Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) has announced that the recently passed (House vote 61-52 Senate vote 32-24)  Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act will be signed into law early in the new year, and the measure will go into effect on July 1, 2011.

On that date, Illinois will join California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey and Nevada as the 6th state with a state-based scheme to comprehensively recognize and protect same-sex couples under state law as extensively as they can without giving them access to marriage.

Previously New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont had civil unions but have since enacted marriage equality. Iowa, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia also allow same-sex couples to marry.

FOOD REVIEW: Five Guys Burgers

After hearing that Five Guys Burger was Barack Obama's favorite burger joint in D.C. the next time I was in town I checked it out. Apparently, Obama's new fave is Ray's Hell Burger (since that's were he took Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently for a cheeseburger).

I have bad news for devotees of In-n-Out Burgers: I have found a better burger. The burgers at Five Guys are superior to the ones at In-n-Out although they are not as cheap. But I'd rather pay twice as much for a burger more than twice as good (and more than twice as filling).

Name: Five Guys Burgers
Location: 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.
Contact: 703-812-8440.

AMBIANCE: B-.
SERVICE: B+.
VALUE: A-.
FOOD: A.

OVERALL: A-.

Hawaii Legislature Sends Civil Unions Bill To Gov

The Hawaii Assembly completed work on HB444 by approving the measure by a vote of 31-20 months after rejecting the measure almost exactly three months ago. The bill passed the Senate by a veto-proof majority and in 2009 had passed the House by a veto-proof majority. Republican Governor Linda Lingle has not said whether she would sign the bill into law or not.
If HB444 does become law, Hawaii would join Oregon, Washington, California, New Jersey and Nevada who have comprehensive "everything but marriage" statutes.

SCOTUS Hears Doe v. Reed Argument Today

Today is the final oral argument of the 2009-10 Supreme Court term, and the last one of John Paul Stevens long career. The case in question is Doe v. Reed, which involves whether petition signers of Washington state's Referendum 71 can have their identities shielded, in violation of that state's robust open records law. Referendum 71 asked voters whether they approved of Washington state's comprehensive domestic partnership law, commonly known as the "everything but marriage" law.

SCOTUSblog covers the issues in today's oral arguments:

The Court, perhaps, has tipped its hand in the case, not only by its order in October, temporarily protecting the Washington signers’ privacy, but also by its 5-4 ruling in January in the Proposition 8 TV trial coverage ruling. But both of those actions tend largely to exhibit sympathy for the argument that opponents of gay marriage do face threats and other forms of harassment or outright violence. That sentiment, perhaps, cannot be translated directly into a conclusion that signing a petition is a form of protected political speech.

The Court has never before analyzed, as it must in this case, just exactly what occurs – in a constitutional sense – when a citizen writes a signature, and enters personal information, on a political petition. The Referendum 71 case presents that issue very directly, with the signers making a vigorous argument that it is a purely expressive form of political speech, while those favoring public disclosure of petitions make an equally vigorous argument that the role of citizen as legislative sponsor is no different from that of an elected lawmaker. To side with the former and against the latter, the Court would have to make a sizeable constitutional leap from past rulings on electoral anonymity. Perhaps some of the Justices voted to grant review of the case precisely anticipating that they might well do just that. The briefing, though, has sharpened the issue, far more than did the content submitted to the Court prior to the October order and that presented before review was granted.

For a Court that has recently shown, especially in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January, that it reads the First Amendment expansively in the context of election campaigns, there may be little hesitancy now in deciding the Referendum 71 case by lengthening that trend, to elevate the constitutional significance of signing a political petition. Much may be revealed on this score at oral argument.

Whether the Court will see this case as a test of the Constitution’s role in mediating the heavy political controversy, being waged across the country, over gay rights, is unclear at this point. That controversy, to be sure, has a bearing on the intimidation issue that is so central to the Referendum 71 signers’ case.

However, just as central to the other side’s argument is a plea for open government, coupled with a plea for state control of their own initiative and referendum processes. Choosing between those two conflicting approaches to the case may be difficult, indeed.

More than 24 states allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, so a ruling in Doe v. Reed could have a wide impact, especially in California where another Proposition 8-like battle over marriage equality will happen in the future, probably sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: 04/28/2010 11:51AM PDT
It should be noted that LGBT groups have filed a very strong amicus brief in support of the respondents (Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed) and today issued a press release where they basically mock the arguments of the homophobes who want the right to legislate their position from the ballot box while wearing a shroud of First Amendment non-disclosure.

From the release:

Some of the instances of supposed "intimidation" cited by opponents and noted in the amicus brief include:

- A country club member in California, a supporter of Proposition 8, noted that "the openly gay members of the country club have changed their attitudes toward me. They used to greet me warmly; now, they give me looks of disdain and do not greet me as I pass."

- A person with a yard sign supporting Proposition 8 was disturbed on Halloween that some people "pointed and whispered to one another in disapproval" during trick-or-treating.

- A woman was upset that her brother, who is gay, would no longer speak to her after she told him she might vote for Proposition 8.

As the amicus brief says, these complaints "are not only trivial, they reflect a fundamental refusal to accept the legitimacy of speech that disagrees with the complainants' viewpoints, deeming it 'hateful' or 'harassing' simply because they do not like hearing it."

"There's nothing to see here, folks," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "There's no comparison between a few scattered instances of whispers and disapproving glares and the very real discrimination, harassment and even violence LGBT people experience every day all over the country. After all, more hate crimes are reported against gay people than any other group per capita in the United States."

"The Petitioners are attempting to create a through-the-looking-glass world in which the aggressors are the victims and the victims the aggressors," said Gary Buseck, Legal Director of GLAD.

"This is an outrageous attempt by anti-gay groups to use false claims of persecution to undermine laws that protect the integrity of the democratic process," said Shannon Price Minter, NCLR Legal Director.

We'll see what the Supremes say about that. As always, they have the last word.

SCOTUS To Hear WA's Referendum 71 Case Doe v Reed

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the now high-profile case of Doe v. Reed on Friday, just like I had hoped for in late October.

This was the second time this week the nation's highest court has intervened in the controversy over whether heterosexual supremacists will be able to shield themselves from public oversight while advocating for public policy changes which would harm the LGBT community. The first action was in their ruling upholding a stay preventing the broadcast of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial.

The second action is summarized by the Washington Post:

The court agreed to decide whether it was unconstitutional for the state of Washington to make public the names of 138,500 voters who signed a petition for a referendum on whether to overturn a state "everything-but-marriage" law. The statute expanded rights for those who entered into domestic partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual.

The group that championed the referendum said rival organizations planned to make the petitioners' names available on the Internet and subject them to "threats, harassment and reprisals." Those groups denied such intentions, and the state said its public-records law required disclosure of the names as part of the transparency that comes with democratic participation.

Protect Marriage Washington was successful in getting the issue to referendum last fall, but not at the ballot box. Washington voters endorsed the law by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.

But the petition-signers' names have not been disclosed. The Supreme Court blocked the release in October while considering whether the case presented a significant question about political speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Washington's public-records law did not violate constitutional protections.

It should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will really decide to strike down Washington State's public disclosure law because of an alleged right of people to participate in enacting (and abolishing) laws through the electoral process anonymously.
This claim makes a mockery of the notion that democracy occurs in an open exchange of ideas and I hope the Supreme Court realizes that and rules for the defendant-appellants, the State of Washington, and upholds the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(It should be noted tat the Supreme Court under Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist has taken great delight in overturning the 9th Circuit on multiple occasions.)

UPDATED 11:59 01/17/2010:

The specific questions the Supreme Court has asked both sides to consider are:

1. Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.

2. Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.

I would say the answer to both questions is "Yes." Let's hope the SCOTUS agrees.

District of Columbia Approves Marriage Equality

The Washington, D.C. City Council has given final approval to a bill to allow the District's residents to get marriage licenses regardless of the gender of the couples involved.

The bill, which passed by an 11-to-2 vote, may still face obstacles in Congress, among city voters and in the courts, but most advocates say they expect it to become law by the spring. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign it.

“Today’s vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights,” said Councilman David A. Catania, an independent and the author of the bill.

Opponents have vowed to overturn the bill by putting it to a referendum or by working with Congress, which has a month to review the measure once it is signed.

The city already recognizes gay marriages performed in states where the practice is legal — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. New Hampshire will begin allowing same-sex marriage early next year.

hat/tip to Wonder Man, who also has National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown's hysterical (in multiple senses of the word) response.

WA State Comprehensive DP Law Now In Effect!

The Approval of Referendum 71 was made official Thursday December 3rd. From the official blog of the Washington State Secretary of State:

Referendum 71, placed on the ballot by foes of same-sex marriage, was approved by a margin of more than 110,000 votes, or more than 6 percentage points. National media describe it as the country’s first voter-approved domestic partnership or “everything-but-marriage” law.

The new law had been on hold pending the public vote, and will now go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, 30 days after the Nov. 3 General Election. The law is Senate Bill 5688 and applies to state-registered domestic partners, both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples where at least one partner is 62 or older.

Congratulations, Washington! Now California (2005), Oregon (2008), Nevada (2009), and Washington (2009), as well as Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have eliminated as many disparities between how the state treats opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples under state law. On the west coast we tend to call these laws "comprehensive domestic partnership" statutes. On the east coast they call them civil unions. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont have now passed marriage equality laws (NH's goes into effect January 1) and New Jersey may join them very soon.

Today is Approved Referendum 71 Day in Seattle!

This is pretty cool. The City of Seattle is declaring today, November 14, 2009, Approved Referendum 71 day. [Note the change in tense from Approve to Approved]

Whereas, civil rights and liberties have long been values of the City of Seattle; and

Whereas, the council recognized the importance of the extended domestic partnership law by endorsing the Approve Referendum 71 Campaign; and

Whereas, equality for all Seattleites is important and has a lasting effect on the city; and

Whereas, the LGBT community is an important and integral part of what makes the City of Seattle a great place to live, work, and go to school; and

Whereas, the historic vote to approve Referendum 71 in Washington State sends a message to the rest of the country that the rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual married couples are now available to same-sex domestic partners registered with Washington State, and provides important protections to all Washington families; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL DECLARES NOVEMBER 14, 2009 TO BE VICTORY, REFERENDUM 71 APPROVED DAY IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.

Referendum 71 Update: Victory Mathematically Certain

The latest tallies on Referendum 71 from the Washington State Secretary of State election results page show that the good guys are ahead 593,956 (51.65%) Approve to 556,090 (48.35%) Reject with 394,282 ballots still to be counted! However, mathematically there is almost no chance that Referendum 71 will be rejected when all the votes are tallied.

The current margin of victory is 37,876 votes. However, 129,000 of the outstanding ballots are from King county which is approving Referendum 71 at a 66%-34% rate that will be a net gain of another 42,000 votes. The rest of the state will not be able to overcome that margin unless they sustain a margin of 58% Reject for ALL of the non King County votes. In order to actually surpass the boost from the uncounted King County ballots combined with the current lead of 37,876 the outstanding non-King county 265,000 ballots would have to be rejecting Referendum 71 at a rate of 65%.

That simply is NOT going to happen. We won!!

Having a statewide vote to approve a comprehensive domestic partnership bill affirmatively is a huge leap forward for the LGBT equality movement. I would note that the last time LGBTs won a statewide vote it was in 2006 when Arizonan's defeated an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment so homophobic it would also have outlawed domestic partnerships. That initiative was rejected in 2006 and then a marriage-only measure was approved by voters in 2008.

I think this makes it clear that states that have anti-marriage constitutional amendments or do not have marriage equality yet should move forward in enacting comprehensive domestic partnership statutes and not be afraid of facing the voters.

3-2-1 Countdown for Equality: No Bittersweet Victories

Washington:

Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year's legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.

What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.

How you do it: Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We'll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.

Maine:Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine's recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine's early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.

What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn't effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We'll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.

How you do it: Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.

Kalamazoo, MI:

Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo's twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.

Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say "No to Discrimination" (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn't true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.

How To Help:

1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign's final field and GOTV efforts.

Give here: http://www.actblue.com/page/3-2-1-countdown

2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign's online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.

Contact voters: http://www.onekalamazoo.com/tellfriends2

Referendum 71 Has Big Leads In Recent Polls

Washington Families Standing Together, the group protecting that state's comprehensive domestic partnership laws, released a poll showing a very strong lead for the Approve Referendum 71 side.

Approve: 53%
Reject: 36%
Undecided: 11%

This is a poll of 500 likely voters. Additionally, the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality at the University of Washington conducted a poll of 724 voters with margin of error of +/-3.6 points which shows registered voters approve referendum 71 56% to 39%, while likely voters it's leading 57% to 38% and among those who have already voted Referendum 71 is ahead 55% to 45%.

Stephen Colbert Takes On Washington's Referendum 71

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 Michael Moore

US Supreme Court Shields WA Referendum-71 Petitioners

On Thursday October 22nd, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (Justice Stevens dissenting) in Doe v. Reed (pdf)to grant Protect Marriage Washington's appeal for an injunction against Washington State's Secretary of State Sam Reed from revealing the names of the 138,500 people who signed petitions to place Referendum 71 (which would repeal that state's comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the November 3rd ballot.

The Supreme Court overruled a quite good decision (pdf) from a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit which had ruled that signing a petition anonymously is not protected under the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision the 9th Circuit Court said:

We conclude that each of the State’s asserted interests is sufficiently
important to justify the PRA’s incidental limitations on referendum petition
signers’ First Amendment freedoms. See O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77. We
conclude also that the incidental effect of the PRA on speech is no greater than
necessary. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 (holding that a
restriction need not be the least restrictive means of furthering the State’s interest
to survive intermediate scrutiny).

Finally, no one has claimed that the State’s interests are at all related to the
suppression or regulation of expression. The stated aim of the PRA, which itself
was passed through the initiative process, is to keep the citizens “informed so that
they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” Wash.
Rev. Code § 42.56.030. There is no indication that despite this clear statement, the
PRA was nonetheless intended to suppress free expression.

Accordingly, we hold that the PRA as applied to referendum petitions does
not violate the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the High Court's action means that Referendum 71 will be decided without the information of who initiated the process being revealed and even whether the measure was properly qualified.

However, the legal dispute over whether petition signatories can have their names shielded is very much alive, and appears in a front page story in today's Los Angeles Times by David Savage, that paper's excellent court reporter.

Several constitutional (and election law) experts are quoted expressing doubt over the proposition that Protect Marriage Washington's legal position will eventually prevail:

First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA questioned whether petition signers have a constitutional right to anonymity.

"As a matter of 1st Amendment law, you have the right to speak anonymously but you don't have a constitutional right to essentially engage in a legally significant action anonymously," he said. "The state can demand you identify yourself on a petition, and at that point it seems the state is entitled to publish it."

Signing a petition is more akin to a lawmaker's vote, which is usually required to be made in public so the citizenry can monitor the progress of the laws that will govern them, legal analysts say.

But Richard Hasen, a Loyola law professor, noted that the Supreme Court in the past has protected civil rights groups and socialists from revealing the names of their members because of fears they could be harassed and intimidated.

"The court would not necessarily construe signing a ballot measure as a 1st Amendment-protected activity," Hasen said. "But if it is, in fact, true that signers face harassment, I think that's troubling."

I'd love to see a full hearing on whether people who have signed petitions have been harassed or not. In Proposition 8, it was the names of donors to Proposition 8, not the names of the 1.1 million people who signed the petitions that were revealed and led to boycotts.

The question is whether the Court will grant certioriari on this legal question after the election, when the question may be moot (if the Referendum is approved). I hope that they do.

VIDEO: Approve Referendum 71 Ad

The latest ad in the fight to save Washington State's comprehensive domestic partnership statute has just been released.



Election Day is in less than 13 days, and all ballots must be mailed in by November 3rd.

I'm glad that they are putting a live LGBT face on the Referendum 71 fight, but did they have to make the ad so somber?

White House Issues (Weak Statement) On ME and WA Anti-Gay Referenda

The Advocate's Washington Bureau reporter Kerry Eleveld was able to get the White House to issue a statement on the anti-gay referenda currently facing two states: Washington (Referendum 71 if not APPROVED would repeal a comprehensive domestic partnership law) and Maine (Question 1 IF PASSED would prevent a marriage equality law from going into effect)

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’"

So, to reiterate, the President of the United States is urging people to Approve Referendum 71 in Washington state and Vote NO on Question 1 in Maine.

First Approve Referendum 71 Ad Out

Ad From Protect Marriage Washington on Referendum 71

Sacred Ground from Protect Marriage Washington on Vimeo.

It should be noted that SB 5688 has nothing to do with marriage in the state of Washington--it enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership bill, similar to California's AB 205 in 2005. But heterosexual supremacists think that any support for same-sex couples equates with "attacking" marriage as currently defined in Washington.

Remember, to keep same-sex couples and their families protected in Washington state, you need to vote to APPROVE REFERENDUM 71.

In other good news, Joe.My.God posts that Referendum 71 is leading by a few points in a recently released SurveyUSA (computer-based) poll:

Voters are divided on Referendum 71, which would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families. The referendum asks voters to approve or reject a state law, signed by Governor Christine Gregoire in May 2009, which expanded the state's domestic partnership laws. Today, 45% of likely voters say they are certain to vote to approve Referendum 71; 42% are certain to reject; 13% are not certain. Among men, the measure is rejected by a 4-point margin; among women, it is approved by 12 points -- a 16-point gender gap. 72% of Republicans say they will vote to reject; 72% of Democrats say they will vote to approve; independents reject by a 13-point margin. In Metro Seattle, the measure is approved by 18 points; in Eastern Washington, it is rejected by 18 points. Western Washington voters outside of Metro Seattle are more divided, with an 8-point margin voting against the referendum.

It's actually a VERY good sign that there is no gap between Republican opposition and Democrat support. It will be all about which electorate turns out to return their mail-only ballots by November 3rd, 2009. It's not a good sign that independents are opposed by 13 points. This race will be close, folks!

Please support Approve Referendum 71 on ACT BLUE!

Nevada Domestic Partnership Law Starts Today

Nevada's new comprehensive domestic partnership law, which was enacted over the Governor's veto earlier this summer, goes into effect today.

Here's a story from the Las Vegas Recorder-Journal about the first couple to get registered in the Silver State:

Tears fell from the eyes of Las Vegans Larry Davis and Lee W. Cagley today as they were handed domestic partnership certificate No. 1 by Secretary of State Ross Miller in the Capitol.

“We feel very fortunate,” said Cagley, an interior designer who redesigned the Governor’s Mansion in its original 1909 style when Miller’s mother, Sandy, was Nevada’s first lady.

“Someone had to be No. 1,” responded Ross Miller, a grin on his face.

His mother, who watched the couple receive their certificate, just smiled.

So far, 746 same- and opposite-sex couples have received domestic partnership certificates from the secretary of state’s offices in Las Vegas and Carson City.

Under a law that went into effect today, the couples gain virtually all the rights and responsibilities as married couples, although they are not considered married under state law.

Congratulations to Nevada in joining California, Oregon, and Washington with comprehensive domestic partnership laws. Unfortunately, in Washington, heterosexual supremacists have subjected the law to Referendum 71 which, unless REJECTED, would prevent the domestic partnership bill from going into effect.

If you know anyone in Washington State, tell them to Approve Referendum 71, in order for same-sex couples to be able register as domestic partnerships in that state.

NEWS: WA's Referendum 71 Apparently Qualifies BY 909 Signatures

This news just in. Referendum 71, the measure which would ask voters whether Washington State's comprehensive domestic partnership bill should be approved or rejected has apparently qualified for the November 3, 2009 ballot, with 121,486 valid signatures, 909 more than needed.

Washington State's domestic partnership law was just expanded this summer to be similar to California's AB 205, and is, in effect, an "everything but marriage" law.

The news that Referendum 71 has apparently qualified was not surprising, although there are several legal challenges and controversies ahead. Washington Families Standing Together has filed a lawsuit challenging the procedures used by the Seretary of State to validate signatures. There are also lawsuits going on as to whether the names of those who signed petitions to qualify Referendum 71 will have their names made public; the names of the donors to the heterosexual supremacist group Protect Marriage Washington are public, despite protestations from the supremacists that their supporters could face intimidation and violence if their names were made public.

WA and ME Face Referenda To Repeal LGBT Rights

Both Maine and Washington state may face public votes to repeal advances in LGBT equality this fall. In Maine, the recently enacted marriage equality law is subject to a People's Veto if enough signatures (55,087) are gathered to put the following question on the ballot:

"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

In Washington, the recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law could be prevented from going into effect on July 26th if enough signatures are collected to support a referendum with this question:

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

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.

Should this bill be:

Approved ___

Rejected ___

It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on the movement to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010 oe 2012 is impacted upon these two anti-gay ballot measures that may happen in 2009.