R-71: Say approved

4 free views left!

By The World Editorial Board

Saturday, October 17, 2009

On Referendum 71, vote “approved.” There is no good reason to reject it, no reason not rooted in misunderstanding, in unreasonable fear or suspicion, or a misdirected desire that some people not have the same rights and privileges as others.

Referendum 71 tests Senate Bill 5688, the everything-but-marriage bill that this year granted same-sex and senior domestic partners most of the rights and legal obligations of couples in traditional marriage. If we vote “approved” the law will go into effect. Vote “rejected” and the law will be void, and the rights of domestic partners will revert to their previously limited state.

This vote is not about instituting gay marriage. Voting to approve will not establish gay marriage, and voting to reject will not prevent it. That issue will inevitably come around another day. The referendum will decide if couples registered with the state retain the benefits of their contractual relationship, the rights and privileges that should logically come to people in a long-term commitment. These are things most couples take for granted, personal matters like insurance and job benefits, visitation, inheritance, pensions, child custody, parental rights. They are personal rights and obligations that when exercised impact the rest of us not at all.

Gay marriage is another issue. Some supporters of the domestic partnership law and Referendum 71 obviously support it and wish for a law to bring it about. That may happen, but not as a result of Referendum 71. Our elected lawmakers will be asked to decide the issue, and when they do their choice won’t be dependent on Referendum 71’s outcome.

What happens if Referendum 71 is rejected is that rights granted same-sex couples and senior domestic partners will be taken away. It is harder and harder to imagine this as a moral victory, or a purification of our culture, or that it will spare us from another debate we do not wish to have. It will only send us back to the day when legal protections are for some, but not all. That is neither wise nor humane. Vote to approve Referendum 71.

This is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Editor and Publisher Rufus Woods, Managing Editor Gary Jasinek and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.

» Recommend this story.

» 52 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

MRskier1 3 years, 7 months ago

R-71 is definately something I will not support. I have nothing against gay people. I've met some very kind gay people. I do believe that they should not be discriminated against. As a Christian I believe that we should hate the sin and not the sinner. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but don't hate them. Why do I not support R-71? Well, because giving them the same rigthts as heterosexual married couples is wrong since it's not the same. As stated this does not enact same sex marriage. All the more reason for this not to be put in place. I do think that legal paperwork can be done to give a partner inheritance, child custody, etc, but wait that can be done without this! Since when do we need a rule that says that? We can already decide that. At the end of this article it say that "What happens if Referendum 71 is rejected is that rights granted same-sex couples and senior domestic partners will be taken away." WAIT! When did we ever approve another version of R-71? If R-71 is being voted on to give them rights then they would have had to not have rights, right? It's to bad that more people didn't understand what the Bible really says, and then we wouldn't have to vote on this. Either because there wouldn't be gays or because people would actually treat all people with respect no matter who they are.

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

My fear is that because this is a civil rights issue (an issue of equality) and is not limited to gay and lesbian couples (this includes people who have been together for a significant period of time), a defeat of this measure will allow the courts to decide the issue. I would rather see the people make the decision to support equality.

This means that the courts would step in on the side of equality and make these rights apply to everyone.

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

You only hurt yourself, Marcus.

Regarding colleges (from the Seattle Times article today):

"Higher education is a different matter. Although colleges and universities could face cuts even if I-1033 fails, the initiative likely would make the cuts deeper, lawmakers said.

"The first cut is going to be in higher education. There is no constitutional mandate to maintain our higher-education institutions," said Rep. Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton, chairwoman of the House Education Appropriations Committee. "If these institutions are going to remain viable, they're going to have to increase tuition to something more like private schools...

The current state budget allows universities to increase tuition 30 percent over two years."

milo 3 years, 7 months ago

Marcus I would like to see if you, or anyone actually, can put forward one single argument against R-71 that is not based on the bible. Your first point was "giving them the same rights as heterosexual married couples is wrong since it's not the same", put another way, it's wrong because it's wrong. It is not an argument but a statement of opinion. In what way is it different? Do you believe committed partners should have the right to be at their dying partner's bedside? Google the name Lisa Pond and you will understand the real pain and suffering your position inflicts on thousands of loving, honorable, people daily.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Marcus wrote: It's to bad that more people didn't understand what the Bible really says, and then we wouldn't have to vote on this My Reply: You are free to follow the Bible, according to whatever interpretation you prefer (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), some other Book or religion, or none at all. But you may not use the power of the state to enforce your interpretation of your Holy Book on others. America is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, one in which homosexuals don't have the same rights as everybody else, you can move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. . Look at the contradiction in what you wrote: 1. " I do believe that they should not be discriminated against" 2. "...giving them the same rigthts as heterosexual married couples is wrong since it's not the same" . How is not "giving" people from group A the same rights that people from group B have not discriminating against people in group A?

Nicole 3 years, 7 months ago

I'm with Milo on this one, someone please try to put forward an argument that is not based on religious beliefs.

<"It's to bad that more people didn't understand what the Bible really says, and then we wouldn't have to vote on this.">

Yeah Marcus, too bad people don't interpret, believe and follow the bible as you think that they should. I think the world would be pretty peachy-keen if everyone thought and acted like I think they should too.

Nicole 3 years, 7 months ago

Norm, very well put. I think too many people fail to see this point :-)

3 years, 7 months ago

You are free to follow the Bible, according to whatever interpretation you prefer (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), some other Book or religion, or none at all. But you may not use the power of the state to enforce your interpretation of your Holy Book on others.< Okay, Norm, where is Marcus doing that? Where is he forcing his interpretation of the Bible on anyone? All he is saying is that he won't support the Referendum based on his personal conviction. That is his prerogative--the same way it is mine and yours.
Okay, Norm let's turn this around. Now I am addressing you: Norm, you are free to follow your own conviction, according to whatever ideology you prefer. But you may not use the power of the state to enforce your conviction on others. You see Norm, I see this all the time with liberals who go off on some fraidy-cat tangent whenever a Christian mentions why they will or won't support an issue. Suddenly liberals get all upset as if they are about to lose their sacred right to sneeze! Get a life already! Why do you feel so threatened by a Christian who can't support an issue because they feel it is morally wrong? They have every right to vote their conscience the same way that you or I do. So why do you and those like you feel so threatened by a Christian's personal conviction? What are you so very afraid of and why do you have to come across as some supreme moral authority in telling them what they can and cannot do in terms of their vote with respect to their personal faith?

milo 3 years, 7 months ago

You are missing the point. You are welcome to your beliefs. Using civil law to force everyone to be bound by them is a different story.

3 years, 7 months ago

These polls are the latest, but about two weeks old: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4049d520-4339-45f7-90b8-6aa9cc01a166

3 years, 7 months ago

Maybe this one will work? http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/06/poll-shows-r-71-has-narrow-advantage-i-1033-passing

3 years, 7 months ago

You are missing the point. You are welcome to your beliefs. Using civil law to force everyone to be bound by them is a different story.< Fair enough. Now show me how and where MRskier1 was using civil law to force anyone to do anything?

milo 3 years, 7 months ago

Actually I was replying to you Mav. How about using civil law to force others to forgo basic human rights based on your interpretation of scripture.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav said: Okay, Norm, where is Marcus doing that? My Reply: I quoted Marcus's post for a reason. He said: "It's to bad that more people didn't understand what the Bible really says, and then we wouldn't have to vote on this".
. "What the Bible really says" is not a matter that the state should be interpreting, its a religious question, and therefore absolutely none of the state's business. . Comprende?

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav also wrote: So why do you and those like you feel so threatened by a Christian's personal conviction? What are you so very afraid of and why do you have to come across as some supreme moral authority in telling them what they can and cannot do in terms of their vote with respect to their personal faith? . My reply:
1. As I said, Marcus and everyone else is free to have their own personal convictions - religious or otherwise. It's guaranteed in the Constitution, as it should be. As long as his conviction remains personal, there's no problem. He is free not to recognize homosexual partnerships/marriages/whatever.
2. When he wants to use the power of the state to enforce his personal religious convictions on others, he is violating others' rights (at least in the case where others hold different personal convictions). 3. I am afraid that combining church and state does massive damage to both and leads to widespread violation of rights.
4. I am not speaking about moral authority; I am speaking about legal authority. There is no legal authority to enforce one person's personal religious convictions on another, nor should there be. 5. To paraphrase Marcus: Its too bad that more people don't understand what the Constitution really says, because if they did, we wouldn't have to vote on this.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

As to your polls - the function of the civil rights provisions of the Constitution is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If 90% of those polled thought that all black people should be thrown in prison, the Constitution would prohibit that violation of their fundamental rights, regardless of what the polls say.

Jeska 3 years, 7 months ago

Voting = one of the ways I use my right to express my opinion, whether founded on morals or beliefs or pulled out of my ear.

I think it is great that people base their opinions on their beliefs. This country is founded on religious freedom, not freedom from religion.

Vote the way that seems right to you. I'll vote the way that seems right to me. Your vote counts as much as mine. And if my 'side' doesn't win, I can quietly accept the decision as what the majority felt was just and fair. And I'll thank God that I live in a country where I have the right to express my opinion just as much as you do.

3 years, 7 months ago

Actually I was replying to you Mav. How about using civil law to force others to forgo basic human rights based on your interpretation of scripture.< I guess I wouldn't even begin to know how to go about doing that! In the first place, I'm interpreting your words and not scripture. Surely you don't believe your words and/or others' are holy?

3 years, 7 months ago

I quoted Marcus's post for a reason. He said: "It's to bad that more people didn't understand what the Bible really says, and then we wouldn't have to vote on this".< That's his OPINION, Norm! You know what, Norm, and this goes for most all liberals with the exception of one liberal woman whom I came to know who also sees through this charade, virtually without exception, which is why I feel I can generalize, had MrSkier1's opinion found its roots in any other source other than the Bible you would not have even squeaked. However, because he mentioned that his opinion came from his Biblical understanding you get your hackles up! Had he said that he formed his opinion based on his understanding of Buddha you wouldn't have said one word. The fact is Norm, you and others like you feel very threatened by opinions that find their roots in the Bible. An opinion can come from any other source and you would remain silent, but if it comes from the Bible, uh-oh, they're dangerous, gotta tell 'em they can't use the state to force their opinions on me! You're afraid of them, Norm. You and others are afraid.
Why is that?

3 years, 7 months ago

Norm wrote: >As long as his conviction remains personal, there's no problem. < In other words, if you hold an opinion based on your personal understanding of the Bible, then keep it to yourself! Don't put it here on a public message board because it has no place here. Christians may be seen, but not heard. I guess I disagree with that, Norm. ALL opinions need to be heard. That's what makes this a microcosm. You may not like the fact that Christians share their thoughts and opinion here, but they too are a part of the community and their opinion is representative of that fraction of the microcosm that also needs to be heard. That's true community, Norm, and not "village mentality".

3 years, 7 months ago

I am afraid that combining church and state does massive damage to both and leads to widespread violation of rights.< Good grief! In other words your fear stems from your belief that if a Christian makes public his or her opinion on an issue, that the next step is that their opinion will gain popularity and suddenly become law and take your rights away! You know, Norm, that's laughable if it weren't truly pathetic. Fear is a primeval instinct. Hunter-gatherers needed it to keep from being eaten by large predators. I guess it still has its place today in war and other fight-for-survival situations, but when it comes to a voter issue based on ideology, I think it's more than just a little bit absurd.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav wrote: In other words, if you hold an opinion based on your personal understanding of the Bible, then keep it to yourself! Don't put it here on a public message board because it has no place here. Christians may be seen, but not heard. My Reply: That's not "in other words"; that's entirely different words that express an entirely different meaning than what I said. Everybody has the right to have an opinion and to express their opinion; what they don't have a right to do is to use the power of the state to enforce thier opinion on others. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, everybody can talk all day long about how something is either morally right or morally wrong. No problem there. Its when they want to use the power of the state to enforce their opinions on others that there is a Constitutional problem. I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav: The fact is Norm, you and others like you feel very threatened by opinions that find their roots in the Bible Me: That is a false interpretation of my words. I am just as strongly opposed to the imposition of Muslim Sharia law as I am to the imposition of Christian Sharia law. This does not mean that I am opposed to people holding Christian, Muslim, HIndu, etc. beliefs and expressing those beliefs. There is a huge difference between what I said and your interpretation of what I said.

MRskier1 3 years, 7 months ago

Just in reply to some of the comments about my comment. Thanks Mavulous for letting me have my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is why we are voting on this. I have no problem with someone being by someone as they die. I have no problem with someone being gay (although I disagree with that lifestyle) it's their deal. My conviction is though, to not endorse that lifestyle. Just as someone should not be able to force religion on me I should not be forced to not have religion. So how does that work? Many aspects of our government have religious roots. Go to D.C. and you'll see that there are religious parts to the whole place. Where did the whole idea of moral and immoral come from? Where did no stealing or killing come from? I don't think you have to think like me. General Patton once said that if everyone was thinking alike someone wasn't thinking. So go ahead! Think for yourself, but I may not agree with you all the time. I hope the best for you no matter who you are and no matter what your beliefs are.

3 years, 7 months ago

There is a huge difference between what I said and your interpretation of what I said.< AND, there is a huge difference between what MRskier1 posted and the inference you drew from his post and the scolding you gave him as a result of his post. You should be the first in line to defend a Christian opinion on any and every issue, Norm. After all, your fear is based on your personal conviction that your rights could eventually be violated by others. Protecting and ensuring the rights of EVERYONE will surely guarantee the preservation of your rights as well within a functioning community. You see, Norm, it's a two way street. Dysfunctional communities are all about marginalizing others and that's what you and others attempted to do in this thread simply because a Christian opinion happened to be the first one to be expressed.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Show me one sentence where I've indicated that somebody doesn't have a right to an opinion or to express that opinion. You're not arguing against anything I've said here, mav - you're arguing agianst a strawman.

JeffR 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav, I can't speak for everybody, but I don't think we are afraid. . We ARE confounded by so-called conservatives who don't support traditional values such as "all men are created equal", "live and let live", etc. when it comes to homosexuals. . And we are perplexed about why some christians treat the "sin" of homosexuality so much differently than they do gluttony, greed, lust and other "sins", and how loving your neighbor as yourself doesn't apply if your neighbor happens to be gay. . We just don't understand how anybody who is making even the slightest effort to be open minded and aware of the world in which we live could fail to realize that the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is what sex they are attracted to. . No, we aren't afraid of the opinions of those who oppose this referendum, we just think they are bigoted and irrational and wrong. . Like others have said earlier, I would love to hear some arguments against R-71 that have some basis in reality rather than mythology.

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

Many people base their opinions in religion. So be it. I personally do not believe a secular law should be decided on religious grounds, but people will believe so anyway. . However, R-71 is not solely a gay issue. It also includes seniors and others who have been together for an extended period of time. If you vote this down, you are also hurting people who are heterosexual. . Ironically, I also believe that voting this down will lead us more quickly to gay marriage. The courts will have to step in on the side of equality if a law that discriminates is approved by the people. . As a previous poster mentioned, I also have not heard anyone argue against R-71 without basing the argument in discrimination (being against a specific group of people as in denying a benefit or right). If someone believes in equal rights for all, then I do not understand how that person could vote against this.

3 years, 7 months ago

Jeff, I don't believe that you are afraid, unlike Norm. Also, being confounded and perplexed is one thing, not to be confused with scolding others for believing and having opinions different from our own. On the other hand, finding the opinions of others to be "bigoted and irrational and wrong" is highly judgmental because there are no "wrong" opinions on R-71 being expressed in this thread. All I have read are different opinions on the referendum and the attempts of others to either ridicule or marginalize the opinions of those who cannot support it. Note that those who do not support this referendum have not attempted to pass judgment or otherwise ridicule the supporters of the same.

3 years, 7 months ago

Resident, that's a good post. It is fairly stated and well presented. I don't necessarily agree with your observations or your conclusion, but I do understand where you're coming from and I respect your position.

MRskier1 3 years, 7 months ago

Jeff, I'm glad you brought up the point about sins being treated differently. Sin is sin. "Love the sinner and hate the sin." God loves us all no matter what even if we are not doing what he likes. He tries to help us to have a better life, but it is up to us to change. When I meet people I look for the best in them and treat them as a very special individual. Like I said above, I've met homosexuals before who were great individuals. Did I agree with their lifestyle? No, but I didn't hate them. If I sinning somehow and someone came up to me I would hope that they would treat me with kindness no matter what I was doing, but they wouldn't have to agree with what I was doing. They wouldn't ahve to endorse it to show that they were being kind to me. Many times people think that because someone is different that they shouldn't treat them with respect. That's sad. I feel obligated to treat people with respect and be kind to them, but I do not feel obligated to endorse something I feel is wrong. People may think that I'm doing things that are wrong and they are entitled to do so, but they should at least give me respect. I don't hate homosexuals. I just disagree with the lifestyle. I can still be friendly and kind without endorsing. I encourage everyone to look at the Voter's Pamphlet. It's very informative on what this is truly doing. As it is there are many rights already on the books. Anyway. When I played varsity basketball the games were so much more fun when we were friendly and kind to our opponents. I remember many times helping opponents off the floor or aksing if they were ok. We treated our opponents with respect even though we wanted to win. And if we won. What did we do? We were respectful and didn't rub it in their faces. That is how we should all strive to be. No matter which way this Referendum goes I wish the best for you all.

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Voting against repressing people's rights is not the same thing as endorsing their lifestyle.

3 years, 7 months ago

And the Gay following claims it has no agenda.With the effort they make in trying to abolish the words "mother" and "father" and trying to get their sickening twisted lifestyles pushed on our kids in schools it clearly shows they do have one.I do not support this.

JeffR 3 years, 7 months ago

Mav: "Also, being confounded and perplexed is one thing, not to be confused with scolding others for believing and having opinions different from our own." . I think the irony meter on my PC just exploded!! . I don't want to discourage anybody from participating in this forum so I will try to tone it down a little. But really, anybody who wants to express their opinions publicly without being judged or challenged should probably be blogging, not posting on an open forum like this one.

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

Ron,

It's not only about homosexuals.

Cactus 3 years, 7 months ago

Ok I have to respond to this quote: "This country is founded on religious freedom, not freedom from religion."

WRONG It is founded on BOTH. Religious "freedom" includes being free from religion. Look up freedom. Alot of good points have been made by many. I am a Christian and don't need lessons from anyone on what the bible says or doesn't say etc. But here is my question to the other "christians" and non alike who seem to find it their place to judge and discriminate. Why should we allow the state to provide all sorts of benefits to illegal immigrants, at the EXPENSE of our tax dollars...yet simultaneously say that certain people who DO make contributions to the system, who DO pay taxes, should not have the freedom to share their benefits and life privileges as they see fit, simply due to a difference of sexual orientation? How is that fair? I'm no better than anyone else and im certainly in no position to treat someone differently due to their sexual orienatation. As the bible says, judgement is for god and god ALONE. So who are you to discriminate, and alienate?

Norm 3 years, 7 months ago

Illegal immigrants generally contribute far more to the system than they get out of it. Derivatives traders, short sellers, and other financial players contribute no economic value to the system, yet siphon off multimillion dollar yearly bonuses. . But of course none of that has anything to do with respecting the rights of homosexuals and keeping the government out of the business of interpreting the Bible.

3 years, 7 months ago

New Dad Thinks Baby Might Be Gay http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_dad_thinks_baby_might_be_gay

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

Just so everyone is clear, The Onion is a satirical (and fictitious) newspaper that Mav is linking.

3 years, 7 months ago

LOL! Where would we be without Residenture gummin' it so we can all chew the fat?

Resident 3 years, 7 months ago

Ahh, you know that there are many people who would see the article title and not click the link. :)

snappydawg 3 years, 6 months ago

I have to respond to MRSkier1's very first comment where he mentions that I can just get a lawyer to draw up estate papers to protect my partner. Which I've already done.

What he doesn't understand is that as laws stand now she will have to pay inheritance taxes on my estate. With Ref. 71 approved she would have inheritance rights which would preclude her from having to pay those inheritance taxes. Which could be the difference between keeping our home and having to sell to pay the taxes. Why should she have to lose her home to pay taxes if something happens to me simply because we weren't allowed the same state-sanctioned life contract that heterosexuals have access to?

We are both U.S. citizens. We both work hard. We both pay our taxes. Yet we are not treated equally in the eyes of the law.

And yes, I live in Seattle, but guess what? I grew up right there in the Wenatchee Valley. And I am very heartened to see how many people get what Ref. 71 is about--fairness and equality.

3 years, 6 months ago

With Ref. 71 approved she would have inheritance rights which would preclude her from having to pay those inheritance taxes. < LOL! That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever read in support of R-71. If your estate is over the threshold amount, inheritance taxes will still have to be paid. I think what you're trying to say is that only half of your total estate will be considered subject to inheritance tax because this is a community property state. However, that does not mean that the inheritance tax goes away for you or your SO. Since community property is considered to be everything you accumulate together after marriage, what you're apparently missing is that right now you still have your own "separate estate" which is everything you currently own. Therefore, your inheritance tax problem still won't go away even if R-71 passes and when everything passes to your SO--assuming you die first--he/she will still owe whatever taxes are owed on everything you currently own right now as your separate estate. Therefore, you will still need to do some estate planning because R-71 isn't going to solve your inheritance tax problem, if in fact you even have one.

3 years, 6 months ago

Ms. Lumsden makes an excellent point regarding the unanticipated costs associated with the approval of R-71: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/20...

3 years, 6 months ago

Okay, let's try that link one more time: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2009/oct/24/safety-valve-letters-from-readers/#c2895

Norm 3 years, 6 months ago

My point there was better: "The potential cost has no place in a discussion of human/civil rights." . If the state could save $200 million by revoking your right to free speech, mav, would that make it OK?

3 years, 6 months ago

If the state could save $200 million by revoking your right to free speech, mav, would that make it OK? < Sure would--especially if they split the difference with me! Actually, Norm, you make a good point for once. Just don't let it go to your head.

Annsboy 3 years, 6 months ago

This is one way to solve the "population" problem. If everyone would "convert" we would depopulate the world in a single generation. Let's kill two birds with one stone for the libs! Not.

artmann 3 years, 6 months ago

Loony idiots in Seattle decided this one again folks. Thank God we live in a normal place here. This is just more proof (see the election by county results) we need to divide the state.

artmann 3 years, 6 months ago

We did get a big win down in Walla Walla as the only Dem from E. Wash. was ousted last night.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010196470_apwalegislature3rdldwritethru.html

3 years, 6 months ago

art the liberals have been trying to invade and ruin our way of life east of the Cascades for some time now.Luckily they have never gained a foothold.

JeffR 3 years, 6 months ago

I spent the first half of my life in the Wenatchee Valley and the last half in the Puget Sound area. In my view there is plenty of superstition and prejudice on both sides of the mountains, but more to the east. The vote on R-71 pretty well reflects that. . Someday we will look back and be unable to understand why R-71 didn't pass with 99% approval. Well, maybe not us, but the next generation.