 2010

R-71 Names Can Be Made Public, Supreme Court Rules

by lewwaters

By an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that names and signatures of petitions, such as Washington State R-71 measure, can be made available to the public.

Seattle Times: Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available

Gay Activists had sought the names and addresses of those who signed the petition seeking to place Washington’s Domestic Partnership bill, also known as “Everything Except Marriage” before the voters in an effort to prevent it from being implemented.

The measure failed and the Domestic Partnership went forward.

Gay Activists had stated they wished to have the names, addresses and signatures of petition signers to ensure no names were wrongfully placed upon the petition, but also to be able to “reach out and discuss with signers their having signed the petition.”

I am stunned that conservative justices, Samuel Alito and John Roberts agreed with this ruling as the obvious intent, as happened in California after their Proposition 8 passed, is to harass and intimidate signers of petitions activist groups may target.

The court left open the possibility of those opposed to making the names, addresses and signatures of signers public seeking and gaining an exemption in this particular case in a lower federal court due to such harassment and intimidation as has been seen in California.

In his dissent with the Supreme Court Majority Decision, Justice Thomas stated,

“Indeed, if the evidence relating to Proposition 8 is not sufficient to obtain an as-applied exemption in this case, one may wonder whether that vehicle provides any meaningful protection for the First Amendment rights of persons who circulate and sign referendum and initiative petitions.”

Justice Thomas also explained on his dissent,

“Just as ‘confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy,’ Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam), so too is citizen participation in those processes, which necessarily entails political speech and association under the First Amendment. In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions1 under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), Wash. Rev. Code §42.56.001, et seq. (2008), severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process. Given those burdens, I would hold that Washington’s decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process.”

Gay Activists who sought to make the names, addresses and signatures of signers available on a public searchable website have stated,

“the public has a right to know who signed petitions in the interests of transparency and since citizens who do so are acting as quasi-legislators.”

The thought that their signing petitions can also be made public and expose them to the very same backlash tactics they desire to use against any who don’t cave in to their whims obviously escapes them.

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who enjoyed wide support in his joining other states in suing over the recently passed National Healthcare Reform, aka Obamacare, has successfully fought and won this case against Washington Citizens.

In my opinion, he also just shot himself in the foot in regards to future goals of becoming Washington State Governor, if he has any such goal.

Our freedom of speech in the nation is being ever so gradually limited and restricted.

Caving in to Political Activists who’s history and stated goals is to intimidate and harass those who disagree with them has the potential to further remove the average citizen from participation in governing the land.

While I am confident the exemption stated above will be granted, the assault on our freedoms and the democratic process will not end there. We must remain ever guardful to retain and hopefully, regain some lost freedoms and liberties.

February 27, 2010

AG McKenna, Uphold Washington Citizens ‘Right To Anonymous Speech’

by lewwaters

As previously covered on Clark County Conservative, the case to release all of the names, addresses and signatures of those who signed the petition to place R-71, a citizen initiated resolution to place the bill SB 5688, enhancements to domestic partnerships, on the ballot has made it to the United States Supreme Court.

See Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case and Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers.

Given recent events spurred by Democrats in our legislature and Governor Gregoire not only supporting, but signing those measures into law, Attorney General McKenna should immediately withdraw any challenge and keep petition signatures hidden.

I am making this call due in part to the efforts of Democrats to write into law SB 6754, a law that would make signatures of those who sign citizen petitions part of the public record.

Republican State Senator Don Benton, who recently announced his intent to run against Senator Patty Murray for the U.S. Senate, spoke in opposition to SB 6754 saying,

“The majority voted the other night to not publish the votes legislators take in the voter’s pamphlet, which was wrong. Now they want to publicize the names of citizens who sign an initiative. This is clearly an attempt to intimidate citizens to keep them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke similar words in a partial dissenting opinion when the Supreme Court struck down some provisions of the campaign finance law.

Justice Thomas said,

“Political speech is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment…. Congress may not abridge the ‘right to anonymous speech’ based on the ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information’.”

Justice Thomas, after listing several instances of how activist in opposition to California’s Proposition 8 used such information obtained from their public records to harass, intimidate and threaten supporters of Prop 8 continued,

“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights,” adding, “These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.”

SB 6754 passed the Senate and remains in the House.

The other reason I make this call for AG McKenna to withdraw the state’s challenge to the R-71 case from before the Supreme Court and concede to Justice Thomas’s words is Democrat’s passage and Governor Gregoire signing into law the suspension of I-960, a citizen initiative that placed restrictions on raising taxes requiring a 2/3 majority vote for such increases and for Governor Gregoire not vetoing the very portion Senator Benton mentioned above, keeping legislators names out of the voters guide that voted to increase such taxes.

SB 6130 was signed into law by Gregoire as passed, in spite of Republicans efforts to preserve our “right to know.”

Senator Benton hand delivered a letter to the governor from Republicans that said in part,

“If you cannot veto all of ESSB 6130, I respectfully request that you veto section three of the bill. In doing so you would preserve the peoples right to an advisory vote on tax increases passed by the Legislature. I believe that the citizens have a right to know about legislative actions that increase taxes and that we would do well to listen to their response in the form of an advisory vote.”

He reminded the governor,

“People have the right to know how legislators vote. That’s why they approved Initiative 960 in the first place – they want sunshine on their government.”

His plea fell on deaf ears.

In an election year Democrats are on shaky ground nationwide, voters are being assaulted with the prospect of state sanctioned intimidation tactics should they support a citizen initiative some activist group dislikes by our names, addresses and signatures being made public.

At the same time, Democrat officials have chosen to keep their names private should they vote to further plunge the state into bankruptcy by voting to increase taxes during such dire economic times we face currently, 14.3% unemployment in Clark County alone.

This flies in the face of a free and open society and is something I’d imagine hearing in such countries as Venezuela or Cuba, not America or Washington State.

Senator Benton said in opposition to SB 6754,

“What we are witnessing are actions to destroy democracy and our constitution. When you stomp on the will of the people by acting in the dark of the night to restrict their rights just because you don’t agree with their decisions, what else can it be called but an all-out assault on the people’s right to determine how they are governed?”

Mr. McKenna, in light of the actions of our legislators, don’t citizens also have a ‘right to anonymous speech’ if legislators seize for themselves a right to anonymity for votes that carry the potential of harming citizens?

I urge you to petition the Supreme Court to uphold our ‘right to anonymous speech.’

February 9, 2010

Proposition 8 Opponents Assault on Religion

by lewwaters

Pro same-sex marriage proponents are challenging proposition 8, the controversial and much hated measure banning same-sex marriage in California in court. The case is currently paused while U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker reviews the documents and testimony given to date.

That proponents of same-sex marriage would challenge this vote was pretty much a given. Gay activists have resorted to intimidation, harassment and forms of violence in their quest to shove same-sex marriage down America’s throat. A court challenge comes as no surprise.

What does cause me to raise my eyebrows is reading how plaintiffs frame their argument. They seem to have centered their case on voters voting based upon their religious beliefs.

Let me say here that no one knows why an individual votes as they do, nor should they. That is the essence of the secret ballot, voting based upon our individual values and yes, beliefs. Why we select the cause or candidate we do is flat out no one’s business.

Let me explain a little.

The Baptist Press placed daily summaries of how the case was progressing. In nearly every summary, we read of how religion was responsible for voters approving Proposition 8 and banning same-sex marriage in California.

A Time article quotes longtime conservative litigator Mathew Staver saying, “What has struck me is that the plaintiffs have tried to put Christianity on trial rather than Prop 8.”

Even David Boies, plaintiffs attorney says, “the trial has shown that legal discrimination against gays, in particular rules banning their marriage, starts with simple prejudice, in the form of religion-inspired views about the morality of homosexuality itself.”

Day 8 of the trial saw Chinese Christian Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand that lead to the comment from general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, Andy Pugno,

“For the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are improper.”

He continued on to note,

“ Clearly the plaintiffs will go to any lengths, even if it means sacrificing the precious protections of the First Amendment, to achieve their goal of invalidating the vote of the people.”

Almost laughable was Day 12as it was seen “plaintiffs are attempting to argue that the gay community has no reliable political allies and is politically powerless in this country,” in spite of President Barack Obama’s call for ending the so called ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy of the United States Armed Service that bans gays from serving openly in the Military.

If that isn’t a “political ally,” what is?

New Catholic Register quotes attorney Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund saying, “The votes of Christians and other people of faith are without question on trial in California” as it is mentioned that plaintiff’s attorneys presented a “section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Catholic teachings on homosexuality as evidence, presumably implying that these teachings display unconstitutional ‘prejudice and hostility’ toward an allegedly powerless minority.”

Gay activists have long erroneously equated their plight to that of Black during the struggles for Civil Rights in the 1960’s. One of the right denied Blacks in America was the right to vote was the use of literacy tests designed in such a way to ensure Blacks would fail, thereby denying them their right to vote.

Should Gay Activists succeed now, will we see them return and be used to deny Christians their right to vote because it is assumed they vote in accordance with their deep held beliefs that gays disagree with?

Should such a precedent be set, where would it end, if ever?

Oddly enough, while Christians and their deeply held beliefs have been put on trial in San Francisco, left out of the arguments are Muslims who share a deep opposition to homosexuality based upon their religious beliefs.

It’s bad enough that we have to contend with people like Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, teaching that “Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals” in the book of Romans (1:22 – 27), but trying to throw out votes they don’t like because they assume people voted based upon religious beliefs is abominable.

To take this to its logical conclusion, should the election of Barack Obama be nullified because many feel he was elected solely based upon his skin color?

Of course not!

The First Amendment guarantees each and every American citizen the free practice of religion. Should it be limited if it is felt by the power elite that you might vote in accordance with your beliefs?

Completely missed is that many people oppose same-sex marriage for multiple non-religious reasons. Will the ferret out those reasons to deny a vote by those people now?

This is the dangerous slippery slope many have spoken of for so long. Our right to free beliefs and even a secret vote is being endangered just as it is currently in Washington State with the Supreme Court Case on state sanctioned harassment and intimidation of opponents to same-sex marriage here.

We can no longer afford to remain quiet and hope this all goes away or that judges will follow long established law. Our very liberties are under open assault and if we wish to keep them, we better begin speaking out and making sure we vote according to our beliefs, while we are still allowed to.

One thing I am absolutely certain of, regardless of how Judge Walker rules, this is headed to the United States Supreme Court. Will it be put to rest once and for all?

With the calls from opponents that Judge Walker recuse himself because of his poor handling of the case and being gay himself, you can expect loud calls of Justice’s Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves, leaving a favorable court to hear the case and likely approving same-sex marriage from the bench, as was done with Roe v Wade.

January 25, 2010

Columbian Urges Supreme Court to Listen to AG McKenna on R-71 Signers

by lewwaters

It’s not very often that we see our local paper, the Columbian promoting or in agreement with a Republican. Usually, if they are, the Republican is either a left-leaning Republican, a RINO or is mistakenly supporting a position that will further the countries rush to socialism.

Such is the case I see in the January 25, 2010 editorial, In Our View, Jan. 25: Identify the Signers, supporting the release of the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the petition that placed R-71, a citizen referendum to bring the Domestic Partnership law before voters, on last Novembers ballot.

Even before the election was held, gay activists were calling for releasing the names, addresses and signatures of the petition signers to them so they could place the information on searchable web pages, ostensibly to “contact and educate” people who disagree with the gay agenda.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

A clear example of the intent is displayed by disturbed gay activist, John Bisceglia at Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

Ignoring, or perhaps looking forward to, the intimidation tactics gay activists claim they will be making once they have the signers personal information, the Columbian Editorial says,

“Washingtonians have two Republicans working feverishly to protect the public’s right to know how its government works. Secretary of State Sam Reed has repeated his vow to “defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”

“And the man who will lead that defense, literally, is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue the case before the high court. We hope McKenna is as successful in this effort as he was a couple of years ago when he convinced the Supreme Court to approve (by a 7-2 vote) Washington state’s top two primary.”

It is no stretch for me to claim that these are two “Republicans” with a very shaky position in future support with many Republicans in Washington State.

Gay activists twist the intent of anonymity of the signers of petitions to facilitate their intent of intimidation and apparently Columbian editors support that tactic.

Missed by all is the recent partially dissenting opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Court ruling overturning portions of the campaign finance laws. Although Justice Thomas’ opinion isn’t directly addressing the pending R-71 case, his words have relevancy to it. In that 6-page opinion he wrote,

“Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymous speech” based on the “ ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’ ” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348(1995)).”
======================================
“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
======================================
“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”
======================================
“These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California.”
======================================
“Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—‘the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]’ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”

You needn’t be an attorney or constitutional scholar to see the farsightedness and wisdom in Justice Thomas’ words. Allowing gay activists access to such information to be made available as they wish opens the door to preventing citizen involvement in government.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, once such tactics become acceptable, as they will, what citizen will be able to feel safe exercising their “right to anonymous speech” as what group would refrain from using underhanded tactics used against them?

Whether intentionally or not, the Columbian is actually encouraging LESS citizen involvement in government at a time we see our freedoms and liberties slowly being chipped away.

Strangely silent is the Columbian on identifying legislators that pack bills with earmarks, as they were last year on investigating and revealing any documents on the Brian Baird alleged death threat story, but they wish ordinary citizens who may support an issue they oppose to be given to gay activists for purpose of intimidation.

Should they succeed in threatening citizens from participating in government by such acts of public intimidation, will it be too far away that we will see similar tactics imposed on how we vote?

The Columbian continues to face financial difficulties and such positions designed to take more rights from citizens from will not bring their finances back into the black.

Speculation around the state is that Attorney General Rob McKenna has designs on running for governor in the future.

If he does it may have to be as a Democrat as Republican support for McKenna has been drying up with such positions as this in direct opposition to Republican Party values.

Wake up, citizens. We are being sold a bill of goods in a gilded package that just moves us towards more a socialistic dictatorship.

January 15, 2010

Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

by lewwaters

Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.

At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.

Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.

R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.

Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.

Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.

In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.

Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.

While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.

If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.

Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’

October 16, 2009

Columbian Misleading Voters On R-71

by lewwaters

Kerry ClintonDripping of left-winged bias, Thursdays In Our View column in the Columbian, In our view: Approve R-71 also tries to mislead voters about the measure.

They are right in saying, “Voters are being asked if they support Senate Bill 5688, which passed this year in the Legislature and expanded domestic partnerships,” but little else.

Where they actually begin misleading is when they say, “It’s also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure.”

Technically, although SB 5688 says nothing about same-sex marriage and is called “everything but marriage,” that is the ultimate intent, as admitted to by Senator Ed Murray, the author of SB 5688 who has repeatedly stated SB 5688 is but one more incremental step to same-sex marriage.

Therefore, this particular measure will not make same-sex marriage legal, at this time, but it is just another step closer to it according to the author of the bill. So, it does have everything to do with same-sex marriage in Washington State, just not at this time.

A parable capturing wild pigs applies here. Although about losing freedoms to socialism, it also applies in how small steps eventually lead to a societal change society does not want. They just aren’t aware of it being changed due to deception.

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

This is the second “domestic partnership” bill we’ve had in two years with more planned until we have the fence of same-sex marriage around us and the gate is slammed shut. Our constitution will be changed. Where we now have a Defense of Marriage Act in place, that will be gone and what will we have in its place?

Maybe nothing because once we throw away the definition of marriage being “one man to one woman,” the Pandora’s box is opened. Once opened, how can it be closed again when others who “lifestyle” is not fully accepted today decide they are discriminated against?

Could we see Pederasty, Bigamy and Polygamy accepted and become the norm?

Not by this bill, no. But what about the future moves to approve of same-sex marriage?

How can the Columbian split hairs saying, “The truth is, R-71 will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage or anyone else’s?” What about the institution of marriage itself?

A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage

This is the strategy for winning gay marriage in Washington. Pursue incremental change but talk frankly and frequently about the ultimate goal.

State Senator Ed Murray, an openly gay Seattle Democrat, is a key architect of this approach. He says gay rights advocates are borrowing a page from the civil rights movement.

****

With Democrats in control, the expanded domestic partnership bills in Washington are likely to pass this session. It will be another step in Senator Ed Murray’s plan to legalize gay marriage within a decade.

Lawmakers announce everything but marriage bill

A measure legalizing same-sex marriage measure also has been introduced to the Legislature, but is unlikely to go anywhere this year, and supporters have made no secret of their desire in that effort.

Washington expands domestic partnership law

Senator Ed Murray, one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature and the author of SB 5688 said, “We needed to have a multiyear discussion with the state on gay and lesbian families. I believe DOMA won’t long be the law of the state because those conversations are changing hearts and minds around the state.”

In classic liberal “attack the messenger, not the message” tactic, the Columbian’s editors demean and denigrate Larry Stickney and Gary Randall, the men who authored R-71 and worked to have it placed on the November 3 ballot, giving voters in Washington State the choice of whether they support SB 5688 or not.

And for a second time, to emphasize their canard I suppose, they again state the misleading, “But again, as the ballot states, this is not about marriage at all. It’s about domestic partnerships.”

The Columbian ends with, “Voters should reject such narrow views and mark ‘Approve’ on Referendum 71.” The “NARROW VIEW” is really in their masking the true intent of SB 5688.

When you look at your ballot, it’s actually very simple. If you desire to see same-sex marriage legalized in Washington’s future, approve R-71.

If you wish to stop same-sex marriage from eventually becoming legal in Washington, reject R-71.

It’s really that simple.

I’m voting to reject R-71.

October 6, 2009

Microsoft Donates $100,000 To Support Washington Gays

by lewwaters

Gay Pride - 02, 2007It was announced today that Computer Software giant Microsoft Corporation has donated $100,000 to the campaign advocating approval of R-71, which will grant more benefits for Washington state gay couples under SB 5688, the so called “everything but marriage bill” passed earlier this year by the legislature.

Although called “everything but marriage,” sponsors of the bill openly admit it but an incremental step towards full-blown same sex marriage within Washington State.

A citizen’s referendum, R-71 obtained enough signatures on petitions to place SB 5688 on the November ballot, placing the matter in the hands of voters, angering Gays throughout Washington.

Microsoft’s donation against the citizens of Washington gives the pro-gay group calling themselves Washington Families Standing Together some $780,000 to support campaigning to vote for same-sex marriage one step at a time.

How much money has flooded into Washington from outside the state coffers is unknown at this time.

Protect Marriage Washington; the group opposing this one step at a time move into same-sex marriage reportedly has only raised some $60,000.

Clark County resident Chuck Miller says,

“The citizens of Washington passed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrat controlled legislature has continued to chip away at it with the goal of over riding the will of the people. They passed SB 5688, which Gregoire signed. This bill takes a huge leap toward their final goal, redefining and destroying marriage! Against great odds, Washington citizens, lead by Faith and Freedom and Protect Marriage Washington collected the required signatures to put it to a vote of the people. Citizens were dispatched to oversee the counting and too be certain that Secretary of State Sam Reed be faithful in his duty to apply the strict letter of the law in counting the ballots. Opponents of traditional marriage filed two lawsuits to try and stop it from even making the ballot. Both failed.”

“Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as ‘the institution whereby men and woman are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family’.”

“California voters said NO to the destruction of traditional marriage. Washington voters can save marriage by voting NO on Referendum 71 in November.”

It is disappointing to see Redmond based Microsoft turn their backs on the majority of citizens of Washington who depend on their products for computers in favor a small minority of those who feel they are entitled to special rights.

As disappointing was seeing Washington States Attorney General, Rob McKenna, file suit against “a federal judge’s ruling that granted an injunction to keep the names of people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot private.”

As shown at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters, gays demanded the names so they could place them on a searchable web site to make their names and addresses known and that some gays have openly threatened violence against those who oppose same-sex marriage.

This move cost McKenna the support of this blogger should he try to run for governor in the future, as well as his ‘pro-choice’ position on abortions. This was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back.’

With Microsoft’s support, the pro-gay groups hell-bent on doing away with the traditional views of marriage now have a massive treasure chest to mount a propaganda campaign in favor of “everything but marriage.”

Do not let them fool you when they come out saying it isn’t same-sex marriage. The author of SB 5688, Seattle Democrat Senator Ed Murray, who also authored the 2007 domestic partnership law, has openly admitted this is but incremental step of A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage.

Vote NO on R-71

August 31, 2009

Washington States R-71 Qualifies For November Ballot

by lewwaters

Sure to outrage the Gay community, R-71, a citizens initiative to block and overturn Washington States ‘everything but marriage’ act has qualified for the November ballot. Received in email,

R-71 qualifys for November vote!

With the Referendum 71 signature-check now nearly complete, state election officials say they’ve now confirmed that sponsors turned in more signatures than needed to qualify for a spot on the November statewide ballot. Signature-checkers passed the 121,000 mark on Monday, the 23rd day of an exhaustive hand check of all 137,000-plus signatures submitted on July 25.

It takes 120,577 valid Washington voter signatures to qualify a referendum to the state ballot. Voters will now have a choice of accepting the new law or rejecting it.

The numbers still are unofficial and not final, as checkers do one final check of hundreds of previously rejected signatures of people who weren’t initially found in the voter registration records. That should extend the margin a bit, but the final margin could be in the range of 1,000.

Final certification is scheduled for Wednesday morning by Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Faith & Freedom Network
Gary Randall
President & Chairman
425-495-2270

More coverage at R-71, gay partnership foes make ballot

The measure may have qualified based upon signatures, but there is a court challenge to it pending. King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector is hearing arguments from lawyers representing the secretary of state, proponents of R-71 and Washington Families Standing Together.

WFST claims Secretary of State Reed has not complied with the law. Their attorney claims there are petitions with over 2,000 signatures in which there was no name and no signature from the person collecting them, as required by law.

They claim he also ignores the law requiring only registered voters be allowed to sign the petitions, claiming had he done so the measure would not have qualified for the ballot.

We also have to remember that foes of R-71 wish to obtain the entire list of signers of the petitions to be placed on their web site with a searchable engine. An obvious attempt to intimidate signers.

Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters

Isn’t it strange that those who oppose R-71 are crying about the law, when they resort to such tactics as intimidation, threats of violence and denigrating supporters of R-71, instead of building a cohesive campaign to convince voters to support their view?

I guess that is easier than working within the law they cry others may violate.

Or, is it that they know they cannot maintain a supportable position with the public, so they resort to more unsavory tactics to force their views on others?

See also The Camel’s Nose Is Inside The Tent

UPDATE: King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector will not block the certification of R-71 that will place it on Novembers ballot. The Seattle Times

The misnamed ‘Washington Families Standing Together’ has stated they will now file a lawsuit against the referendum before the Thurston County Superior Court challenging the certification.

I see that building a campaign to convince voters to reject R-71 remains out of the question.

Intimidation and court rulings take precedence over the will of the people still, I see.