KnowThyNeighbor.org

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

Maine's Governor Makes SSM Legal

."

---

Bypassing huge opportunities for theatrics and cowardice, Maine's Gov. John Baldacci took his pen to the same-sex marriage bill this afternoon. Within a half hour of receiving the bill (LD 1020), he made it law.

With so many, including the sitting President, cowardly about the fairness and equality and hiding behind, "Duh, well, I always heard in church that marriage was between one man and one woman," Baldacci tore the rag off the bush.

He said:

I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs,. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.

It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.

There may still be an effort for a plebiscite by the dirty nasty sore losers. I wish them failure in trying to get over 55,000 Mainers to sign for a vote in November. Short of that, they are bound to see that a majority of their peers wants strong marriages and equal rights.

~Mike (masssmarrier)

Maine Passes Same-Sex Marriage

Up in the Yankee Augusta, the Maine House fell in line with the Senate, passing same-sex marriage (LD 1020). The vote was 89 to 58 (adjusted later to 89 to 57).

Listening to a couple of hours of the testimony live, I got the firm sense that the opposition had accepted the vote long before it occurred. Several representatives predicted a following plebiscite (a.k.a. People's Veto). They added that they expected to reverse the decision.

In the way is Gov. Baldacci. He is wishy-washy, not promising to veto or sign or let the bill pass untouched. While he mumbled weak marriage is one man/one woman, there is no passion. By the bye, the House as it voted does not have enough proponents to override a veto.

If the bill becomes law and if the opponents get 10% of the vote numbers for the last governor's race on petitions, there will be a referendum to overturn it. For a state making the shift from legal domestic partnership to SSM, ripping back a legal right granted by the legislature would be a tough sell.

As it was, the arguments opposing the bill were pretty weak and illogical. A couple of lawmakers tried the old a man and a woman fit physically and make their own babies. As usual, there was no corresponding admission that many opposite-sex couples were not healthy for their children, nor any recognition that many couples, regardless of genders, adopt, use medical help to reproduce, cannot reproduce or choose not to do so.

The baby-making argument is pale and frail.

One opponent, Sheryl Briggs (D-Mexico), illustrated the befuddled traditionalist. She said she has known one of her daughters has been an out lesbian for 15 years. Briggs voted against the bill despite this. The underlying justification went to the heart of the cultural divide. She consistently referred to her daughter's "choice," as in "lifestyle she has chosen."

On the other side, the speakers were similar to those the judiciary committee hearings in New Hampshire and Maine. There was a good mix of the personal, legal and logical from the representative. One, David Webster (D-Freeport), noted that some religions and Protestant churches support SSM and others do not. As a legislature, he said he had not right or intent to legislate any religion's dogma over another's.

For example, Briggs' testimony led immediately to that from Emily Ann Cain (D-Orono). She noted that 1020 "does not create same-sex couples in Maine." Instead, it affirms "what already exists." She asked others to join her "simply asking for fairness and equal treatment under law for what already exists in Maine."

Another supporter, Veronica Magnan (D-Stockton Springs) was a counterpoint to opponents. She is middle-aged and a lifelong Christian. She said she was "born again in the spirit in 1972." However, she and her fundamentalist church parted ways on such issues as gay rights as the church became more radical. In her mind, the argument that a family requires a father and mother to work is not the norm from what she has seen in her life. Instead "two committed adults have made the difference." She made it very plain she was pro-marriage, for SS couples as well.

~Mike (massmarrier)

Calling Out Wingers

LGBT and marriage-equality activist John Hosty-Grinnell is terrifically sincere but not necessarily the subtlest among us. He wants to invite one or more right-wing callers to explain themselves next Tuesday, April 14th.

He's the guest on the Left Ahead! weekly podcast at 2:30 p.m. If you want to listen or join in, click over to the show then. The call-in number is on that site. Be sure to press 1 on your keypad to let us know you're ready.

John is beyond tired of the lies and irrationality of the anti-gay and anti-equality types. He says it's past time to call them out on the craziness and have them take responsibility for what they say.

Whether wingers call in or not, this promises to be an intense show.

If you can't get to a computer or phone at show time, check back at Left Ahead! or the show URL to listen later.

Until then, you can find John's posts on KTN as well as Live, Love, and Learn.

~Mike Ball

Freedom, Yes...Unity?

Vermont's motto is Freedom and Unity. The latter part of that certainly is questionable, particularly after the same-sex marriage passage and veto override.

The following party breakdown appears also at Marry in Massachusetts.

Until the override vote today, I hadn't tallied the Vermont House. While Gov. Jim Douglas was saying, "This is not a time for congratulations; this is a time for moving on," that's not likely to happen with House Republicans any time soon.

Counting 'em up, there's truly a left wing and right wing up there. I ran a quick-ish count of the party votes in this morning's override. It's damned close to party lines, with offsetting jumpers from Dems and GOPs.

My count has:

Pro Override	Con Override
100	49
Democrat — 88	Democrat — 7
Republican — 6	Republican — 42
Progressive — 4	Progressive — 0
Independent — 2	Independent — 0

You can see the play card on this at Vermont Freedom to Marry. Among the small shifts were three Dems switching from their previous no votes. The absent voter was Rep. Sonny Audette, who has been saying he was conflicted and still opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage. He cited his Roman Catholicism as a deciding factor.

The past couple years of public study and hearings, plus the prolonged debates in both houses were supposed to let all sides have their say and then chill. The former certainly occurred ad nauseam. The latter appears between unlikely and impossible.

The my-preacher/conscience-tells-me-how-to-think-on-this folk (like this one) testified in public and voted on the floor. While enough Republicans joined in marriage equality to offset the Democrats who did not, this is damned close to party lines.

The Dems have a super-majority in both houses, but as we saw not a two-thirds veto-proof one in the House. Following this morning's override, the governor was his insipid self, pretending everyone will get on with their lives and turn to other issues. I'm betting these wounds will fester on the Republicans for a long time.

~Mike Ball

Make That a Huge Win in Vermont

Don't let the anti-marriage equality folk denigrate the sweeping and historic victory in Vermont. They are running around squawking like, well like angry bigots attempting to dismiss the compounded wins there as razor thin and narrow one-vote upsets.

Forget that. What happened included:

• Both houses of the legislature passed same-sex marriage by large majorities.
• This followed several years of discussion, study and public hearings, plus lengthy public testimony and legislative debate.
• The Senate voted 26 to 4 for SSM.
• The House voted 95 to 52 for it.
• The governor delivered his promised veto.
• The Senate overrode that veto 23 to 5.
• The House overrode it 100 to 49.

Let's keep our perspective. By the way the government makes laws, representative democracy, it worked. Everyone had a say, some many times. There was a ton of lobbying from all comers. The anti-SSM folk gave it there best shots.

In the end, it was not a one-vote anything. It was an overwhelming repudiation of God-tells-me-how-to-vote form of government. Humanity, fairness and compassion won. They won in the initial votes and they won in the overrides. The House override remains not a one-vote victory for equality, but a two-thirds one.

Actually, the percentages seem to come to 82% in the Senate and 67% in the House. Those are huge numbers in lawmaking.

The following riff on this appears also at Marry in Massachusetts.

The anti-equality sophists were ready when the Vermont legislature overrode Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of same-sex marriage. In a tribute to how simple-minded and emotional their followers are, the National Organization for Marriage led the way painting the rights victory as a single-vote aberration.

That is a fascinating, spurious and delusional way of describing a two-thirds override. The count in the Vermont House was 100 of 149 reps in attendance.

Lead news on the NOM website reads, "By only one vote, the Vermont House just voted to override Governor Douglas's veto, overturning the common sense definition of marriage shared by people of diverse faiths, backgrounds, nations, and political parties. Today is truly a sad day for Vermont and this nation." Likewise, their executive director, Brian Brown, was a this-but-that interviewee in the Washington Post yesterday. His spin included:

The Vermont House voted by only a single vote to override Governor Douglas's veto, a single vote. This vote clearly goes against the peoples understanding of marriage. Common sense and basic democratic norms dictate that such an important question should have gone directly to the voters of Vermont. Instead, the Legislature refused to allow the people a direct say in the future of our most important social institution--marriage.

Let's concentrate on this group of the numerous anti-SSM ones. It has all the coarseness and duplicity that comes with the position. (Do read all of the WP dialog. Brown repeats numerous lies, such as Massachusetts Catholic Charities being forced to halt adoptions instead of choosing to do so instead of complying with non-discrimination laws.)

The anti folk fall back to their last, best hope, ballot initiatives. Hell, that recently worked in California, overturning SSM in a state where the legislature legalized it twice (and the governor vetoes that, crying out for a court decision), and the high court mandated it.

There were numerous calls from inside and outside Vermont for a plebiscite when it was clear that the majority of the elected senators and representatives were in favor of SSM. Unfortunately for the bad guys, that state is in the half of those in the nation that do not have ballot initiatives to allow a tyranny of the majority of change-resistant voters.

So, in Vermont, the anti-SSM folk called out for a non-binding referendum before the SSM bill passed. That simply was a ruse to give them two years to figure out a way to turn a one-third minority into at least a simple majority. Right.

Even our beleaguered Globe loves the one-vote-margin story. Today, it runs a piece on one of the House members who switched his vote. This is myth enabling and perpetuation, including downplaying the two-thirds vote as well as the 6 Republicans who voted for the law and the 7 Democrats who voted against it. One guy claiming to be afraid for his political future makes a better story.

The fact is that Vermont's legislature, both houses, went for SSM. They went heavily for SSM. In a get-along state, they dared an extremely rare override to do the right thing.

~Mike Ball