Via the SecState’s blog, From Our Corner, regarding the approval vote of Referendum 71, which means Senate bill 5688, dubbed the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law for homosexual and senior couples, will be enacted:
The referendum, placed on the ballot by foes of expanded rights for state-registered domestic partners, has been on hold since it was passed by the Legislature earlier this year. If the vote holds, Senate Bill 5688 will go into effect Dec. 3. The election returns will be certified by Secretary of State Sam Reed and Gov. Chris Gregoire, probably on Dec. 1, but under provisions of the Constitution, a bill referred to voters and approved takes effect 30 days after Election Day, or Dec. 3 in this case.
The full blog post, over here.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:07 PM
My wife and I are straight, but not narrow, and some of our best friends are gay. On their behalf, we will pop a cork and celebrate on Dec 3!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:28 PM
This was a huge relief to see this pass. I know that I will be celebrating with my partner, even though we don’t plan to get married for many years.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
But let’s hear what the Right has to say about this subject, from their spokesperson Carrie Prejean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek&feature=player_embedded
Bringing whiny victimhood to a whole new level!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Seriously, in this day and age I cannot believe that that anyone would deny equality to any other human being! We might as well still be living in the age of slavery.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:26 AM
In my opininon R71 wasn’t just a left/right issue. It fell more along the Y axis of personal freedom.
Marriage laws were created from the start so the State could deny certain groups from marrying. I think we need to make it legal for people to marry without “requiring” government approval. That would make for one less political issue to divide us.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:07 AM
If anyone could marry without the sanction of the government,
does that mean anyone could divorce without the sanction of the court?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Even more stupefying than having to vote on such a basic right is keeping the names of the petitioners secret.
I have been in denial about the secrecy because I kept thinking it must clearly be a mistake and would be quickly sorted out. How can this be considered to be even remotely viable?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Camille, I find it very ominous that the conservative Roberts SCOTUS is considering handling the appeal of the secrecy dispute. The right wing activist majority could see this as an invaluable opportunity to whittle away at open government law.
As Todd so eloquently put it on this blog: The KKK didn’t wear their hoods as a fashion statement.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Anyone know whether currently registered domestic partners will be automatically upgraded to the new and improved domestic partnership?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I’ll ask the state for you, Megan. Check back later.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Megan, here’s your response:
November 13th, 2009 at 6:44 PM
We all DO remember, don’t we, that the KKK was founded by the Democrats in Pulaski, TN, in 1864 to use violence and the threat thereof to intimidate blacks, Jews and white Republicans don’t we? … and that the fire hoses and snarling dogs of the Jim Crow laws were all in the hands of Democrats? … just see the language and behaviour of folks like Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy in the cases of Bork and Thomas, etc … and Gore’s dad voting against the Civil Rights Act, and on and on on up to the enslaving legislation being perpetrated by ‘our’ congress? Fashion statement, indeed!
Thank God we managed to salvage R-71! Bless you all!
November 13th, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Hey NWWW,
If you go back far enough, there was just the Democratic Republican party. Perhaps I would have been in the Whig party at that time.
Anyway, the Southerners are their own voting block, and basically kicked themselves out of the Democratic party when they carried 5 Southern States for Wallace in 1968. Those folks couldn’t stand to be in the party of civil rights (a la Kennedy and LBJ). Since then, guess what party those folks have been voting for?
Trying to tie current political party identities to anything pre-Reagan is a non-starter. Reagan realized that the stockbroker party didn’t have enough votes, and he somehow had to peel off some poor working folks, so he did it with faith issues and culture issues. That’s how he got the working poor to vote against the unions and services that would have benefitted them. With fear of Russian war, gay marriage, abortion, and concerns about being able to pray in school.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Wow, I’d never thought I’d agree with something Sean Hannity said but . . .
November 14th, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I’d rather think of the Democrats as the ones that dismantled Jim Crow, since that’s what they did.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Hmmmmm…so many lies, so little space…
Just to take one of the most egregious: Democrats did NOT create the KKK.
Wikipedia: “The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War”
The idea that Dems created the Klan is a myth dreamed up by rightwingnuts to divert attention from their racist activity. [See: Nixon's infamous "southern strategy,"] It reverberates inside the Right Wing Echo Chamber, but is unheard in the real world.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Hey, “Sean” you speak the truth and do so eloquently, IMHO. May I ask why you chose a chronic liar/hatemonger for your screen name?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:04 AM
NWWAGUY, you really do have to stop watching that nonsense you absorb from the Fox news network. They are all morons and so is anyone who believes that nonsense. Thanks Bhambill for a breath of fresh air and a history lesson for the morons.