Print
Email
Share

Washington voters may have to vote 'yes' and 'no' on gay marriage

Washington voters may have to vote 'yes' and 'no' on gay marriage

Washington voters may have to vote 'yes' and 'no' on gay marriage

by TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING 5 News

KING5.com

Posted on February 13, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Updated Monday, Feb 13 at 2:34 PM

Poll:
If it appears on the ballot, would you vote in favor of or against gay marriage in Washington state?

SEATTLE – How will you vote this November in the fight over same-sex marriage?  Yes and no, or no and yes?

There may be two measures on the ballot this fall covering the topic, but depending on which side you’re on, you’ll have to vote on each differently.

With the state’s marriage equality bill signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire Monday, opponents are vowing to collect enough valid signatures from registered Washington voters for a referendum to let voters have the final say on the topic. A referendum allows citizens to vote on acts of the Legislature before they become law.

Referendum supporters have until June 6 to collect 120,577 signatures - 4 percent of the total votes in the 2008 gubernatorial election -- or the law goes into effect the next day.

But a separate public initiative could appear on the ballot that would define marriage in Washington as being between one man and one woman. Initiative 1192 was filed by state attorney general candidate Stephen Pidgeon. He has until July 6 to turn in 241,153 signatures, which is 8 percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's race.

Depending on which side of the issue they stand are on, voters could have to vote 'yes' on one and 'no' on another. 

On the referendum, voters will be asked to decide based on the text of the legislation signed by Gov. Gregoire. If a voter want to uphold the law as written, he or she would vote yes. A no vote would be to overturn the gay marriage legislation.

I-1192, however, would read: “This measure would define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman and prohibit marriage when the parties are persons other than one man and one woman. Should this measure be enacted into law?”

So, a supporter of same-sex marriage would vote no on this one, while opponents would vote yes.

Neither the referendum nor the initiative have been approved for the ballot yet. Certification will be up to the secretary of state's office.

For gay marriage? Yes on the referendum, no on I-1192.

Against gay marriage? No on the referendum, yes on I-1192.

Print
Email
Share
 

To add a comment, please register or login.

1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 15 of 30

Rattler said on March 15, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Hmmm... I'm not Christian.... I am going to vote no... because I am a homophobe.

84395164
Flag this comment

dentalgirl57 said on March 15, 2012 at 8:53 AM

That's the way they roll...make it as confusing as possible in hopes that they will be able to deny rights on a religious basis...can't count the many ways this is wrong. You are free to worship any way you please but you may not legally require those who do not share your beliefs to follow your practices. That is the separation of Church and State and that is why the United States does not have an official religion. WE ARE one nation, under God (notice it does not define which God) indivisible (but not in Congress at this point) with liberty and justice for ALL. I hope people search their hearts and remember this when election time rolls around.

84271025
Flag this comment

cat8mice said on February 28, 2012 at 12:09 AM

‎* NON christians are so judgmental * They really need to lighten up, live and let live but they like to find fault; always carping, criticizing, nit-picking. Who do they think they are, anyway? Why do they think they’re a cut above christians? That is not very loving :)

82452725
Flag this comment

captjp said on February 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Here is my vote--Not just no but HELL NO. Put the freaks back in the closet. This country is going down hill fast and this is just one of the reason some of the other reason is we have allowed too many special interest groups to take over everything from our schools, media, and government.

81487224
Flag this comment

cat8mice said on February 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM

How can “normal” homosexuals criticize Sandusky? Didn’t he merely “deviate” from “normal” homosexual behavior? Don’t they criticize as hateful and intolerant anyone who speaks against deviating from normal heterosexual behavior? According to their logic, Coach Sandusky needs our love, not our judgment. It seems to me that any sodomite who criticizes his sexual orientation is pedo-phobic. “Who are you to judge...” If the sodomite-community was honest they would come to his defense…give him a float in the Pride parade. Certainly there is a gene somewhere in the pool that “science” has yet to discover. What if Jerry Sandusky was born that way?

81395748
Flag this comment

bpieraccini said on February 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM

@ flyrod, thanks for a well written post: "I support gay marriage in Washington. I'm not "for" it per se, but that hasn't got much bearing on my stance. While my conservative Jewish leanings prohibit homosexuality, I also realize that there ARE homosexuals in Washington. Do I need to agree with them to support their rights? No, I don't. I disagree with a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we need to pass laws against them. Should we make adultery a criminal offense? Should divorce for 'irreconcilable differences' be illegal? Should anything someone deems 'sinful' be outlawed? Maybe a law against eating pork? Of course not. I say let the individual decide. If two people want to get married, who's to say no? Who's the victim if two men or two women wed? Conversely, has heterosexual marriage been a beacon of righteousness in America? Hardly. Divorce rates are around half, and an adulterer on his 3rd wife strives to be President. Seriously? So much for the sanctity of marriage."

81374067
Flag this comment

invalid said on February 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM

@WhoMe: You're asking Christians (or people of other faiths, even) to live as if they had no religious convictions whatsoever. Faith is not just a statement, it's a way of life. And when somebody tells you that you need to adjust your life in a way contrary to the way your faith tells you to live your life, you put up a fight. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That's the way the world works. The people on the other side aren't necessarily evil. They just have a different opinion than you, based on a somewhat different view of the world, and they have as much right to try to shape the world according to their opinion as you do to shape the world according to yours. Resistance to change isn't evil. Dissent is not bigotry. Some people, not so long ago, even said, "Dissent is patriotic."

81370703
Flag this comment

tootoo said on February 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM

14th Amendment will overturn both of these anyways.

81352664
Flag this comment

proudamerican said on February 14, 2012 at 3:17 AM

Wow, that poll is pretty close...

81345409
Flag this comment

WhoMe said on February 13, 2012 at 11:44 PM

This is a secular nation no religion should have undue influence against any other or those without religion. Marriage is a word and thats what these peopel cases are concerned about. Jesus is disgusted in most of the people who proclaim to believe in him. I am so sick and tired of the religous right in this country telling us all how to act when how they act is nothing like how Jesus would act. The hipocracy is amazing. His main message was to do onto others as you would have them do unto you. Why can't the religious right understand that it's so simple.

81342956
Flag this comment

jackwong said on February 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Ummmm... we don't need a bunch of bigots voting. THe issue is done.

81339677
Flag this comment

erici said on February 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

king5fan8817, When you ask for forgiveness, you have to feel it in your heart that it is wrong (and not just say it.) You are not obligated to do it just on Sundays. If you ever did feel that way, it would be very unfortunate if you were legally obligated to continue that sin.

81337867
Flag this comment

king5fan8817 said on February 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Why can't the Gays marry, or commit any other "sin" then ask for forgiveness every Sunday morning. That's how Christianity works, right.

81336426
Flag this comment

flyrod said on February 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I support gay marriage in Washington. I'm not "for" it per se, but that hasn't got much bearing on my stance. While my conservative Jewish leanings prohibit homosexuality, I also realize that there ARE homosexuals in Washington. Do I need to agree with them to support their rights? No, I don't. I disagree with a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we need to pass laws against them. Should we make adultery a criminal offense? Should divorce for 'irreconcilable differences' be illegal? Should anything someone deems 'sinful' be outlawed? Maybe a law against eating pork? Of course not. I say let the individual decide. If two people want to get married, who's to say no? Who's the victim if two men or two women wed? Conversely, has heterosexual marriage been a beacon of righteousness in America? Hardly. Divorce rates are around half, and an adulterer on his 3rd wife strives to be President. Seriously? So much for the sanctity of marriage. Best wishes LGBT community!

81335936
Flag this comment

awol50 said on February 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Marriage is not a right. Check our constitution and show me where it says marriage is a right. Otherwise I could marry my mother or sister, or marry three women if I so wished. You need to obtain a license to get married. So if it is a right, why do I need to obtain a license? Or follow their rules on whom can marry whom or have how many spouses? Just like driving a car, you need a license and defining who can drive by the state makes it a privelege, not a right. The state has the ability to set the rules on both. So knock off the "it is a right". Marriage is a privelege, not a right. And just like driving a car, the state can set the uniform rules for all to follow.

81334913
Flag this comment

Daytrader said on February 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM

If a gay rights referendum is passed for against gay marriage it will be taken to the courts and thrown out just like the ruling from the left coast 9th circuit court in California did, no need to worry voters we have no say so on the left coast when it comes to human rights.

81334844
Flag this comment

kula280710781997 said on February 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

What I find ironic is the people here tossing about the label "bigots". If they were to truly examine their own post's......the ones denigrading Christianity and the Bible.......hmmmmm......they should look up the definition of bigot and recognize themselves.

81333296
Flag this comment

josefina said on February 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

What homosexuals really want is to be considered normal. They are not and never will be considered normal.

81332504
Flag this comment

erici said on February 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Loki, We are all sinners. There are a lot of different sins. Christians accept that everyone sins and no one is perfect, including Christians. I'm certainly not perfect. But as Christians, we learn to avoid sin and we attempt to act and respond like Jesus. No sin is greater or lesser than the other. But the bible and Jesus' teachings tell us that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Jesus also teaches us to love each other. It's not about bigotry or civil rights. It's about doing what is right by God and still loving each other regardless. We can't support this by our own religious beliefs. Hopefully you will understand that. It's nothing personal it's just what we believe.

81332297
Flag this comment

erici said on February 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Loki, We are all sinners. There are a lot of different sins. Christians accept that everyone sins and no one is perfect. I'm certainly not perfect, including Christians. But as Christians, we learn to avoid sin and we attempt to act and respond like Jesus. No sin is greater or lesser than the other. But the bible and Jesus' teachings tell us that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Jesus also teaches us to love each other. It's not about bigotry or civil rights. It's about doing what is right by God and still loving each other regardless. We can't support this by our own religious beliefs. Hopefully you will understand that. It's nothing personal it's just what we believe.

81332258
Flag this comment

copyeditor said on February 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The civil rights of human beings should not be subject to a vote.

81331369
Flag this comment

Loki_ said on February 13, 2012 at 4:40 PM

cmcinnis: ....what? o_O

81330446
Flag this comment

cmcinnis said on February 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. It has always been against the natural order of things and it always will. No attempts of legitimizing it in our societal laws will ever change this, and everyone in their hearts knows this (even if they refuse to acknowledge it). People can shake their fist at God all they want, in the end He remains God and they remain wrong (nobody wins). In the end it will be the children who are the big loosers.

81330367
Flag this comment

Loki_ said on February 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM

...and I'll also point out that same-gender relationships AND marriage (marriage in various forms was not invented by the church, just so you know) existed many thousands of years ago in every culture, and was accepted in most. If you have a religion you like and follow, that's great, but don't except everyone around you to share those beliefs and hypocritial ideals. If you want to ramble about "says so in the bible!", then please let's have a discussion about all those other things the bible says which you don't abide by. Why, because you're a horrible person? No, but because those are extremely outdated and many are ludicrous.

81328967
Flag this comment

Loki_ said on February 13, 2012 at 3:59 PM

erici, no one is redefining marriage. If anything ,divorce does that. A marriage between a male and female DOES NOT CHANGE in the least if I can marry another man. It doesn't affect you any more than the colour of your neighbor's car. Stop being so selfish and petty, and please stop referencing the bible. It's a book from the dark ages that /some/ people follow loosely, nothing more. Why should those of us who are not Christian be forced to follow your religion's rules? That makes no sense whatsoever. Diversity is amazing, you ought to try opening your eyes and minds sometime.

81328821
Flag this comment

shan79marie said on February 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Years ago, blacks had to fight for equal rights. Then women had to fight for equal rights. Homosexuality existed back then as well, but they were beaten, bullied and killed into oppression just as the blacks were. Now that it's more accepted and they are ABLE to fight for equal rights, they should be given them. Gays getting married affects no one but the gays getting married... It has a smaller impact on society than letting women vote or blacks own land. Come on people, open your eyes.

81328532
Flag this comment

erici said on February 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Why redefine the meaning of marriage? Why? Any man can marry any woman...that's equal rights. Any two people can create a civil union; that's equal rights. What's the point of challenging the definition of marriage when it's always been between a man and a woman? It's even defined that way within our state's constitution, not to mention the bible. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That should not be changed.

81328373
Flag this comment

Loki_ said on February 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

aseriesoftubes: ironic, isn't it? They also don't seem to recall that when their breed tried to whip out enough signaturesto stop the everything-but-marriage law in 2009, they failed. This is 2012, not 1960, and love & equality will prevail. <3

81326539
Flag this comment

aseriesoftubes said on February 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Methinks the marriage equality opponents doth protest too much. It's especially hilarious because most of the anti-gay bigots are the same people that are always on about how big gubmint needs to stay out of their personal lives.

81325849
Flag this comment

btvsrcks said on February 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Why bigotry.. why...

81325199
Flag this comment