By Seattle Times Staff and The Associated Press, October 27, 2009

TACOMA — Opponents of expanded benefits for gay couples will have to abide by Washington’s campaign finance laws while their lawsuit challenging those rules moves ahead.

A federal judge has denied emergency requests from a group called Washington Family PAC, which wanted to suspend a ban on large campaign contributions and a requirement to identify donors.

The brand-new political action committee said that the laws were blocking its ability to collect last-minute political contributions in the week before Washington’s general election.

The case revolves around Referendum 71, which would broaden domestic partnership rights for gay couples and unmarried seniors.

Family PAC says the state campaign finance laws violate free speech rights. But state attorneys are defending the campaign finance laws.

Judge Ronald Leighton’s decision Tuesday was a slight setback for Washington Family PAC. A date for a full hearing on the case has not yet been set.

The PAC had challenged the state’s public disclosure laws requiring those who give over $25 to disclose their names and addresses, and those who give more than $100 to disclose their names and employers. It also challenged the $5,000 contribution limit in the last three weeks of the election.

If Family PAC is ultimately successful, the state’s cap on contributions to initiative and referendum campaigns could be eliminated and more donors would be allowed to remain anonymous.

Several constitutional law experts said Family PAC has a strong case — or at least enough to merit a full hearing.

Eugene Volokh, law professor with the University of California, Los Angeles, says contribution limits make sense when applied to candidates because of the fear that a large enough contribution could corrupt them.

But “you can’t cap contributions to ballot measure campaigns because you can’t bribe a ballot measure,” Volokh said.

Volokh also believes Family PAC has a plausible argument that $25 is too low for the government to have a compelling interest in revealing who donated such an amount. Still, he points out, the Supreme Court has upheld disclosure thresholds as low as $10.

Stewart Jay, a University of Washington law professor, said that while campaign donors don’t generally have a right to anonymity, in this case, there are enough plausible concerns about possible harassment for a judge to weigh the evidence.

Washington state’s public disclosure laws, passed in 1972, were designed to ensure integrity in government, stating in part that “the public’s right to know of the financing of political campaigns … far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private.”

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

by: Lurleen, www.pamshouseblend.com
Oct 26, 2009

Washington Families Standing Together has released a new poll. Although the result is encouraging, the message is crystal clear:everybody must vote!
Polling likely voters, the results were

Approve: 53%
Reject: 36%
Undecided: 11%
In September, the margin was 51-44 percent with only 5% Undecided. This shift suggests to the pollster that “the Approve side has solidified its base in recent weeks while the Reject side is losing supporters.”
Lurleen :: New R-71 poll encouraging, but GOTV still vital
“This is both good-and cautionary-news,” said Approve 71 campaign chair Anne Levinson. “These results show that when voters understand what the domestic partnership law is-and the many families who will be harmed if it is repealed-they will vote to approve it.
“Yet, we also know that in an off-year election, older, more conservative voters turn out in greater numbers. While there is broad statewide support for treating all families equally, those who vote will determine the outcome of this election,” Levinson continued. “This poll makes a very clear point: those who want to ensure that legal protections aren’t taken away from gay and lesbian families absolutely have to vote.”

So really the message hasn’t changed. Approve 71 campaign manager Josh Friedes reiterates what we’ve all come to understand only too well
[I]f supportive voters cast their ballots, we will win. …Basic legal protections for thousands of committed couples hinge on this simple act. Our message is ‘Vote now!’
Reminder: Put a stamp on the return envelope before you mail it! If you’re in Pierce Co., make that two stamps.

- Posted by Paul Torres, Seattle PI Blog, October 26th, 2009

Meighan Doherty, a member of the Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) team, set up tables at Rosebud Restaurant & Bar and R Place on Saturday for the final push to get the word out about Referendum 71. Washington Marriage Alliance also supported her tabling effort. Approving Ref 71 accepts SB588 and grants Washington state domestic partners all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples. A No vote would reject SB 5688. Mail in ballots are due Tuesday November 3.

WAFST’s website states, “About Referendum 71: Voting Approve on Ref. 71 is a vote to keep the domestic partnership law that provides legal protections for lesbian and gay couples and seniors who are in committed relationships. To be able to take unpaid leave to care for a critically ill loved one, without being fired. To be able to cover a partner in family health insurance. To make sure hard-earned pension and death benefits protect children when a parent dies. Approving Ref. 71 ensures that important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so that they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis. Keep the domestic partnership law”.

Meighan also helped to organize the protest, march, and rally two weeks ago that was organized by Queer Ally Coalition [founder correction: the march and rally on Oct 11th was organized by a coalition of groups which was brought together by Seattle OUT Protest]. She is a long-time advocate for social justice in the Seattle area having participated in several other organizations like ACTION Northwest and The Backpack Project among others. She believes face-to-face outreach is “key to bringing clarity to those divisive issues that directly impact our lives.” She adds, “voting is our voice to approve Ref 71 and maintain our equal rights.”

Meighan also believes that even at this point so close to the election that there is still some confusion about the referendum. She wanted to target at least two places that are frequented by the people who will most likely be affected by Ref 71. Rosebud and R Place are perfect venues for that. The managers and owners of these respective locales gave her full support on what are usually busy evenings. The issue and its green signs have become a ubiquitous presence not only on the Hill, but across the city’s cars, restaurants, and bars. Prominent organizations supporting this issue are Equal Rights Washington, Washington Families Standing Together, and WhoSigned.org. Supporters and endorsers include Boeing, Microsoft, RealNetworks, Puget Sound Energy, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and Washington Association of Churches. The opposing campaign, Protect Marriage Washington, includes Washington Values Alliance and The Faith and Freedom Network.

If you missed her tabling at these spots, there will be more! Upcoming events supporting Ref 71 will be held at Broadway Grill on Wednesday October 28 at 7 PM and a tabling event at Panache on Friday October 30 12 PM. Both events offer opportunities to discuss and do outreach to the public.

The issue is prominent on Capitol Hill because of the diverse community; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and straight. A content community living with the knowledge they are equal citizens of value energizes the neighborhood and its livelihood. This is why this issue is not only good for Capitol Hill, Seattle, and Washington, but hopefully and eventually the entire United States of America. Advocates like the ones supporting Ref 71 and people like Meighan Doherty and her allies are the leaders in making this positive change happen.

- Reuters, Oct 26, 2009

Former Republican Lawmaker Sets Tone for Other Services

SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Oct. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

The Secretary of the
Army, John McHugh, indicated this weekend that the Army is prepared to lift
the ban on openly gay service if the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress
decide to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a prospect that has gathered
steam in recent weeks. McHugh, formerly a Republican congressman from the
conservative 23rd district of New York, is the highest official inside the
Pentagon to express such support. He told the Army Times on Sunday that there
was no reason to fear that major difficulties would result from lifting the
ban, and that he would help implement the policy change when the time comes.
“The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues,” he said, with
“predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out.” He also suggested that
repeal may come in phases, with early action involving, for example, allowing
open gays to serve in some occupations and not others.

“What we’re seeing is a tipping point in the opinions of both military and
civilian leaders on this issue,” said Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research
fellow at the Palm Center. “The Army is the largest of the services and the
most heavily involved in our wars abroad, and for Secretary McHugh to state
clearly that it can handle repeal sends a strong signal to the other service
secretaries that they can do the same.”

Dr. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said Secretary McHugh’s
comments were enormously significant. But he pointed out that there is no
research to support the idea of letting gay soldiers serve in some units but
not others. “The rationale for the ban applies equally across all job
categories,” he said. “So if it’s okay to be an openly gay Arabic interpreter,
it’s also okay to be openly gay in the infantry or on a submarine. Since
conduct rules apply across the board, there’s just no basis for applying
different standards to different specialties.”

The Palm Center is a think tank at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. Since 1998, the Center has been a leader in commissioning and
disseminating research in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military.
For more information visit www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu.

University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9429, (805) 893-5664,
www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu

Available Topic Experts: For information on the listed experts, click
appropriate link.

Aaron Belkin
https://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=90488

Nathaniel Frank
https://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=85094

SOURCE The Palm Center

Indra Lusero of The Palm Center, +1-303-902-9402,
indr...@palmcenter.ucsb.edu

- Associated Press Oct 26th 2009

WASHINGTON — Opponents of same-sex marriage argued before D.C.’s Board of Elections that they should be able to try to put a measure on the city ballot that would give voters the option of banning same-sex unions.

The Board of Elections began meeting Monday to hear testimony on an initiative that would go on the 2010 ballot. It would ask voters to decide whether they want “only marriage between a man and woman” to be valid in the city.

The two-member board won’t vote Monday on whether the measure meets requirements to go on the ballot. At Monday’s hearing, the board members seemed particularly concerned that the initiative may violate the city’s Human Rights Act, which among other things prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. According to D.C. elections law, a referendum cannot appear on the ballot if it violates the city’s human rights laws.

Earlier this year after Washington officials passed a law to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, the board rejected an effort to hold a referendum on the new law, citing the Human Rights Act.

Lawyers for a group supporting the initiative told the board that it did not violate the 1977 act. The leader of a group trying to get the initiative on the ballot, Bishop Harry Jackson, told the board that the definition of marriage is the “largest public policy issue of our time.”

“We urge you to let the people vote,” said Mr. Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church.

Approximately 100 people, most of whom support putting an initiative on the ballot, signed up to testify at the hearing.

The board will issue a written opinion with its decision. There is no set timeline for the board’s decision. If the board agrees to let supporters go forward with the initiative, however, they would have 180 days to gather enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. The District requires the signatures of 5% of registered voters in order to put the initiative on the ballot.

Also on Monday, a city council committee was set to meet to consider a bill introduced at the beginning of the month that would allow same-sex marriage. If approved by the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, the bill would still need to be approved by the whole city council.

It is expected to easily pass the full council, possibly in December. But if the proposed ban gets on the ballot is and is approved by voters, it would invalidate any law allowing same-sex marriage in Washington. That includes the law currently in effect that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Copyright © 2009 Associated Press

- THE OLYMPIAN | • Published October 25, 2009

Election Day is still a little over a week away, but the voting is well under way.

Since early last week, voters here in South Sound and across the state have had their vote-by-mail ballots in their possession, along with statewide and county voters’ pamphlets to provide candidate position statements, the full texts of Initiative 1033 and Referendum 71 and guidance on the mechanics of voting and delivery of ballots to election officials.

There’s really no excuse at this point for a voter not to cast an informed vote.

But far too many voters look at the off-year elections with indifference, opting to sit on the sidelines until the 2010 election year when statewide contests and congressional seats will be up for grabs.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, no stranger to the nuances and realities of voter turnout after more than 30 years as a county, then state, election official, predicted a 51 percent voter turnout statewide by the time the ballots are counted Nov. 3.

He would love the voters to prove him wrong by turning out in far greater numbers.

“It’s sad to think of nearly half the electorate sitting this one out, particularly when so much is at stake,” Reed said in his get-out-the-vote prepared message.

Thurston County Auditor Kim Wyman estimated a county wide turnout of roughly 60 percent. However, she admitted her higher number might be somewhat wishful thinking.

“In the odd-year elections, we’re typically in the low 50s,” Wyman said of the county vote total.

Both voter participation rates stand in sharp contrast to the 85 percent turnout in last year’s presidential and gubernatorial election year.

The state has nearly 3,576,000 registered voters. That means more than 1.7 million voters are expected to abstain from voting.

There’s a certain irony in the low voter participation rate when local government races dominate the ballot.

Think about it. What political decisions effect daily life the most? Isn’t it the ones that determine land-use zoning in your neighborhood, decide which congested roadways will receive funding for improvements, decide which books children read in school or determine howl long it will take responders to reach your home during a medical emergency or fire?

Those are all local decisions made by locally elected county commissioners, city council members, school board members, fire district commissioners and other nonpartisan elected officials.

What responsible citizen wouldn’t want to have a say in who occupies the council seats at city hall or the commission seats at the county courthouse?

“These are the elections that truly matter,” Wyman said.

It’s also true that some of these local races are not contested. Incumbents oftentimes run unopposed and that’s unfortunate.

But at the same time there are some hotly contested races in just about every community.

Look at the City of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater and outlying towns and cities and say with a straight face that aren’t clear choices to be made. The same holds true for the two county wide races involving seats on the Port of Olympia and Thurston County commissions.

If those elections aren’t enough to whet your appetite, there are two hotly contested statewide ballot measures:

• Initiative 1033, which would tie the growth of state, county and city revenues to inflation and population growth, except for voter- approved revenue increases.

• Referendum 71, which extends the rights, responsibilities and obligations of married spouses to same-sex and senior domestic partners, short of marriage.

Voting is not just a right, it’s a responsibility. Elections can be decided by the barest of margins, so every vote can, and does, count.

Use the county and state voters’ pamphlets to familiarize yourself with the issues.

Follow the pre-election coverage provided by the media. Listen to what the candidates have to say. Discuss and debate the issues with friends, neighbors and family members.

Then, most important, vote.

By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter

In the past several weeks, Jessica Gavre, director of the social-justice program at First United Methodist Church in Tacoma, has knocked on doors, hosted a fundraiser at her church and handed out inserts for church bulletins — all on behalf of Referendum 71.

She and others at her church have urged fellow faith leaders to preach sermons and write letters to the editor about the importance of upholding the recent expansion of the state’s domestic-partnership law for same-sex and senior couples.

“Our faith community believes that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law,” Gavre said.

While opposition to R-71 has been largely driven by religious conservatives, and much attention has been paid to their efforts, there are also many people of faith who support the referendum.

About 200 clergy and religious organizations — including the Church Council of Greater Seattle and the Washington Association of Churches — have signed on to a statement supporting R-71.

The Approve 71 campaign has left it up to individual congregations and their clergy or members to decide how best to show support.

Some faith leaders have preached about it, held educational forums or are participating in rallies, including one planned for Sunday at East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellevue. Proceeds from a Monday screening of the new movie “Oy Vey! My Son is Gay!,” co-sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, will benefit the Approve 71 campaign.

“There’s this huge fallacy that the debate about gay rights is a debate between gay and lesbian people and secular people on the one side, and people of faith on the other,” said Josh Friedes, spokesman for the coalition to approve R-71. “The truth is very, very different.”

R-71 asks voters to approve or reject a recent law expanding the state benefits — mostly work-related — granted to registered gay and senior couples.

It’s been called the “everything but marriage” law because it grants the same state — though not federal — benefits given to married couples.

Many people of faith have expressed opposition to the law — including the state’s five Roman Catholic bishops — seeing it as a bridge to same-sex marriage, which they believe is unbiblical.

“Those that adhere to 2,000 years of Christian traditional doctrine would line up with us,” said Larry Stickney, a leader in the campaign to reject R-71.

But many other believers support the domestic-partnership law, saying the referendum is not about marriage but about equality — which the Bible calls them to work toward.

“The church has a role in creating a society that’s just and fair. To me, this referendum’s about that,” said Bishop Greg Rickel of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia in Western Washington. “All Ref. 71′s trying to do is give them [gay and lesbian couples] some of the equal protections that help them function as a committed couple in society. I’m for that.”

At Temple Beth Am in Seattle, Rabbi Jonathan Singer talked about the issue during a recent High Holy Days service.

“Our people, having experienced privation and oppression, know more than others what it means when a majority tries to take rights away from a minority,” he said.

Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu@seattletimes.com

- from http//jusiper.blogspot.com Octber 23rd, 2009

Maybe it’s time for its tax exemption to be revisited?

Some parishioners may have other questions:

Maine’s Catholic diocese is closing five more churches because of tight finances and changing demographics.

In Lewiston, St. Joseph and St. Patrick Catholic churches will close sometime in October.

The diocese Portland diocese has money to campaign against gay marriage but not to keep churches open.

Truth be told, it’s amazing the diocese has any money at all given the staggering amount of sexual abuse that occurred under its watch (going back at least sixty years, we found out this week).

For more on this article, visit http://jusiper.blogspot.com/2009/10/catholic-diocese-gives-152600-to-anti.html

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter
Oct 22nd, 2009

A Lynnwood-based organization that opposes the state’s domestic partnership law and is working to defeat Referendum 71 has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma seeking to circumvent campaign contribution limits of $5,000 and to keep secret the names of those who make smaller donations.

State campaign finance laws require campaigns to disclose names and addresses of those who donate over $25 to a campaign. Campaigns must also include employer names and addresses as well as the occupations of donors contributing over $100. The laws limit to $5,000 contributions from businesses and individuals made within 21 days of the general election.

The attorney for the Family Policy Institute of Washington, which filed the lawsuit through its newly formed Family PAC late Wednesday, acknowledged that there are substantial contributions in the offing that the campaign wants to accept but can’t because of the limits.

It comes just over a week after the state’s donation limits took effect and names Washington’s secretary of state, attorney general and members of the Public Disclosure Commission, which oversees the state’s campaign contributions laws. By midafternoon today, state officials had not yet been notified of the lawsuit.

The suit is the latest development in a months-long contentious legal back and forth involving Referendum 71, which is asking voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting marriage-like benefits to gay couples and some senior couples.

Family PAC is seeking a temporary restraining order to lift the $5,000 limit and skip the requirement to identify those who donate at a certain level — although it didn’t specify what that level should be. It has asked for an expedited hearing on its restraining-order request in the hope of being able to accept the large donations in the time remaining before the Nov. 3 election.

James Bopp Jr. of Indiana, a conservative federal and state elections-law attorney, is representing Family PAC. He said the state’s threshold for identifying donors is among the lowest in the country. “What person in their right mind would vote for or against gay rights based on Joe Blow giving $26 in a campaign involving millions of dollars?” he said.

He said it’s the responsibility of the state to determine the level at which voters will begin to care: “$10,000, maybe? Certainly not $25 or $100.”

Bopp, who is general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, is also the attorney representing Protect Marriage Washington in that group’s lawsuit, now before U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to block the names of those who signed Referendum 71 petitions.

He said: “After the harassment directed at supporters of Proposition 8 last year in California, no one should have their personal information published on the Internet for making a contribution and certainly not at the irrational levels set by the state of Washington.

“The First Amendment protects citizens engaged in political speech from compelled disclosure,” Bopp said. “Disclosure thresholds such as these discourage individuals from participating in the political process.”

The suit has been assigned to Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or ltur...@seattletimes.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

President Obama has said the country must make significant changes to ensure equal rights.

The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama’s desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay teenager who was beaten to death in 1998.

Holder called Thursday’s 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure “a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence.”

“The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence,” he said in a statement.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure “our nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

“Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence,” Solmonese said in a statement. “We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country.”

This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

“Despite the progress we’ve made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open,” he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. “This fight continues now, and I’m here with the simple message: I’m here with you in that fight.”

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or “nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.