Referendum 71-- It's about rights, responsibilities-- Vote yes

This editorial appears in the Oct. 18, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Referendum 71 shouldn't be confusing. But it can get that way in a hurry.

When backers of the referendum that would roll back domestic-partnership benefits for gay couples and senior domestic partners age 62 and older sought signatures to put the measure on the ballot, the petition filled 40 pages in tiny script. The legislation that the referendum signers wanted to overturn -- Senate Bill 5688 -- was also encyclopedic in length, covering more than 110 pages.

Even worse is how the referendum question is framed. Those who signed petitions to get Referendum 71 on the ballot don't want voters to approve it. Instead, they want voters to reject the referendum.

Confusing? Yes, but there's really no reason to panic. The question being asked of voters is easy enough to understand. It's the rhetoric outside Referendum 71 that's causing the double vision.

But first to the referendum itself.

SB5688 is central to the referendum and represents the third time the Legislature has extended benefits to domestic partners.

In 2007, lawmakers created the domestic partnership registry and secured certain marital benefits like hospital visitation and power of attorney to same-sex couples. More than 6,150 domestic partners have added their names to the registry.

Then last year, another series of changes cleared the Legislature covering such matters as estate planning, dissolutions and guardianship.

SB5688 took the final step and granted the remaining benefits to domestic partners that are enjoyed by married couples. In essence, the legislation rewrites 201 statutes by adding domestic partners next to the words "married couple." These statutes affect such matters as labor and employment rights as well as pensions and death benefits, which extend to gay firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty.

For voters who want to keep the changes created by SB5688 intact, they need to mark the box "Approved" on their ballots. That's the simple part.

When the legislation passed earlier this year, supporters proudly referred to it as the "everything but marriage" act.

State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who championed the domestic-partnership law, has gone one step further and declared the next move would be to legalize gay marriage.

"I think we are going to win in November," Murray said recently. "And then it will be only a few years till we get to full equality."

Now this is where the rhetoric heats up.

Those who want voters to approve Referendum 71 say the Senate bill has nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage. It does not, they argue, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act that the Legislature passed in 1998 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

In fact, when gay couples register with the state, it's a business deal. They don't get a marriage license but file papers with the Secretary of State's corporations division.

SB5688 also has no effect on the more than 1,130 federal rights and protections granted to married couples.

But Larry Stickney, campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington, which helped place the referendum on the ballot, isn't convinced this will be the end of what he considers another minority group being granted special privileges.

"We believe this is the last opportunity for citizens to protect marriage," Stickney said in a recent Seattle Times story. "Ultimately, it is marriage. And if people understand that, we will prevail."

It's clear gay marriage is an explosive topic. And Stickney has a good point. It's disingenuous of gay-rights advocates to say a move to legalize gay marriage is not in their future plans. Murray, prime sponsor of SB5688, has said so, repeatedly.

But that question is not before voters at this time. That's why Referendum 71 can be so confusing. It's about granting the same rights and responsibilities of married couples to same-sex couples and to senior domestic partners. We have no argument with this, given the state and federal constitutions' clear guidance on equal rights.

That's why we urge voters to approve Referendum 71 and confirm the equal rights that lawmakers passed in SB5688.

What happens next in this debate is a whole different matter entirely. Pushing that to the sidelines is the only fair way to consider this referendum.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.