KnowThyNeighbor.org

Washington State OpEds support Signature Disclosure but have yet to explore the morality of voting on minority rights

There have been a spate of opinion pieces here and here supporting Washington State's open government laws and highlighting Representative Reuven Carlyle's recently filed bill (HB 2418) clarifying that petition signatures are part of the public record and must remain so.

Another recent online opinion piece also supported Government Open Records but took pains to distance themselves from what they see as potential "harassment" while ignoring the documented and pervasive harassment of same-sex couples and their families by organizations like Protect Marriage Washington. Comments at this online news source are restricted to 500 characters, so here is a response to this piece:

The drive to get Referendum 71 onto the ballot and overturn the most recent Domestic Partnership Rights expansion bill had only one practical outcome.  

It was designed to hurt same-sex couples and their children (18% of same-sex couples in Washington are raising children under 18 years of age) by continuing discrimination that injures families and stripping away equal rights granted by the legislature.  

The people of Washington State have a right to know who, acting as citizen legislators, is proposing legislation in our state that hurts families - and most especially legislation that discriminates against a minority. Washingtonians have had that right for many years and have exercised it several times with no ill effects or, indeed, much notice by the general public at all.

So how did we get here?  

• In January 2006, after 29 long years of effort the legislature finally passed the most basic of civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, the Anderson Murray Civil Rights Bill (ESSHB 5688), which added "sexual orientation" to existing legislation that protects other minorities from employment, housing and financial discrimination.
• In February 2006, Tim Eyman filed Referendum 65 to overturn the anti-discrimination bill with the stated goal of prohibiting the state government from requiring any school, church, employer, or other public or private entity to impose quotas, set-asides or other preferential treatment to any individual or group based on sexual orientation and sexual preference.  The justification for the referendum was that "The people do not support preferential treatment because the people do not want it to be used as a basis for requiring the legalization of same-sex marriage".
• In the 2007 legislative session, two bills were introduced (HB 2277 & HB 2255) into the Washington State legislature by Republican Representatives Chandler, Armstrong and Kretz, which would have made petition signatures secret by removing them from the public record.  If bills like this were to pass the legislature it would allow a majority of Washington voters to advocate against minorities in secret with no transparency to prevent abuse of the initiative and referendum process. A frightenting and sobering possibility for a minority whose rights are routinely put to the vote in the wake of signature petition campaigns.
• Finally, in 2009 the Domestic Partnership expansion bill passed and Referendum 71 was duly filed to overturn the law granting couples in Domestic Partnerships, both gay and straight, the same state level rights and responsibilities that married couples enjoy.  Once again, the broad justification for repealing the bill was to prevent the "legalization of same-sex marriage", an issue not covered by a simple expansion to the already existing domestic partnership scheme.

WhoSigned.org could have simply waited until after the referendum signatures had been submitted to request the names and announce that we would make the records made public and released by the Secretary of State accessible to the public. Then the discussion would have been about voters being "ambushed" because they didn't know that their petition signature was a matter of public record.  Realistically, anti-gay groups would still have performed all the same legal maneuvers they've subsequently used here and in other states across the nation to hide their actions from the public and preventing disclosure. 

In being open and announcing before signature gathering commenced, we were able to fulfill our goal to bring awareness of the public nature of petition signature records and the responsibility we all bear when signing them, and help drive unprecedented scrutiny of the signature verification and certification process for this hurtful and blatantly discriminatory referendum.  

It's gratifying to know we are in complete accord on the value of reasoned and respectful debate as well as transparency. Intimidation and discrimination diminish us all, but most particularly when it comes wrapped in a referendum attacking the lives and families of people we love.  

There is, however, an element of the discussion that Opinion pages like yours could spend more time and (virtual) ink on…

Voting on the rights of a minority is wrong.  If a bill institutionalizing discrimination or restricting rights were to be proposed for any other ethnic, national or religious group the public would be rightly outraged and it would be quickly found to be unconstitutional.  

Why is it not just acceptable, but expected that people get to vote on our rights?  The public is now so in the habit of voting on what rights gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are allowed, that no one pauses to think about how immoral, how corrupting, and how fundamentally un-American it is to vote on any minorities rights.

Considering the future of our petition and initiative process as a tool for change, we need to think carefully about the kinds of issues and legislation it is best equipped to address.  There is much to be learned from other jurisdictions like Washington D.C. where civil rights laws limit the ability of the majority to vote on restricting the rights of a minority.  

We all know that one day there will be another initiative or referendum petition trying to roll back existing protections or, even further in the future, a newly passed marriage equality bill.

When that happens let’s hope that rather than focusing on shallow perceptions of the tactics or motives of either side, the Opinion pages instead focus on the morality of voting on minority rights and on what justice or injustice the public allows to be done to minority families in their name. 

- Brian Murphy, Director - WhoSigned.org

Colbert highlights Protect Marriage Washington's "Hate that Dare Not Speak It's Name".

In a hilarious piece earlier this week The Colbert Report trained a national spotlight on Protect Marriage Washington's campaign to strip away domestic partnership rights and keep the names of petition signers secret.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

While we puzzle out "Gay Duck Marriage" and exactly what your "Sexual Orientation Orientation" might be, let's talk to everyone we know in Washington State and ask them to vote APPROVE on Referendum 71.

By Brian Murphy (WhoSigned.org) 

Focus on the Family Getting Out of "Ex-Gay" Business

Pulbished in OnTopMag.com:

 

Amid declining revenues, Focus on the Family is getting out of the “ex-gay” business.

The AP reported the socially conservative group was facing a “serious budget shortfall.”

In a letter to donors, Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus, explained that the group is about $6 million in the red for the year.

Focus' Love Won Out conferences will be acquired by Exodus International, whose motto is “freedom from homosexuality though the power Jesus Christ.” Focus said it will continue to support the workshop financially.

“There is no one better equipped to take over the operation of Love Won Out than Alan [Chambers] and his team,” Melissa Fryrear, gender and sexuality department director for Focus, said in a statement. “They have been with us since the beginning. They have stood alongside us in sharing the hope that, with Christ, transformation is possible for those unhappy with same-sex attractions. And we will stand alongside them as they continue to share that message as the organizer of Love Won Out.”

The group announced last February that its founder, James Dobson, and his wife, Shirley Dobson, were relinquishing control of the Colorado-based ministry. Dobson, known for his fiery anti-gay rhetoric, continues to host the group's radio broadcast and speak on behalf of the organization.

“Everyone knows these are challenging times for organizations and individuals all across the globe,” Focus Vice President Gary Schneeberger said in a statement. “It is not an inexpensive undertaking to put on a Love Won Out event; and contrary to what our detractors say, the conferences rarely have recouped the financial investment made in them. That is a cost we have always paid because of the positive impact the events have had.”

The announcement comes on the heels of a new American Psychological Association (APA) report that says reparative therapy – the controversial gay-to-straight treatment promoted by Love Won Out and Exodus International – does not work and may be psychologically harmful.

At the heart of the therapy is the notion that being gay is a choice, and sexuality can be returned to its “normal” state, mostly through religious means.

The APA also overwhelmingly (97%) approved a resolution that repudiates the therapy.

Wayne Besen, who founded Truth Wins Out to fight the “ex-gay” movement, called the news a “positive development.”

“There is a shrinking market for their product,” Besen told The Denver Post. “This is a very positive development, because it shows Focus on the Family wants to get out of the ex-gay business – though not completely. But if this were something they were really vested in, they would have kept it in-house.”

“Exodus is thrilled with this opportunity as the Love Won Out conference is a natural fit in our ongoing efforts to share the hope we've found,” said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, in a statement.

Focus on the Family said a November 7 conference in Birmingham, Alabama would be its last.

 

This news comes only days after the American Psychiatric Association declared homosexuality a normal variation of sexuality:

 

Associated Press- The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of "reparative therapy" — a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain gays can change.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote. The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Instead of seeking such change, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the 150,000-member association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality.

The article goes even further adding:

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

WA Ref. 71 won't make ballot if Invalid Signature trend continues

The numbers from last nights signature verification are in with 29940 signatures examined so far, a little over 21.74% of the 137,689 submitted signatures have been checked.  There are now 4,057 invalid signatures, with 113 duplicates, which gives an overall invalid signature rate of 13.55%.  Referendum 71 petitioners need their overall invalid signature rate to be at 12.428% or lower for the referendum to be on the ballot.

State Senator Ed Murray has been looking carefully at the numbers and sees reason to be hopeful.  He also points out that the way some numbers were being reported were confusing and made it seem like petitioners might be on track for the ballot.  He correctly points out that the current trend in invalid signatures shows petitioners failing in their bid to put the rights of loving couples and families to a vote this November.

In statistics, confidence levels or intervals tell us how sure we can be of a particular outcome. Now if elections workers had sampled completely randomly rather than working their way through the signatures methodically then confidence intervals would be accurate.  If we apply them to the current data and ignore duplicates entirely it gives about a 1 in 200 chance that Referendum 71 will be on the ballot (a confidence level of between 99% and 99.9%).  If the invalid signature rate of the last few days remains constant, then the odds of the referendum being on the ballot will decrease even further.  As at 7:00am this morning, the numbers are:

Total Submitted:       137,689
Total Checked: 29,940
Total Invalid: 4,075
Total Duplicates:       113
Total Invalid %: 13.5504342%

Brian Murphy
Director
WhoSigned.org

WA Referendum 71 Petitioners join emerging national movement to suppress Public Records and Disclosure

WhoSigned.org plans to make Referendum 71 public records accessible to the people of Washington State.  How the people of this state use these public records is, as with everything, their decision and unlike Referendum 71 petitioners we have faith in the people's judgment and desire for civil and lawful discussion on our families urgent need for equal treatment under the law.

It's important for everyone to recognize that the court action to prevent the Secretary of State from releasing any public records on Referendum 71 isn't an isolated event.  Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, the law firm behind the court action temporarily preventing us getting access to the records, is the same firm behind the challenge to public disclosure of donors in California in the wake of Proposition 8.  What we're seeing is an emerging national strategy of the aggressors painting themselves as victims and making public records secret to protect those who fund and advocate for our families continued second class status and treatment.

In past civil rights struggles is was white cloth and stitching that hid the identities of the intolerant from public view.  In this generation's civil rights struggles it's shaping up to be a cloth of faux victim-hood stitched tight with threads of legally imposed secrecy and misinformation.

In Washington State there is nothing a voter can do to remove their signature from a petition once it's submitted.  Paid Signature gatherers are not registered, how they are paid is not regulated, and per signature payment is well recognized as an incitement to fraud in other ballot initiative states.  No wonder the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center gives Washington State a failing "F" grade in their July 2009 report card. 

We hope to give voters who were misled a way to correct the record and discover the extent of signature fraud.  When it may come down to just a handful of signatures placing Referendum 71 on the ballot, understanding what part fraud and paid signature gatherers might have played is essential in ensuring the integrity of the ballot initiative and referendum process. 

We call on the Secretary of State to vigorously defend our public disclosure laws making public records for Referendum 71 available to all who request them, and to restore public faith in open government in Washington State.

WhoSigned.org files Ref. 71 petition request with WA Secretary of State

WhoSigned.org has filed it's official public records request for the Referendum 71 petition with the Secretary of State's office in Washington State.  Receipt of the request was acknowledged by public records staff at the Secretary of State's office earlier today and we look forward to working with them and our partners KnowThyNeighbor.org in making the names broadly accessible online.  

An eleventh hour push by unregistered and unregulated paid signature gatherers resulted in a rash of complaints from voters claiming they'd been misled into signing this hurtful petition. 

With no avenue for voters to remove their signatures from the petition or to correct the official public record, Washington voters need to be diligent in reading petitions they are presented, questioning signature gatherers, and understanding the impact the petition will have before giving their signature.  WhoSigned.org and KnowThyNeighbor.org will provide a way for misled Ref. 71 petition signers to tell their stories and correct the public record.  

While most recent estimates place the number of signatures gathered by petitioners at 138,000, an accurate count of submitted signatures won't be forthcoming until all petition sheets have been scanned by workers in the Elections Division later this week.  Once that's completed and staffers have an accurate submitted signature count the arduous task of validating the petition's signatures will begin.  

With such a small cushion over the 120,577 valid signature target, it's very likely that 100% of the submitted signatures will need to be verified.  With a "full check" it's expected to be several weeks before we know whether Referendum 71 will be on the ballot in November.  

Outsiders Bought for Maine Anti-SSM Drive

How gullible or stupid are Mainers? Those I knew who grew up there can disparage the locals, but it's hard to believe they'll buy the bull shoveled at them in the drive to overturn same-sex marriage.

An excellent recap of the current machinations appears in today's Press Herald. A big point is that with typical hypocrisy, the anti-equality forces will throw every outside resource they can into the battle. This is precisely what they say is a major sin of progressives and pro-LBGT types.

After a season of staccato losses deafening the nation to their panicked shrieks, the anti folk seem determined to delay SSM from becoming reality there. In that effort, they first hired the California public-relations shop that ran the successful Prop. 8 campaign there to stop gay marriages. This is the same group who produced the nonsensical ads of confused little kids saying that even hearing about same-sex couples was just too much for their little brains.

Moreover, the anti-gay leader, National Organization for Marriage, primed the pump with $60,000 to one local group, Stand for Marriage Maine. The latter group has hired Hessians professional signature gatherers, Michigan's National Petition Management, for $45,000.

If so much wasn't at stake, that sig-drive move would be amusing. The bar for such a Maine People's Veto requires just under 56,000 signatures gathered by the middle of September. Even in a low-population state, that's an extremely low number. You would suppose that if Mainers were against SSM, they wouldn't need outside money and foot soldiers to take this minimal step.

The Press Herald quoted lonely Equality Maine as saying they'd be ready for this battle. At this point, they are clearly outgunned and outspent. They'd likely have to rely on real Mainers to defend the law that the legislature passed and governor signed after much public testimony and debate. They do at least have a contribute page on their website.

It remains to be seen if their academic expert is right that the anti-equality effort may backfire. University of Maine's Amy Fried thinks the locals won't like the outlanders' messing with their business. The political science professor said,"It shows that the national organizations opposed to marriage equality see Maine as an important place to take a stand. It will be getting national attention; this will be watched around the country."

However, she added, People in Maine do not like what they might see as outside interference. We have our own political culture, we have a high degree of civility, a high degree of civic engagement."

Progressives should not leave this to chance. The slick and dishonest PR used in the Prop. 8 drive did fool a lot of people, enough to edge the vote. While not long ago, Mainers refused to buy similar tactics to overturn gay-rights legislation at the ballot, the foreigners are throwing money and people at Maine. They may figure the locals are too ignorant or stupid to think for themselves. Presenting both sides of this story will require money for the good guys as well.

Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

~Mike

N.H. Goes Gay Marriage

Bless 'em, a few minutes ago (5:20 p.m. Eastern), N.H. Gov. John Lynch signed same-sex marriage into law. He and the House tossed it back and forth until they had nothing left to compromise on.

As expected, today was the final legislative passage of compromise wording on one bill, wording to add fairly absurd rights for wedding-related businesses to turn down working on ceremonies of homosexual couples based on conscience. Those are lawsuits just waiting to happen.

That makes four of six New England states for equality — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire. Maine sort of is, having passed SSM, but staying it while the anti-gay forces try to repeal it through a plebiscite. Only Rhode Island is in limbo, waiting for the staunchly anti-homosexual governor to run out another two years of his final term.

In the end, N.H. is a testament to the future of SSM in the country. Assuming the actions pushing a federal suit to force marriage equality go nowhere, such state-by-state, states-rights based decisions will erode the amendments and laws forbidding homosexuals marrying.

In this case, the governor wanted it all ways. Although nominally a Democrat, he really seems an opportunist. Up there, they elect a governor every two years and have no term limits. Only crimes, boneheaded decisions or boredom would drive one from office. Lynch seems to have figured he could pretend to simultaneously support pro- and anti-SSM forces. It looks like he has pissed off the former and annoyed the latter. I'm sure he can sell real estate or insurance.

~Mike Ball

N.H. Staggers to SSM Approval Wednesday

With loopholes big enough for trained dogs to jump through, the New Hampshire legislature and Gov. John Lynch look like they have a workable compromise all can approve. It's likely that Wednesday this coming week will be the day for a tweaked bill to get to Lynch and him to sign it.

To placate the anti-gay and anti-marriage equality sorts, the revised bill ended up today with wording even stronger than Lynch proposed when he sent it back to the lawmakers for revisions. The concurrence committee of both houses put in broad conscience exemptions for nearly anyone connected with the wedding business.

As the AP writer put it:

The new version, which is expected to come up for a vote Wednesday, adds a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarifies that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said "charitable and educational" instead of "charitable or educational."

That could very well end up in Law Suit City if enough regressive sorts put their hands to their foreheads sighing that they sensibilities are being ravished by having to deal with homosexuals. Or, as Rep. Anthony DiFruscia put it more colorfully, "Hypothetically, if I'm a Nazi... do I now get an exemption because my conscience says if you're not blond and blue-eyed, I can discriminate against you?"

Regardless the governor was looking to pretend that he forced religious protection into this bill. Pretty much what he was asking for was already law and it was the fringe added to the canopy he proposed. The range of the compromise committee was a single sentence, plus one more word to the entire bill.

It looks like Wednesday will be wedding day.

Cross-post note: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

~Mike Ball

N.H. Gov. Plays Marriage Games

Oh, my. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has me thinking macho and sexist thoughts — like he needs gonads.

Today he is speaking with reporters saying he will/he won't sign the same-sex marriage bill he got at the end of last week. His latest have-it-all-ways tactic is saying he'd approved it with some changes. I'll update here when those become clear.

It seems he can't stand the idea of having to stand. The reactionaries and fundies want him to veto it and put the Old Testament into marriage law. The equality and civil-rights types want him to cut the crap and sign it already. He apparently thinks that if he adds some more pseudo-religious veneer, he'll satisfy both sides.

He's bound to anger everyone.

The way I read the state constitution, this becomes law without his signature. It would take agreement from both houses to reconsider the content of the bill if he doesn't veto it. Good luck with that, Johnny Boy. I bet he's going to have to veto it or let it become law.

Follow-up: He claims to have provided language he wants added or altered. Those words have yet to appear on the news sites.

Follow-up to Follow-up: Lynch's changes would be:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

To my reading, this is much ado about squat. Lynch wants to rephrase what is already law and already covered in the kind of mealy-mouthed bill the legislature passed. This likewise lets religious and now fraternal organizations be as bigoted and discriminatory against LBGT citizens as they are now. Making sure the Elks and VFW are covered is trivial.

It appears as though he thinks he is protecting is perceived lifetime job by:

1. Making noises about vetoing the bill
2. Adding inconsequential refinements to pretend that he accommodated all sides.

What a bozo. Then again, the votes to override a veto are likely unobtainable this legislative term. Plus the Senate has already added crazy lingo pretending there are two types of marriage in New Hampshire. They can probably make Lynch feel he's done something substantial. I suspect voters all around will know better next election.

Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

 ~Mike Ball