Washington State Referendum 71 - Equality or Repression?

Washington State Referendum 71

Come Election Day this year (Nov 3), voters across the state will be voting to Approve or Reject Referendum 71. The general gist of the referendum is whether or not same-sex domestic partnerships

“Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”....

The brief history of the Referendum is that there is a group of people in Washington who don’t think that all legal, official, committed relationships deserve the same rights and privileges as others. Those people brought this referendum up in an attempt to limit the rights of others. In an interesting political maneuver, they proposed and gathered signatures for a referendum they want to fail. Yes, the same people who put this Referendum on the ballot are the ones who are advertising for the voters to reject it. I suspect their intent was to use the fact that there is a Referendum on the ballot that deals with the issue of “domestic partnership” as a scare tactic to make gullible religious and conservative voters into thinking that there is some nefarious plot by gays to undermine the institution of marriage and somehow make it less meaningful.....

Many believe that if “domestic partnerships” are granted the same rights as “married” couples, it will somehow degrade the “marriage.” It’s hard for me to imagine how ensuring the same rights for all people jeopardizes anything. However, this is not the first time in American history that this mindset has been prevalent. Just prior to the Civil War, the Southern States feared that granting equal rights to slaves would degrade “white labor” by introducing a floor of laborers into the work force. Southern “Gentlemen” irrationally feared that black minority laborers would somehow take over the work force and infringe upon “white rights.” This same fear-the-minority mentality is the psychological engine behind the opposition to Referendum 71 and the anti-“domestic partnership” movement.....

Now it appears that the anti-domestic partnership movement can’t even address their concerns directly and straight-forward. The method by which they brought R71 to the polls clearly shows that their intent is not pure, but instead is a convoluted attempt to back-door the system and trick voters into voting against something without understanding the issue. Most of those who signatures they gathered didn’t even understand what the Referendum was about. When a group knows that its issue cannot pass legitimately its only recourse is deception.....

Much of the rhetoric advocating rejection of the bill comes from religious leaders who claim that because their religion is opposed to homosexuality, the government should also be opposed to it. Even more egregious is the fact that some of them willfully or ignorantly distort American History and the Founding Father’s intentions for the powers of government in order to sway their followers. Many claim that their religious texts only support their definition of marriage as “one man and one woman” despite the fact their texts say no such thing and in many cases demonstrate approval of a completely different definition.....

I expect that from the religious leaders. It’s their job to promote their viewpoint. What disgusts me is when politicians try to incorporate their personal religious beliefs into their execution of duties under the public trust. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs – but none of those beliefs should be promoted or supported in government more than any other. It is exactly that desire for separation of religion and government that motivated many English settlers to make a dangerous journey across an ocean to an unknown and potentially dangerous land. It is that separation that the Founders sought when they drafted the Constitution and designated it as the Law of the Land. Whether or not the Founders believed in gods or deities is debatable – some did, some didn’t to be sure – but its also irrelevant. They would not have wanted their personal religious beliefs to influence the execution of a government’s duty to the people. Not then, not now.....