Mail Ballots Today

If you have not already mailed your ballot to approve Referendum 71, this weekend is the last opportunity to do so. If your ballot is not in a USPS collection box by Monday morning, it is probably best to physically drop it at the Elections Office or at the permanent red ballot box near west 14th and Esther streets.

If your ballot is missing or damged, a replacement ballot may be obtained only from the Elections Office at 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver before 5 p.m. Phone (360) 397-2345 for more information, or visit their web page at ClarkVotes.org


The permanent election box is available 24 hours a day, and shall be staffed until 8pm on Tuesday, November 3.

Letter of the Week from Joe Mirabella

Bloggers have been important in helping to distribute news about the Referendum 71 campaign, even before there was a campaign. Among the finest of these has been Joe Mirabella, whose post is inspirational enough to be our final "letter of the week."

"Her R71 ballot was the last document that she attached her signature to."

Whidbey left the following comment on my blog yesterday:

Posted by Whidbey at 10/27/09 8:46 a.m.

My 73 year old mother, voted for R71 last week as she lay in her hospice bed. She wanted to make sure that if she did not live till election day, that her vote would be registered in favor. Last night, at 5:05 pm, she died peacefully. Her R71 ballot was the last document that she attached her signature to.

There are hardly words to express how touching this story is. It immediately brought tears to my eyes. As so many of us are working around the clock to make sure referendum 71 is approved, this moment gives us pause. It reminds us why we are doing what we do. Whidbey's mom did not live long enough to see a world where all people are treated equally, but as part of her legacy she wanted to use her last moments of energy towards that goal.

I thought of my Grandmother, who passed away in 2008 when I saw Whidbey's comment. She developed Alzheimers just as I came out. She met my partner and I remember her asking once when he left the room to use the bathroom, "he is special to you, isn't he?"

I replied, "yes he means a lot to me, and I hope to spend the rest of my life with him."

She said, "Well you deserve to. He is a wonderful person." When he returned from the bathroom she had already forgotten the conversation. "Hi, I'm Helen. Have we met?"

Her birthday was in September, so I visited her grave to leave flowers. I meditated there for a moment and wondered what she would think of this fight. I wondered what she would say to comfort me the way she did when I was a child. She never hated anyone in her life, so her kindness and gentle attitude would have been a gift to us all. For a moment, I wished as people do at cemeteries, for a sign that she was watching. It started to rain.

As I drove away I thought, "I hope you are proud of me, because you meant the world to me." The rain stopped and an enormous rainbow spanned across the sky appearing to land directly on my grandmother's grave. In that moment my atheist tendencies were challenged. I felt loved.

It is important to take pause and think of all the people who love us. These campaigns are emotionally challenging for the LGBT community. On a daily basis we face our opponent's attacks. They say we are less than human, deserve to go to hell, and in some cases they say we should be killed. And then after months of enduring the onslaught of anger, the entire state votes on our worthiness to society and whether we should have the simple right to care for our families in times of crisis. Nationally, our community always loses these races -- reaffirming the anger that so violently attacks our psyche and our families.

Our country is evolving, though. I firmly believe that this year may be the year we make history by approving referendum 71 to keep the domestic partnership law. As our neighbors are voting on our right to care for our families, I am making the conscious choice to tune out our opponents hate and focus entirely on all the wonderful people who love our community. When times get rough, think of Whidbey's mom. Feel her love. I don't know who she is, or what the rest of her life was like, but I know she would be proud of us. I know she cared enough to use her name one last time for good. For that she will be immortal in my heart, as I am sure she will be for many of you.

==========

Read more of his work at the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Stephen Colbert Endorses Approval of 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 Religion

Transcript from humorist Stephen's Colbert "The Word" on The Colbert Report, Monday, 27 October 2009.

Nation: I don't like Washington state. First off, they're putting us all in danger by trying to pop space with that giant needle. And now just look at what their governor did.

(K5 news video featuring Governor Christine Gregoire on May 18)

Surrounded by same-sex couples and their families, the governor signed a bill today which guarantees them everything but marriage.

"And today we complete, we complete the rights and responsibilities for domestic partners so they mirror those granted to heterosexual couples couples under the civil marriage laws of our state."

Yeah, they call it "everything but marriage," but I say if it looks like a duck, and files a joint tax return like a duck, and gets to visit its duck partner in a duck hospital, you might as well register at the Duck Pottery Barn because it is gay duck marriage. And we know, folks: We know that there are gay ducks!

Well, thankfully a group called Protect Marriage Washington led a petition drive that put a referendum on the ballot to overturn "everything but marriage," and they backed it up with some chilling ads:

(excerpt of October 16 video from Protect Marriage Washington)

In May of 2004, gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia. What happened? Did you know that year year alone suicide rates doubled, the illegal drug rate increased nineteen times.

Terrifying.

And that ad is no less terrifying just because there is no country called Scandinavia, none of the countries in Scandinavia passed gay marriage laws in 2004, and the statistics on suicide and drug use are just made up. I say it just proves the terrible toll gay marriage has on fact checking.

Well of course the GAYstapo has now asked the state of Washington to disclose the names of everyone who signed the petition. But the conservative group that organized it wants to keep the names secret. I assume they'll just hide the list in a place where gays would never look, like J. C. Penney's.

This week the United States Supreme Court stopped the release of the petitioner's names. But it is only a temporary reprieve folks, and it brings us to tonight's Word. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Folks: This case involves Americans' most precious right, the freedom of speech. Now, sure, this petition affects legislation, is part of the public record, and the law says that voters have the right to know who signed it. But the lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington, Jame's Bopp says that:

The first amendment protects citizens from government compelled disclosure of their identity when they are engaged in political speech.

Exactly! Signing a petition is a sacred trust between you and a stranger at a folding table outside the mall. Just imagine what would happen if those names were released. I'll let a man with a strange name explain.

(Komo 4 television sound bite showing an "Eddie Spaghetti")

Who knows where these digital copies or personal identifiers could end up. They could end up in China.

God knows what what could happen if our names ended up in China. Folks: This is a terrible invasion of the petitioners' privacy. If those names were released, we would all to know the signer's sexual orientation orientation, by which I mean their orientation about other peoples' sexual orientation. And that's a very personal thing.

Now some say, some say: "Hey. Too bad. They chose to sign that petition." But folks, I don't think it is a choice. I believe you're born thinking gays don't have the right to get married. Or even be joined in union. And folks, the gays have no right to out those people.

Now, my personal sexual orientation orientation is a matter of public record. I've said countless times that I don't believe gays should be allowed to marry. Or get driver's licenses. Or join the Subway "Sub Club." But some of these petition signers may have open-minded parents who are not ready to accept that their child is intolerant. They also may not be ready to tell their co-workers that their friend Philip isn't just a "roommate" but a very special someone who helps them make up facts about Scandinavia.

Folks: We need to protect this persecuting minority. And the only way I can see to do that is for Washington residents to vote in favor of gay domestic partnerships, because then no one will care who signed this petition. And these people can stay in the closet that the gay people have abandoned.

And that's "The Word." We'll be right back.

Large Companies Support Domestic Partnership as Good for Business

When Starbucks officially endorsed approval of Referendum 71 last week, it caused a slight flurry within the ranks of opponents, but many large employers have done so, including Google just yesterday. Fair-minded employers and smart money appreciate that treating people well is good for business. Fortune 500 companies have long recognized that the best companies need the best talent, and that extending common courtesies such as employer-provided benefits to the partners of all employees makes them more attractive, and more competitive in a global marketplace. Microsoft and Nike, Adidas and Boeing are not just competing for customers, but with international companies for the finest marketing and engineering minds in the world. The extension of benefits to domestic partners (whether straight, gay or lesbian) has been key to that for many years.

Back in September a number of these businesses joined to issue a statement, immediately after it was clear that Referendum 71 would be on the ballot. In this economy, Washington did not need the black eye of being seen as a bedroom for bigotry.

We are a group of businesses who stand united together by the commonality of our companies’ core values, which respect and support employees with diverse backgrounds. We are committed to supporting our employees and our customers and to ensuring the health of our communities. Accordingly, we support the campaign to Approve Referendum 71.

Approving this referendum will preserve Senate Bill 5688, a measure passed by the Legislature in 2009 to extend to state-registered domestic partnerships the benefits, obligations and responsibilities that apply to traditional marriages. The law does not sanction or encourage same-sex marriage. It simply recognizes that, regardless of their sexual orientation, people may enter into partnerships and create family units that deserve respect and equal treatment.
Overturning this law would undo years of equal rights progress made in Washington state. We do not believe that this step backward would be in the best interest for the future of our state.

As businesses, we strive to create workplaces where all employees can develop challenging careers with opportunities for growth, competitive rewards and a balance between work and home life. In a fast-paced, competitive environment, this is a shared responsibility between our companies and our employees. For this reason, our companies have adopted progressive policies that foster a diverse and inclusive work environment. Our employees know that they will be treated fairly, without being subject to prejudice or discrimination.

Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys these same basic protections in other aspects of their lives. The Legislature took an important step in that direction by passing SB 5688, and did so without placing any undue burden on the business environment or imposing excessive taxpayer cost. We believe that this action was consistent with our corporate principles in treating all employees with fairness and respect.

We embrace everyone’s fundamental right to be judged on their merits and contributions rather than factors such as their sexual orientation. Because rejecting the law would stem progress toward that goal, we urge a vote to approve Referendum 71.

The businesses issuing this statement were Boeing, Microsoft, Nike, Puget Sound Energy, RealNetworks and Vulcan. They were shortly followed by the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and many other business groups, large and small, including most of the state's newspapers and editorial boards.

The basic fairness these companies have shown internally has become public with the need to approve Referendum 71 in defense of Washington's domestic partnership law. Microsoft backed up its support with hard cash, because it is a sound political and business decision.

Basic fairness and protection of domestic partnership rights in Washington is everyone's business. Please vote to approve Referendum 71.

The Myth of Ozzie & Harriet

by Rory Bowman
Opponents of Washington's domestic partnership law like to tell fairy tales about Ozzie and Harriet, going so far as to use the image from this 1950's comedy to disparage what they call "non-traditional" families. That most real-world families do not match this model is irrelevant, as is the fact that both David and "Ricky" Nelson went on to divorces themselves. They use weasel words to mention "thousands of studies that show negative outcomes for children that are denied both a mother and father," but fail to note that many of those studies are addressing cases where one parent is a drug addict, alcoholic, physically abusive, imprisoned, dead or in cases of incest, abandonment or other family-court intervention. The ideal of two parents who marry once and then never divorce is seldom met, even in the most "conservative" of churches.

Since most domestic partnerships involve people over fifty and do not include households with children, the entire issue is something of a red herring. Domestic partnerships do not inherently affect children any more than they command the schools to teach that sexual activity between senior citizens is "normal and natural," but what are the real studies on children who grow up with one or more same-sex partners as parents?

The vast majority of research shows that a stable and loving home is the important thing, whether that home is created with a "blended family," by adoption or with an extended family which may include childcare from seniors or same-sex domestic partners. The conservative group NARTH, which actively encourages therapy for "unwanted homosexual attraction" cites a study which shows clear positive differences in children raised by lesbian or gay couples, with males showing more nurturing behaviors and females more likely to have "higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female," such as public safety and science. The American Psychological Association has a free PDF which outlines research on gay and lesbian parents, which shows similar positive outcomes, especially when compared to children growing up in foster homes, shared-custody divorce situations or a single parent. WebMD addresses the same issue and shows similar positive outcomes:

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

Although supportive, two-parent households are strongly correlated with child health and positive social outcomes, the gender of parents does not seem to be the case. It is the presence of multiple loving adults that makes life better for children, not the presence of adults with specific genitals.

For many years the family courts in Washington and elsewhere have recognized the value of a stable home environment for optimal development of young people. One parent is better than no parent, and two parents are better than one parent, if a home is stable and free of violence. A key goal of stable marriages and domestic partnerships is the provision of stable homes for families of all kinds: young or old, gay, lesbian or straight.

Be they biological, blended, adopted or court-assigned, parents are the main thing that helps to raise healthy children, which is presumably why Larry Stickney has married three times. Protect all families by approving Referendum 71 to support registered domestic partners here in Washington state. Not all of Washington's 6000+ domestic partnerships involve children, but for those which do this is important.

Ozzie and Harriet were good parents, who raised good children. Other parents and children should have the same opportunities. Protect all families by approving Referendum 71.

Letter of the Week: Rob Woutat

Opposition to R-71 Doesn't Make Sense

The legislative bill related to Referendum Measure 71 passed in our state senate this year 30 to 18 and in our state house 62 to 35, but now, because of a citizens’ petition, it appears on our November ballot:

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.

According to our state voters’ pamphlet, the referendum is supported by the Washington Association of Churches, the Associated Ministries of Pierce County, the Lutheran Public Policy Network, Mainstream Republicans, the Washington State Bar Association, and numerous other organizations. The voters’ pamphlet lists no organizations opposing the referendum.

While the measure is about domestic partnerships, everyone recognizes that if it passes, at some point marriage will be the next logical step.

At issue here is the definition of “marriage” and an understanding of its purpose. In Western civilization the institution has always involved a legally recognized union of a man and a woman with the purpose of providing social stability and an arrangement conducive to raising children

But within the scope of that idea, marriages have take various shapes and served additional purposes. In Europe, even into the 20th century, marriages were often arranged for the purpose of peace between nations or to form strategic alliances against a common enemy. Often they’re used to consolidate and secure of the succession of property within a family and social class.

In American Colonial times, a man and woman became married merely by saying they were, and since women’s rights then didn’t go much beyond the right to bear children and to obey her man, it was probably the man and his wife’s father who did most of the saying.

In the ante bellum South, marriage was denied to slaves because slaves were considered property so, logically, one piece of property can’t marry another piece of property. Interracial marriages were, if not illegal, at least grounds for ostracism. Just this week we read news reports of a white Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who defied his state’s Judicial Code of Ethics and refused to marry a white woman and a black man because, he said, interracial marriages don’t last very long.

It has been more than 200 years since we declared as a founding principle of our country that all of us have equal opportunity. But Blacks knew for centuries that as good as the principle sounds on a philosophical level, in practice it was plain hypocrisy. Women knew it too, having been denied the right to own property, to vote, to become firefighters and police officers and soldiers and CEO’s and to get equal pay for equal work.

But over the course of our history, a growing sense of fairness made it more and more difficult to deny to others the rights that first were reserved only for white, property-owing males. As a society, we have made progress in fulfilling our original promise to all, but it has been grindingly slow because of myths perpetuated to block the way:

Blacks are uneducable and not fit for citizenship. They’re unable to care for their children. They want to take over “our” country.

Women are physically and intellectually fragile, not fit for politics and commerce, needing men to guide them and protect them and make decisions for them.

Myths are serving still to deny the full rights of citizenship to homosexuals:

They’re pedophiles with an “agenda” to recruit others to their sexual practices.

They’re all about promiscuous sex and don’t want long-term relationships.

Gay men are all trying to be women and lesbians are all trying to be men.

There’s no evidence that same-sex unions or marriages are any less stable than marriages between men and women, or that same-sex couples are any less qualified to provide a stable and loving environment for raising children, or that the incidence of homosexuality in those children will differ from the incidence in the public at large. Without that kind of evidence, opponents of Referendum 71 don’t have much to go on.

“Marriage is not an institution that’s etched in stone,” says Steven Mintz, a University of Houston professor who specializes in family history. “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands and say: ‘When? And where?’ ”

Rob Woutat

The Lie of Religious Intolerance

by Rory Bowman

Among many people who feel rejected by the church is a strong belief that organized religion is inherently intolerant, which I believe to be false. It was the Roman Catholic doctrine around corporal acts of mercy which led directly to the modern concept of public hospitals, draws from this tradition, as expressed in Matthew 25:31-40

³¹"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. ³⁴Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. ³⁶I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? ³⁸When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

⁴⁰"The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Jessica Gavre is one among hundreds of religious leaders and organizations working for the approval of Referendum 71. Like the Washington Association of Churches, the Church Council of Greater Seattle and many within the Community of Welcoming Congregations, she sees this as a natural extension of a social-justice ministry.

The Christian New Testament tells us that Jesus did not spend much of his time among kings or arguing each jot and tittle of the law, but rather in the world preaching and performing acts of love and kindness. It is no accident that the early abolitionists were almost entirely motivated for the elimination of slavery by religious belief, or that their successors such as Dr. Martin Luther King and Archbishop Desmond Tutu were also religious men. From non-Christians such as Socrates to Mohandis Ghandi, many of the greatest and most inspirational leaders for civil rights have been religious people, and that tradition did not end with the introduction of Referendum 71.


Modern observers of religion (and especially conservative televangelists) may be surprised to know how many modern "conservative" churches had their origins in egalitarian ideals such as the Baptist concepts of church autonomy, racial integration, separation of church and state or the "priesthood of all believers." Although radical for their time and forgotten by many outsiders, these ideals are very much alive in the hearts and pews of southwest Washington's believers.

Here in Clark County, some of the earliest proponents and allies for referendum 71 came from religious organizations: the Young Women's Christian Association of Clark County, congregation Kol Ami, Vancouver Heights United Methodist, Hazel Dell's First Congregational Church, Vancouver Unitarian Universalists, the Community of Welcoming Congregations and other parishioners at long-established churches such as First United Methodist and St Luke's Episcopal. These congregations and others are actively working for social justice in the grand tradition of the prophets, demonstrating clearly how traditions of divine love are made concrete.

Many years ago, in high school, I was sweet on a minister's daughter and the minister was very kind to me. Given that I was not of their denomination (and that my interest was not entirely pure) I marveled that her family accepted me. "There is only one body of Christ," she explained, "as crippled and broken and bruised at it is." Tolerance for other denominations and lifestyles was an essential part of their faith, as it has been for the many other friends and colleagues over the year. From atheists to secular humanists, to Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, Muslims and Jews, all people of goodwill are in some sense one body. "God doesn't need the church," as another friend recently put it: "It is mankind that needs the church, and the love of God."

As Kennewick pastor Bob Jackson sees it, a vote for approval of Referendum 71 is in the same vein as past struggles against slavery, for women's suffrage and against racial discrimination.

I vote to approve Referendum 71 because I believe, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, that we are a people of “liberty and justice for all.” That patriotic stance is based upon my religious convictions as a follower of Jesus, who said that “all the law and the prophets” can be summarized by “loving God with your whole being” and “loving your neighbor as you love yourself.”

After forty years in the pulpit he loudly says "we must not take away from others those rights that we cherish for ourselves."

Working for the approval of Referendum 71, in support of seniors and same-sex domestic partnership, I have had the pleasure to meet many people that I might not have otherwise met, and been impressed by the love and goodwill so many people of faith have for others. Be they young or old, Mormon or Catholic, lesbian, gay or heterosexual, they all support civil rights for their neighbors: black or white, gay or straight, old or young, saved or infidel.

"Given the diversity of creation," one said, "who am I to judge?"

Not all people of faith are intolerant and hypocritical bigots, as many are proving with their time and votes to approve Referendum 71.

In the immortal words of Tiny Tim, "God bless us, every one."

44 Cents for Freedom

Despite neutral polls which show strong majority support for domestic partnerships and partisan polls which show majority support for Referendum 71 and decreasing opposition even among evangelicals to "same sex marriage" (not on the ballot this year), the single most important factor for Referendum 71 to pass is a large voter turnout.

Opponents of civil equality for domestic partners of all orientations understand that their window for "success" is closing and so they see 2009 as a last-ditch opportunity to stop domestic partnerships. As people realize that the orderly transfer of property and custody of children is not a disaster, Washingtonians are reasonable and fair toward their neighbors. In off-year elections, though, majority support matters less than zealot turnout.

Campaign strategists tend to classify voters as "1x4," "2x4" or "4x4" depending on how often they vote in elections. Presidential voters are 1x4's, they only vote one year out of four. Congressional voters are 2x4's and tend only to vote every two years, when there is a federal election. 4x4 voters vote every year they can, including in primaries and special elections. Needless to say, when building a stronger future, 4x4's are better material than the others.

Please be sure you take five minutes this month to fill out your ballot in support of Referendum 71, drop off your ballot or slip it in the mail. The cost of a stamp is only 42 cents, and that is a very good investment in the future. Please put down your yes vote on Referendum 71 and your forty-four cents for freedom.

One stamp, one vote: Approve Referendum 71.

The Lie of Ethnic Homophobia

by Rory Bowman
Opponents of civil rights for minority religions or same-sex partners like to portray people of color as their natural allies. Since many black people go to church, they argue, and they themselves go to church, then surely black people will agree with them on "culture war" issues such as domestic partnerships. Attorney Steve O’Ban uses this technique when mentioning how he "represented 35 African-American ministers" on a recent video, failing to note that he recruited most of those ministers. Such "dog whistle" language is common, as when an anti-71 pamphlet quotes Jesse Jackson, failing to note that he supports domestic partnerships. That they spell his name incorrectly (to create the impression he is a she, one of the most insulting things they can imagine) is too clever by half. People of color are neither ignorant nor inherently intolerant.

As someone who taught US history to a classroom of fifth-graders at McDonogh #19 in New Orleans' lower ninth ward, I have always taken exception to characterizations of ethnic communities and "people of color" as inherently more homophobic than other groups. Although certainly the "religious right" likes to play up that image, I met more than one "strong-minded women" and dedicated choir directors in my time, and saw the love and acceptance those people had in their families and communities for who they were. Opponents of referendum 71 like to portray the past as an Ozzie and Harriet utopia (ignoring the fact that both Nelson sons went on to their own divorces), but communities of color are diverse, and not necessarily homophobes. I suppose there is something about having had your own culture and family models vilified as abnormal that makes one more likely to resepect the families of others.

Just in the past week I can name various ways that people of color have stood up for civil rights on behalf of all people, including support for seniors and same-sex couples as embodied in Washington's referendum 71.

This past weekend's Washington Post had an excellent article by a straight black baptist preacher and a gay Unitarian, in observance of the recent "march for equality" in that city. In it they explode two clear myths of "God vs gays" as "black vs white." As leaders of a coalition of more than 200 ministers united in support of all people, similar to our own local "welcoming congregations."

This came on the same day as a press release noting that almost three dozen different "ethnic" organizations had stood up to support approval of Referendum 71. Made up of groups from the Japanese American Citizens League to the Northwest Indian Bar Association, Urban League and Seattle-King County NAACP, these groups understand that Referendum 71 protects a diverse number of families including, significantly, senior citizens.

Often seniors who are widowed or divorced will suffer serious economic hardship if they remarry. Under Social Security, there is a “marriage penalty” which puts seniors’ benefits in peril if they remarry. The domestic partnership law allows unmarried senior couples to have the legal protections they need to take care of each other, to be able to provide insurance or take family or medical leave if a partner is gravely ill, and to make critical decisions for one another in times of crisis – without losing benefits that for many may be their only source of income. They should not have to live in poverty in order to be together with the person they love.

Although divisive political actors may seek to portray modern civil rights issues as "blacks versus gays" or "God versus the secularists," it is clear that most Washingtonians of all colors support civil rights for all people, regardless of age, race, religion or sexual orientation. Two pastors showed this clearly, just this past week, speaking on behalf of a hundred as many other clergy and who knows how many thousand parishioners. Dozens of other organizations did the same in support of Referendum 71 and Washington state's existing domestic partnership law.

Love is bigger than short-sighted hate, as hope is greater than fear. The voters of Washington stand poised to prove that, by approving Referendum 71 this coming week.

Real-World Example: Claire & Harriet

From yesterday's Columbian


Defending Domestic Partnership: Vancouver Women have Suffered Laws' Effects on Their Health, Pocketbooks

by Kathie Durbin, The Columbian, Tuesday, 20 October 2009, p. C1.

Claire Fulenwider and Harriet Forman found their Vancouver dream house tucked into a forested bower in West Minnehaha one year ago.

They moved to Vancouver from Santa Fe, N.M., so Fulenwider, 67, could accept a position as executive director of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, a Portland nonprofit.

Forman, 66, is a retired elementary and middle school teacher and principal who taught in Wisconsin and New Mexico.

The two were married in New Mexico, where in 2004 a county clerk briefly issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the practice was shut down by the state's attorney general.

But that marriage is not recognized in Washington under the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

Each woman has an irrevocable living trust naming the other as her beneficiary. Those trusts are not legally valid in Washington either, Fulenwider said.

Read the full story at The Columbian website, or subscribe for home delivery.

If There Were Only Two Weeks Left

If there were only two weeks left to help approve Referendum 71, what are the most effective things that an average person can do? A quick list based on what we are doing here in southwest Washington with a thank you to Lurleen & Joe Mirabella.

1. Direct voter contact is the name of the game, and phone-banking is the second-best way to do this. Either visit the Approve71.org phone bank instructions or find a phone bank to join.
   
   
2. Walking door to door is the single best way to make people aware of the issue and encourage them to fill out their ballot and get it in. Approve71.org has a variety of handouts to help you: everything from informational "one sheets" to little stickers you can pass out at work or school. Our favorites are listed here. Never underestimate the power of human contact to show real people how much other real people care for their families, friends and neighbors.
   
   
3. Put up signs in your yard, on your car or on your person. Many people in Clark County have no idea how many seniors, same-sex couples or allies there are in their neighborhoods, and a simple sticker, car placard, yard sign or bumper sticker can do wonders to show your support. Put a new sticker on your lapel every day, so that folks in your life are reminded that ballots are due. Bumper stickers and yard signs are available at the Approve 71 table at the Vancouver Farmer's Market each weekend.
   
   
4. Electronic outreach may be a blog post and a link to http://ApproveReferendum71.org in your email signature. Join Approve 71 on Facebook, change your MySpace or Facebook profile picture or "tweet" about #approve71 on Twitter. If you have a significant set of friends or email address book, deploy it once as ballots first go out to voters and again near Halloween as ballots are become due. Have a YouTube profile? Mark A71 videos as favorites. Updating your status? Put in a link to Approve71.org
   
   
5. Host a voting party or pass out stamps to friends as a way to remind them to vote. Take the weekend to go through your phone bank and catch up with old friends to be sure they have voted.
   
   
6. Consider buying an ad. Don't think you have enough money to buy a television ad? You might be surprised. Both Act Blue and Equal Rights Washington have arranged to buy "air time" on broadcast and cable television across the state, some of it quite targetted and affordable. Did you know that thirty-second television ads in some Washington cities can cost less than $20? Check it out.
   
   
7. Do something else you love and share it with others, whether that is "Approve 71" cupcakes or an emailed list of links, a blog post or talking to someone on the bus. Anything that strengthens human connections and reminds people that we should care for our neighbors and the rights of others is good for the general cause.

The important thing is to do something in this last couple of weeks to spread the word and help folks know that they have a chance to support seniors and defend families by approving Referendum 71.

Protect our domestic partnership law and the 6000+ couples who have already registered.

Ballots Arrive This Week

Ballots went into the mail last week, which means that they should be arriving at your postal address this week, perhaps today. Please be sure to mark and return your ballot IMMEDIATELY so that you will feel confident as you remind, cajole and harass your friends and loved ones to get their ballots in right away to approve Referendum 71.

Details of the upcoming ballot and elections for Clark County are available online at http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/index.html

Five minutes and a simple postage stamp is all it takes to help support seniors and same-sex domestic partners in Washington. Ballots may also be dropped off in person down near the courthouse.

Act Blue Fundraising Drive for Media Buy

As friends and neighbors take to the sidewalks to doorbell and distribute literature, a parrallel campaign to buy television time in Clark County is currently underway at Act Blue, with the goal to raise $20,000 for advertisements to support approval of referendum 71, Washington state's domestic partnership law for seniors, same sex couples and their families.

As a short campaign with very little money, Washington State Families Standing Together made a logical decision to focus most of their media resources on King county and the Seattle region, but as Washington's fourth-largest city, Vancouver is important to, so local donors are asked to try and put together $20,000 to air commercials on television here in Clark County.

To contribute, please visit http://www.actblue.com/page/approve71vancouver

Columbian Endorses Approval of Referendum 71

The Columbian editorial board has officially endorsed approval of Referendum 71.

In our view: Approve R-71
Ballot Measure is about Equality for More than 12,300 Domestic Partners

The first thing voters need to know about Referendum 71 on the Nov. 3 ballot is precisely what question is being asked. Voters are being asked if they support Senate Bill 5688, which passed this year in the Legislature and expanded domestic partnerships. Voters are not being asked if they want to repeal that bill.

Thus, if you approve of fairness and equality for domestic partners, vote "Approve." We hope this will be your choice. The Columbian editorially applauded SB 5688 earlier this year.

It's also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure. The ballot title specifies that "a domestic partnership is not a marriage." In fact, many domestic partners in our state are not gay. The law also allows domestic partnerships for unmarried, senior heterosexual couples.

The truth is, R-71 will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage or anyone else's. It will, however, affirm equality for the 12,300 Washingtonians who already have registered as domestic partners. Look at it this way: There might be some reason to debate whether certain rights should be extended to a particular group that does not already have them. For example, voting rights for incarcerated felons is an issue that could be reasonably argued. But to retroactively deny rights that already have been granted — freedoms thoroughly deliberated and extended by the Legislature and exercised by 12,300 people at no sacrifice or expense to anyone else — is simply unconscionable.

Voting for R-71 makes even more sense when one examines the specific rights extended by SB 5688. The bill protects sick leave to care for a domestic partner, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, business succession rights, adoption and child custody. In no way has granting these freedoms to some people infringed on the rights of other people, cost the detractors one dime, lowered their property value or harmed the citizenry in any way.

The real story of R-71 is further illuminated by reviewing the list of supporters and opponents. Those favoring R-71 include groups representing a broad spectrum of Washingtonians. More than 250 are listed at approvereferendum71.org. By contrast, foes offer only a smaller and narrowly defined coalition at protectmarriagewa.com. (But again, as the ballot states, this is not about marriage at all. It's about domestic partnerships).

Even more enlightenment arrives when voters examine the two men most responsible for forcing this issue onto the ballot: Larry Stickney (campaign manager) and Gary Randall (minister and former TV-show host). The Seattle Times on Wednesday described the attack by these two men on domestic partnerships: "They are unflinching in that conviction, despite messy personal histories that challenge their claim to the moral high ground. The twice-divorced Stickney … has denounced as blatantly untrue allegations from an ex-wife that he abused her.

"And Randall, an Oregon resident who can't vote on the measure he helped get on the ballot, has had a record of unpaid taxes, which he says he's since paid off."

It's astounding that these two self-appointed arbiters would judge the private, personal values of domestic partners. Yet the two men managed to secure enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.

Voters should reject such narrow views and mark "Approve" on Referendum 71.

Oregonian Endorses Approval of Referendum 71

The editorial board of The Oregonian endorses approval of Referendum 71.

Referendum 71 Would Hasten Progress toward Equality
By The Oregonian Editorial Board, October 14, 2009, 6:00PM

On Nov. 3, Washington voters should approve a full-strength domestic partnership law, granting gay couples essential legal protections

In 2007, the Oregon Legislature approved a strong domestic partnership law, granting gay and lesbian couples legal and economic protections roughly equivalent to those of marriage.

Washington state took a more gradual approach. Perhaps on the theory that incremental change would draw less criticism, the Washington Legislature approved a few key protections in 2007, then added more in 2008.

Finally, this year, it approved a full-strength domestic partnership law -- and opponents not only noticed, they also collected signatures to refer Senate Bill 5688 to the ballot.

On Nov. 3, Washington voters will decide whether to "approve" or "reject" Referendum 71. (Unfortunately, the wording has been shown to confuse some voters, a misunderstanding that appears to tilt, mildly, in favor of supporters of SB5688. Opponents referred it to the ballot, but are hoping to win, not its approval, but its rejection.)

Thus far, 6,031 couples have registered as domestic partners in Washington. And SB5688 -- if ratified by voters -- grants them "all privileges, immunities, rights, benefits, or responsibilities" granted to married couples. This is only right and fair.

But opponents of the new law aren't deluded in their main argument. They say that what the new law offers to gay and lesbian couples is tantamount to marriage -- and it is, albeit with two asterisks:

First, the new law explicitly states that it is not marriage. Washington has ruled out same-sex marriage by statute, upheld in 2006 by the Washington Supreme Court. Second, in the eyes of many gays and lesbians, even a full-strength domestic partnership falls far short of marriage.

It is not portable; it is not honored outside state lines; it does not offer the federal benefits of marriage; and it does not confer the social approval or community embrace the word "marriage" confers.

But, again: Opponents are right, in a sense. A civil union or domestic partnership that provides the benefits and contractual obligations of marriage is the next best protection for families of gays and lesbians.

Two years ago, Nike led the charge in Oregon for a strong domestic partnership law. Now, once again, large employers in Washington are taking the lead, including Microsoft, Boeing and Nike. They are part of a large coalition urging voters to support Referendum 71. "Overturning this law would undo years of equal rights progress made in Washington state," the companies said in a joint statement last month.

For these companies, the political calculus really isn't all that complicated. They revel in diversity; their customers and employees include same-sex couples who have families; and the companies want to communicate, clearly, that these families are welcome in the fold and entitled to equal respect and equal treatment.

No one's ever accused progress toward equality of moving in any way except in fits and starts. But it's reassuring to know that global leaders in fast shoes and fast connections are now helping to set the pace.

Approval of Referendum 71 won't take Washington across the finish line. But it would be a big, and important, lurch forward.

Doorbelling in Vancouver this Sat, 17 October

Approve 71 Vancouver shall have its first physical, walk-and-knock "doorbelling" this coming Saturday, October 17. Assemble at 9:30 a.m. in the Vancouver Marketplace indoor atrium, just behind Java House at 200 W Evergreen Blvd, Vancouver WA 98660. This is just a few blocks north of the Vancouver Farmers Market and Esther Short Park on Columbia. Wear appropriate outdoor clothes and comfortable shoes!

What: Doorbelling canvass to educate voters on behalf of Washington Seniors Lobby (71/1033)

When: Assemble at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 17, 2009.

Where: After meeting at the indoor atrium at 200 W Evergreen Blvd (Vancouver WA 98660) we shall disburse throughout the Vancouver area.

Why: The Washington Senior Citizens' Lobby has endorsed Referendum 71 and opposed Initiative 1033 in this month's election, but cannot manage much doorbelling themselves.

How: Wear outdoor clothes, comfortable shoes and a smile. Basic background info on the measures will be provided.

Letter of the Day by Kelly Nolen

Ref. 71 Strengthens Basic Love

Opponents of Referendum 71 often argue that Washington’s domestic partnership law redefines and destroys traditional marriage and harms children. As a married woman and mom, I would like to offer an opposing view.

My husband and I have been married 20 years and have three children. I have no fear that Referendum 71 will threaten our marriage, tear down the institution of marriage, or somehow hurt my children. We teach our children that discrimination is wrong and that our community is strengthened when fellow citizens are not discriminated against because of who they love.

This traditionally married woman will be voting "yes" on Referendum 71.

Kelly Nolen, Vancouver

==========

Show your support for Ms. Nolen's letter online with comments at Columbian.com

Better yet, write your own letter to

• The Columbian, Letters from Readers, PO Box 180, Vancouver 98666
  
• The Reflector, PO Box 2020, Battle Ground 98604
• The Oregonian, 1320 SW Broadway, Portland OR 97201
• With WAFST's online letter-writing tool

Real World Example: Charlene Strong

Lovers of audio books may recognize the name Anna Fields as the narrator for books such as A Beautiful Mind or Bel Canto. That was a stage name for a Washington woman named Kate Fleming, though, who lived in Seattle with her partner Charlene Strong for many years. Both raised in Catholic families with a strong sense of commitment, they had a ceremony in Virginia over ten years ago, but no substantive legal protection. When Kate was caught in a flooded basement and evacuated to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Charlene was not allowed to be at her side, nor make arrangements around their destroyed home or her deceased partner.

Dozens of stories like this have long been familiar to friends and families of committed lesbian, gay and elderly couples who, in times of greatest need, are denied the ability to be with their loved ones.

Kate Fleming died in December 2006. During legislative debates regarding Washington's domestic partnership law this past session, the story of Kate Fleming was frequently mentioned. Kate's partner, Charlene Strong, went on from this heartbreaking tragedy to become an activist and key figure in Washington's passage of a domestic partnership law. The story of that struggle is told in her 80-minute documentary film "For My Wife."

• Newsweek story, "Altered Lives"
  
• Obituaries for Kate Fleming in Washington Post, Blade, on Morning Edition
  
• Advocate story on the making of For My Wife
  
• Web site for the documentary film, For My Wife
• Links to reviews of the film and theatrical trailer on YouTube
  

Bill Protects Rights of Domestic Partners, Including Heterosexuals

From The Columbian, Sunday 11 October 2009, p. C7:

Referendum 71: Is It Equality or Marriage?
Bill Protects Rights of Domestic Partners, Including Heterosexuals
by Rory Bowman

Born and raised in Clark County as a fourth-generation Washingtonian, I was brought up to treat people fairly. Not everyone will be as successful or happy as everyone else, but everyone should have the same opportunities. It is for this reason that I support Referendum 71 to preserve rights for state-registered domestic partners.

Opponents of Referendum 71 like to claim that it is about "gay marriage," but clearly it is not. The ballot title explicitly says "a domestic partnership is not a marriage," and taking away the rights of people who are not married (or cannot marry) does nothing to help families or seniors.

To enter a domestic partnership in Washington, at least one partner must be 62 or older, unless both partners are of the same sex. Domestic partners must live together (unlike married couples) and the purpose of the law is to provide mutual support, such as in a medical crisis. Domestic partners are allowed to speak for each other in medical emergencies, have access to health records, authorize organ donation, approve an autopsy or accept possession of a loved one’s body for burial.

Nothing in the domestic partnership law addresses the issue of sexual relations, and most registered domestic partners are 50 or older, regardless of gender.

Who then enters into domestic partnerships, and why? Many of us know older couples here in Clark County who care for each other but for legal reasons are not married. Perhaps it is a pair of old friends who are the only family the other has left. Perhaps it is a widow who would forever lose most of her Social Security, were she to remarry. Perhaps it’s a retiree whose health benefits or private pension would be lost with remarriage. Perhaps it is a devout Catholic who would be denied communion, were they to remarry. And yes, perhaps it is a gay or lesbian couple, who have been together for many years and would like to die that way.

Who among us would deny these people the protection and comforts that a domestic partnership brings them? In the eyes of the law, these people are almost strangers. Domestic partnerships help fix that.

The list of those in Southwest Washington who have stood up in support of Referendum 71 is a long one. From congregations such as Kol Ami and the Community of Welcoming Congregations to the YWCA, ACLU, Democratic party and unions; from firefighters to teachers to psychologists to the SEIU and Children’s Home Society. Large employers in the state endorse 71, including Boeing, Microsoft, and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Dozens of cities and newspapers stand in support of Referendum 71, as do scores of politicians such as Craig Pridemore, Jim Moeller, Steve Stuart, Pat Campbell and Pat Jollota. In passing the domestic partnership laws that they have, our state legislators have taken care to respect and protect marriage. This is how domestic partnership has won the support of mainstream groups such as the Washington Senior Citizens Lobby, a statewide coalition that includes the AARP.

Nothing in Referendum 71 affects anyone’s marriage, but much of it protects seniors and families right here in Clark County. Perhaps this is why recent polls by the University of Washington and Western Washington University show two-thirds support for domestic partnerships across the political mainstream. Your approval of Referendum 71 is a vote in support of fairness for 12,000 Washington domestic partners already registered.

Referendum 71 is about domestic partnerships, basic fairness for seniors and same-sex couples. By making it simpler for committed households to care for each other, we create a happier and healthier state.

Protect families. Support seniors. Approve Referendum 71.

Rory Bowman is a Vancouver computer consultant and a local team captain for "Approve 71" (www.approvereferendum71.org).

Radio Story on Senior Domestic Partners

Although it's not exactly video, KUOW has an excellent piece on how senior citizens are affected by the Referendum 71 debate. Available on their web site as an MP3 download, with transcript below.

KUOW: Referendum 71 Seniors

Steve Doty and Linda Dunbar are a senior-citizen couple. They live in North Seattle and they've been together a long time. They've seen each other through her breast cancer and his Parkinson's Disease. But they're not married. Steve and Linda would be directly affected by Referendum 71. It's a measure that's going to be on the Washington state ballot November 3.

Dunbar: "Yeah, this is for better or worse, sickness and health."

Reporter: "Did you guys ever think about getting married?"

Dunbar: "I don't think so. One of the things that happened was that I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church. And I've been divorced. I could not receive sacrament if I married again. And I guess living in sin - quote, unquote - is different than that."

In the last legislative session, lawmakers passed a new set of expanded rights for domestic partners. It's nicknamed the "Everything but Marriage" law. And it's controversial because it extends rights to gay couples - as though they were married. But it also affects older heterosexual couples if one of them is over age 62.

Linda and Steve's dog, Schuster, runs back and forth between them as they sit in their modest apartment. They recently got rid of their couch to give Steve more room to maneuver with his walker. Linda jokes that her partner can be a handful.

Dunbar: "He's very difficult - no, I'm kidding. We've been together since 1991. We just thought that it would be a really good thing if we made a commitment to each other. And not just move in and have a fling. This is the real deal."

Steve and Linda have registered their domestic partnership with the state. They say getting married would hurt them financially. Older couples who marry can lose some of their social security benefits, or pensions.

Bill Dorn talks to couples like Steve and Linda all the time. He's with Senior Services of King County. The agency helps seniors understand their rights. He finds many are reluctant to talk about their unmarried status.

Dorn: "There are a lot of seniors who find themselves choosing to be a couple, and not marry because of those financial concerns. And they come from a generation, where that's not socially acceptable."

Anne Levinson chairs the Approve 71 campaign to uphold the state's domestic partner rights. She says many seniors don't realize hospitals could keep them from a loved-one's bedside. Or from claiming a body and making funeral arrangements if their partner dies.

Levinson: "I think with seniors, and with the rest of us ... it often takes a crisis for us to realize that without those legal protections, we are often left in not only a financially tenuous position but in terms of being able to make decisions for our loved ones, or have access to care. The tragedies we've seen over and over again when an emergency strikes and people do not have the protections of domestic partnership laws - it's sad."

Opponents to Referendum 71 didn't return numerous phone calls. The group Protect Marriage Washington is against Referendum 71. Its Website says expanding domestic partnership rights isn't necessary because seniors and others can obtain many of those same protections through wills and contracts.

Steve and Linda say they want their relationship respected as though they were married. Linda once wound up in the emergency room with a head injury. But doctors wouldn't tell Steve what was happening because they weren't married and weren't yet registered partners. They don't want to lose the rights they now have.

Dunbar: "I mean I have to be realistic about our age, and I think making those life decisions that mean so much. I don't want him left out, and I fear that could happen - that he wouldn't be able to see me, or that I would be at the mercy of a hospital somewhere where, where I can't make a decision for myself."

Voting* on Referendum 71 can be tricky. A "yes" vote would leave intact the expanded rights for domestic partners already approved by the Legislature.

A "no" vote would repeal those rights.

I'm Carol Smith, KUOW News.

Letters of the Week from Lori Marsh, Kathie Kniep

This week there were several terrific letters to choose from, including one from Kathy Kniep of the YWCA (who scored a "hat trick" by getting the same letter into The Columbian, The Oregonian, and The Reflector).

Greater Issue is Human Rights

Gay rights? No. Human rights is the correct phrase. I was appalled to see a petition circulated to rescind the domestic partnership law. Have we learned nothing from history? The treatment of Native Americans, blacks, Jews, women should be enough to tell us that repressing a group of people does not promote a healthy, productive society. This type of treatment hurts us all.

Most of us live with all the rights provided by this great country so to consider actually taking away rights from one group of people is unconscionable. Just because we don’t understand someone who is different than ourselves should not mean that our first response is to be punitive. Marriage is afforded to all — including murderers and rapists. Why is there no outrage about those sub groups?

I know that my gay friends did not choose their orientation. None of us chooses who we are attracted to — it just doesn’t work that way. And who would choose a life of repression and disdain anyway? Can’t we work together to solve important issues facing us all? Let the gay community have the rights afforded to everyone else and let’s move on to bigger issues.

Lori Mash, Ridgefield

---

Vote Yes on Referendum 71

As YWCA Clark County's executive director, I ask Washington voters to please vote yes on Referendum 71, the Domestic Partnership Law.

Your vote preserves the domestic partnership law that has already been passed by our state Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire.

R-71 expands the rights of registered gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. It also applies to heterosexual partnerships when one partner is at least 62. There are more than 12,000 people in Washington registered in domestic partnerships. Gay and lesbian families need these laws to provide essential protections for their families, for example, the right to adopt a partner's child without paying for a home study or to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner.

Domestic partnerships provide a valuable option for seniors who often can't marry without sacrificing hard-earned Social Security and pension benefits. Denying these rights to legal domestic partners is a form of discrimination and oppression of a minority. The YWCA's mission is to eliminate racism, empower women and promote peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all.

Please take a stand in favor of R-71, affirming these values for our community.

Kathy Kneip, Vancouver


---
Write your own letter to

• The Columbian, Letters from Readers, PO Box 180, Vancouver 98666
  
• The Reflector, PO Box 2020, Battle Ground 98604
• The Oregonian, 1320 SW Broadway, Portland OR 97201
• With WAFST's online letter-writing tool

All Couples are Equal Video on YouTube

One of the things that has been pretty amazing about the Approve 71 campaign is how readily and easily ordinary people have been able to reach out to one another and their friends using Internet social media such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and YouTube.

The above video is one example of such outreach, posted by folks putting on an event this weekend that shall (among other things) encourage passage of Referendum 71 to protect state-registered domestic partners here in Washington.

Referendum 71 will give those 62 or older and same-sex couples (who cannot marry) the ability to register their domestic partnerships with the state and support each other in good times and bad with such rights as hospital visitation, authority to make medical decisions and (in the event of death) to authorize organ donation and recover a partner's body for burial.

Please take a moment to watch the video and perhaps share it with a friend. Love in all forms is a beautiful thing. Support seniors. Protect Families. Approve Referendum 71.

Video of Referendum 71 to Editorial Board

We hadn't intended for this to become video week here at Approve 71 Vancouver, but the above video was posted Sunday and provides many interesting insights, worth passing along to friends and acquaintances. Speaking against the referendum was Steve O’Ban, while speaking in favor was Anne Levinson. Following this meeting, The Olympian endorsed Referendum 71.

The first ten minutes of the video are perhaps the most interesting, as Mr O'Ban falls all over himself to voice his support for domestic partnership rights, citing his own elderly sisters as an example of the sort of folks who can benefit from such rights. Sisters, of course, do not qualify to become domestic partners (as next-of-kin they may already have many of the medical rights that domestic partnership is intended to grant) but the general point of how practical and useful it is for seniors to be able to protect one another this way is clear.

Folks who are interested in supporting Referendum 71 are encouraged to help spread the word about this important measure by purchasing commercial air-time on television stations, including Vancouver. Did you know you can buy a commercial on CNN in Vancouver for as little as $40? Or in other towns for as little as $17? Check it out at EqualRightsWashington/airtime.

More Approve Referendum 71 videos are to come. View them, embed them on your Internet profiles and email the links to your friends. Together we can help protect seniors and all families. Approve Referendum 71.

Video Voter's Guide to Referendum 71

Transcript from the Pro-Referendum 71 section:

Hello, my name is Jane Abbott Lighty, and today I'm asking you to join my family and me in voting to approve Referendum 71.

My partner Petie Petersen and I have been together for 32 years. She and I registered as domestic partners on the first day we were allowed to. We are both retired nursing consultants from the state health department. Before that Petie was an Air Force captain, and an air-evac nurse in the Korean War.

We raised a daughter Betsy who is now 42, and her husband is a federal marshal with the airlines. My Petie is 81 and I just turned 74, and we have experienced a lot over the years. We have always had a strong and committed relationship and feel very responsible for each other. We sometimes worried about our daughter, always wanting to protect her, and she has grown up to be a strong and responsible citizen and loving wife and mother.

We think of ourselves as everyday Americans who want the same chance as everyone else to earn a living, be safe in our community, serve our country and take care of our loved ones. Referendum 71 is about the hopes, dreams and values we all have in common. We were raised to put family first, to work hard and to take responsibility for ourselves and our family: Commitment, sacrifice, duty, a sense of obligation to others, neighbors, community and country.

As older Americans, we face medical problems more often than younger people do. We have to make decisions about the estates, legal protections, and this takes on even more importance at this time in our lives. We need to make sure we have insurance in case something happens to one of us. And we each have a pension we earned over the years, but we need to make sure it will be there for the other one if something happens. That's why this domestic partnership law is so important. Without it we couldn't take time off work to care for a partner the way coworkers can to care for a spouse, or our insurance company doesn't have to cover a partner, as part of family insurance. Without domestic partnership law, you can't make important decisions on behalf of your loved one if he or she needs help.

Please, vote to approve Referendum 71. The domestic partnership law will insure that all Washington families will be treated fairly and equally under the law.

Some domestic partners are heterosexual seniors. Often they can't marry without sacrificing hard-earned Social Security, military or pension benefits. Referendum 71 will also protect them.

Committed couples who want to take care of each other should have the protections they need to keep their families safe, particularly in times of crisis. They should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital, take family medical leave, have insurance or receive inheritance. Children should be protected when a parent dies. This law does not affect schools or change the definition of marriage in any way.

We have many friends and relatives who have taken some time to get comfortable with domestic partnerships. They came from a traditional background, just like we did, so it took some time. After seeing us go through life together, and the strong foundation we have in our faith, our family and in our community, they're now joining us in their support of this law. They know first-hand how important the protections in this law are to so many families.

Petie and I have volunteered for the Approve 71 campaign because this is so important to us. It has been very gratifying to see individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum support the law: Washington Association of Churches, the Children's Alliance, the Boeing Company, Microsoft, Washington State Nurses Association, the Washington State Labor Council, Mainstream Republicans of Washington, Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and People for the American Way, plus so many others.

The Reverend Paul Benz said it well. (Quote:) "As people of faith, we view the roll of religion to nurture and support families, not to cast some aside. To deny gay and lesbian families and older couples their basic rights threatens not only those families, but our collective commitment to each other." (Unquote.)

This law provides essential protections to many older couples, and to families with children who would otherwise be living without a safety net. By voting to approve Referendum 71, you will be insuring that all families will be treated the same under the law, with the same protections and responsibilities. Pete-e and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Vote to approve 71.

National Coming-Out Day October 11

Sunday, October 11, is National Coming Out Day for 2009. Originally conceived as a way to encourage gays and lesbians to be more open and supported in who they are, the concept of "coming out" can apply to other areas of our lives as well, whatever our sexual orientation.

Although it disproportionately affects many same-sex couples, Referendum 71 is not really a gay issue. It is an issue for anyone who is opposed to traditional marriage, for seniors who wish to care for each other apart from sexual arrangements, and for fair-minded folks of all stripes who realize that families come in many shapes and sizes, only some of which are made entirely of blood relations.

Earlier this year the American Civil Liberties Union launched a web campaign called "Tell Three," which encouraged not only lesbians and gays to speak out about civil liberties and why they matter, but to tell the stories of others who may not be present to speak. Many of us know a same-sex couple who has run a business for years, but whom could lose everything if one of the partners dies unexpectedly. Perhaps it is an older couple who shared a house, and one of whom was evicted when anxious heirs kicked out their "roommate" immediately after probate. What of the widow who could not marry lest she lose the retirement income due her from a lifetime as a loyal spouse? Almost everyone in southwest Washington knows a similar story, and this month would be a good time to begin telling them.

If you support Referendum 71, please take the time to tell at least three people why, every day between now and even after the ballots are in. Not all of this stand to lose rights if Referendum 71 fails, but all of us can come out to protect those who may.

Young or old, gay or straight, traditional or alternative: come out, come out, whoever you are.

UU Church of Vancouver, 6 October 2009

Known as the Michael Servetus Unitarian Universalist Fellowship from its founding in 1953 until this year, The Unitarian Universalist Church of Vancouver has long been a force for inclusive social justice in Clark County, as reflected in the social justice blog linked from their site.

They shall sponsor a presentation on "Marriage Equality and Referendum 71" from 7-9pm this Tuesday, 6 October 2009. Rev. Carol McKinley of WA UU Voices for Justice will explain and encourage support for domestic partnerships in Washington state, from within the broader context of Marriage Equality. The discussion, sponsored by the Welcoming Congregation Team and the Social Action Council, includes a film and an open question and answer period. UUC of Vancouver has long been a member of the Community of Welcoming Congregations.

Unitarian Universalist Church of Vancouver
4505 East 18th Street
Vancouver WA 98663
(360) 695-1891

Regularly scheduled Sunday-morning services are at 9:30 and 11:15