Referendum 71-- It's about rights, responsibilities-- Vote yes
Yakima Herald-Republic Editorial Board
More 'Opinion'
- Ruling underscores school districts' need for levies
- State must assure safety of its most vulnerable citizens
- Enforcement is key to any panhandling decision
- Bid to unionize child-care centers still a bad idea
- Confidential bank oversight won't return confidence
- Here's a chance to make a difference for heart attack victims
- CWU's plea for stable state funding is sensible (and unlikely)
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.
Ref 71 is NOT about marriage, what it is about is fairness and equality. The only reasons I have heard for not supporting this seems to be religious in nature. The last time I checked there was separation of church and state in this country, so ones beliefs should not and can not dictate the rights of others.
Sexual orientation is NOT a choice, but ones religion IS.
No, it's not about marraige. What it's about is control of those you disagree with on religious grounds. And, thanks to some very good footage of the meeting of bigots heald in Yakima with a sign declaring "One Nation Under God" this will never hold up in court if rejected. In a free country you cannot deny others basic freedoms based on your religious beliefs. Larry Stikney, one of the co-writers is all about control. He is a violent man, who has been divorced twice. The other writer is not even from Washington and is a convicted tax evader. Very nice representation of the "family values" crowd. When will the christian right ever grow up and live their own lives, instead of trying to control others?
Report ViolationNo to special rights for disgusting homosexual lifestyle.
This lifestyle is evil and is against Gods intent!
Go back to Gods desire for us to live as married couples as man and woman only.
I'm confused Kirk, aren't you the same person supporting the Tea Parties? You know, you don't like government telling you how to live and it intruding in your personal life. So you are now for the government telling people what they can and cannot do? Can you please clear this up for me/us?
Also, No to special rights for the disgusting eating of shrimp at Red Lobster. That lifestyle is evil and is against God's Intent! (you know...since this is in that same book of the Bible)
Kirk, your god also demands that children who tease be put to death. Do you have the stomach to ask for the enforcement of that edict? Slavery is also a good thing to your god. How will you demand that that be re-instituted? Do you sleep with your wife while she's menstruating? Then you should be put to death, because that is agains god's will. You hypocrites are very selective about what is abhorent. Also, money lenders. Remember that one? Yeah, paying taxes is against your principles and too much government intrusion, but you demand government control of a woman't womb and government control of partnerships. That, Mr hypocrite Kirk is disgusting.
Report ViolationAs usual, I will be voting the opposite way as the liberal YHR editorial board. I'm guessing the majority of our community will also ignore the YHR's irrelevant opinion.
Report Violation(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)
Datruef:
It is people like you the push people further from the teachings of Jesus. Rather than refute each of the points that Sourdough makes, you start screaming like one of those people on the streetcorner instead.
While there is much in America's faith heritage to affirm and even conserve, sometimes the way of democracy and progressive compassion calls us to courageously explore into greater bonds of community (e.g. interracial marriages). I appreciate the courage in the editorial piece as we offer our country an opening of enlightened, compassionate humaneness.
Report ViolationPrimitive man created the notion of god to exert some measure of control over his poorly understand environment. Somewhat less primitive man used this notion as well as contrived "teachings" to exert control over the masses. Sadly, this still happens today. Kirk Groenig, the primitive man du jour hatefully and hypocritically invokes "god's intent" as a reason to deny his neighbor the same life, liberty and pursuits of happiness he enjoys. Very primitive indeed and very un-American.
Report ViolationI see absolutely noting wrong with extending rights in government recognized "Domestic Partnerships" that extend the same legally recognized business benefits (or penalties) to anyone who may be also be deemed "married" by a church. The government should not even be involved one way or another in the marriage business. Nor, should they be able to grant special or exclusive financial privileges or penalties to any legally recognized business partnership, just because a couple is defined as "married" by any established church.
Clarification of my point: Allowing a judge or justice of the peace to "marry" anybody, no matter what their sexes are, is a long-standing error, in my opinion. It is, in that context, a usurpation of the church's originally intended sole right to officially recognize a union between a man and a woman officially within that church's definition as a marriage. It should never also include a connotation as a legal "business" relationship.
Further, for any government to FORCE anybody to "marry" to be legally eligible for special rights and privileges involving taxes, general welfare benefits, and other financial advantages not otherwise granted to any two people in any otherwise legal business relationship, is by definition, discriminatory and implies an intimate combination of church and state. Therefore, such is an interference of the State into religious practices reserved for the church, again by definition, proscribed in our U.S. Constitution where government is not allowed to do interfere with one's choice of religion by law.
On the other hand, it is also our right to establish a business in any recognized legal form by the government. That is a whole separate issue having nothing to do with church defined "marriage". Such State laws that deny unmarried partners in a legal business arrangement the same rights and privileges as a married couple should be deemed unconstitutional.
Why confuse the issue with the word "Marriage", which is in itself, should be reserved as a Christian" recognition of a committed relationship between a man and a woman. Official government recognition should never have been called a "Marriage" in the first place, but a " business partnership" that designates exactly what is really is - a BUSINESS arrangement.
Nick, Unfortunately gov had to get involved at least on the fringes to insure that Oregon recognized a marriage that was performed in Washington. Other than that, they need to butt out!
Report ViolationThis whole subject should have been left in the CLOSET where it was years ago! The world seem to had run a lot better before we started changing things, "if it isn't broke don't try to fix it"!! I have a family member who is a lesbian but I still feel she needs to keep it behind closed doors!
Report Violationmainegirl, the problem is that you opine that it ain't broke, whereas someone else thinks it is broken bad and needs major fixin.
Report ViolationMainergirl:
So when the lesbian's partner is seriously injured in a car wreck and is in this hospital, I'll come by and pick you up and take you to the hospital so you can explain to the lesbian that she isn't allowed to see her partner because she is not married nor an immediate family member. Sound good?
The world has never ran "better" at some point in time. People only remember the good things from the past as if everything was like Leave it to Beaver back in the 50's. Those great 50's, the Communists were everywhere, women were expected to stay home and black people were getting lynched.
Grim stuff has always happened, yet this is what gets TV ratings so people are exposed to it more. Violent crime in the 90's actually dropped and was at its lowest level since the 60's yet if you asked anyone then they would say that "things are getting worse".
Anyway, Nick, I'm glad we agree on something! For all practical purposes the government sees marriage as a business relationship. Just like a business, you have to pay to form the business partnership (marriage), and then you also have to pay when you sever the business partnership (divorce). They don't care if it is a lifelong commitment. (although they do frown on letting you open up more than one business at the same time, ha ha)
(huh) before you respond to my opinions hit spell check! Please note spelling of opinion! Let's focus on the major issues at hand like gangs, violence, homicides in our valley, graffiti and the other destruction at hand before we put something as small as gay rights on the ballot!
mainergirl:
Aw shucks, you ignored my question. So can I count on you to stand by and explain to a grieving person in the hospital why they cannot see their partner up in ICU?
Kirk wrote:
"No to special rights for disgusting homosexual lifestyle. "
To someone who is born gay, your lifestyle is disgusting to them.
What ever happened about not judging other people?
I have been on the fence for a long time about gay marriage. I have even posted here that I am conflicted about it. But my opinion has changed since reading all the posts on the YHR.
In order to follow the teachings of Jesus, of loving one another, of treating my neighbor the way I want to be treated, the position I know stand on is this.
I support gay marriage.
Mainegirl, I am willing to accept your apologies anytime. Unfortunately, you probably will not see this. Defination for opine:
o·pine (-pn)
v. o·pined, o·pin·ing, o·pines
v.tr.
To state as an opinion.
v.intr.
To express an opinion: opined on the defendant's testimony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English opinen, from Old French opiner, from Latin opnr, to suppose.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
opine [???pa?n]
vb
(when tr, usually takes a clause as object) to hold or express an opinion he opined that it was all a sad mistake
[from Latin op?n?r?]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
SciPhiMom - I was born gay and am not disgusted by straight lifestyles - just want to get that "straight". But I am disgusted by Mr. Groenigs hatefulness.
Report ViolationYakrob
You don't even know me and call me hateful.
I follow God's Laws above man's.
Call me names if you want but I will not support homosexual lifestyle.
God calls it Sin.
Yes, I'm a sinner and will try to do better, but not bend on the fundamentals.
On judgement day, I have issues I will have to be accountable for.
Kirk,
Since you don't seem to get it, I'll spell it out...you are considered hateful because of the hateful words you use. Nothing more, nothing less. Consider it judgment day. You have been judged.
Kirk, You can believe whatever you want to believe. America gives us all that right. It's when you want everyone else to believe as you do that the problems arise. Don't expect to call someones lifestyle a name and then use religion as your shield. Jesus was loving and dedicated his life to help those of less "value" and gave his life to save us all. It's love thy neighbor not judge thy neighbor.
Report ViolationIt's sad to see so many people implying that God's Word is hate speech. Nobody is preventing homosexuals from living their perverted lifestyle, and preserving the traditional definition of marriage is not discrimination. If gays want the benefits of marriage, they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, I wish they'd quit whining.
Report ViolationFunny, I was always taught that Satan drives people from the church, yet it is attitudes like the post above mine is what makes me stay away from church.
Wow,
alot of hate here because someone is urging others to follow Gods Laws, very disturbing.
Marriage is between a man and woman, not man-man, or woman-woman.
Stop trying to justify this unholy behavior, you are wrong according to the bible.
Stop the hate and lies.
Vote to Reject R-71
thanks
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?

RSS
E-mail
Print
Comments