Letter to NARAL WA
This morning I received an email from NARAL WA's updates list containing their endorsements for the WA primary -- most of us will be receiving ballots early next week. I nearly deleted it, but decided to skim it, and I'm glad I did, because I found a rather shocking tidbit:
STATEWIDE INITIATIVES:
No on I-1033: Tim Eyman's latest initiative would devastate state funding for key programs including state funding for healthcare.
Yes on Ref. 71: if qualified for the November ballot, R-71 would preserve Washington's recently expanded domestic partners statute.
Sure, sure, I vote no on anything Tim Eyman is associated with, no surprise there... wait, WTF? I'll paste the next bit again, with emphasis.
Yes on Ref. 71: if qualified for the November ballot, R-71 would preserve Washington's recently expanded domestic partners statute.
...
.....
Clearly they've been getting their information from those out-of-state paid signature gatherers that heinousbitca tweeted about a few weeks ago.
So, I tried to set them straight. (*cough* no pun intended)
Hello,
I am concerned about your endorsement of R-71 -- although some of their signature gatherers have indeed been telling people that it is a pro-queer referendum, in fact the "Yes" campaign's website is http://protectmarriagewa.com/ and contains choice bits such as:
The mission of the new PAC is to organize the effort to gather the 120,577 required signatures for Referendum 71 by July 25, 2009 to bring the controversial Senate Bill 5688 before the voters of Washington State in November. SB 5688 is a 110 page document which includes the phrase "marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships" 180 times.
SB 5688 was packaged and presented to the legislature as a Domestic Partnerships expansion of benefits. In truth, it will demolish the state's historical understanding and definition of marriage as that of uniting a man and a woman for life as Washington State will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding that the courts overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and impose "same-sex marriage" (as happened recently in California prior to Proposition 8).
In fact, R-71 is intended by its writers to overturn recent domestic partnership legislation. I realize that same-sex marriage is not one of NARAL's causes, but I can't help but think your endorsement of this referendum was based on a misunderstanding of its effects if passed. If I am right, I hope you will send a retraction of that endorsement to your mailing list subscribers.
Thank you,
Wendy Ashmun
I will post about any response and/or retraction I see.
This entry was originally posted at http://wendolen.dreamwidth.org/587027.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
STATEWIDE INITIATIVES:
No on I-1033: Tim Eyman's latest initiative would devastate state funding for key programs including state funding for healthcare.
Yes on Ref. 71: if qualified for the November ballot, R-71 would preserve Washington's recently expanded domestic partners statute.
Sure, sure, I vote no on anything Tim Eyman is associated with, no surprise there... wait, WTF? I'll paste the next bit again, with emphasis.
Yes on Ref. 71: if qualified for the November ballot, R-71 would preserve Washington's recently expanded domestic partners statute.
...
.....
Clearly they've been getting their information from those out-of-state paid signature gatherers that heinousbitca tweeted about a few weeks ago.
So, I tried to set them straight. (*cough* no pun intended)
Hello,
I am concerned about your endorsement of R-71 -- although some of their signature gatherers have indeed been telling people that it is a pro-queer referendum, in fact the "Yes" campaign's website is http://protectmarriagewa.com/ and contains choice bits such as:
The mission of the new PAC is to organize the effort to gather the 120,577 required signatures for Referendum 71 by July 25, 2009 to bring the controversial Senate Bill 5688 before the voters of Washington State in November. SB 5688 is a 110 page document which includes the phrase "marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships" 180 times.
SB 5688 was packaged and presented to the legislature as a Domestic Partnerships expansion of benefits. In truth, it will demolish the state's historical understanding and definition of marriage as that of uniting a man and a woman for life as Washington State will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding that the courts overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and impose "same-sex marriage" (as happened recently in California prior to Proposition 8).
In fact, R-71 is intended by its writers to overturn recent domestic partnership legislation. I realize that same-sex marriage is not one of NARAL's causes, but I can't help but think your endorsement of this referendum was based on a misunderstanding of its effects if passed. If I am right, I hope you will send a retraction of that endorsement to your mailing list subscribers.
Thank you,
Wendy Ashmun
I will post about any response and/or retraction I see.
This entry was originally posted at http://wendolen.dreamwidth.org/587027.html. Please comment there using OpenID.