R-71: domestic partners losing 250 rights!

Home Forums Open Discussion R-71: domestic partners losing 250 rights!

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #592654

    Lurleen
    Member

    Domestic partners in WA, be they straight seniors or same-sex couples, will lose 250 rights that the legislature has already granted them if we don’t get Referendum 71 approved by voters. It is vital that you talk to everyone you know and let them know that their vote is needed and why it is so important to preserve the domestic partnership law to protect ALL Washington families. We can win this, but only if everybody votes. Approve71.org

    Don’t forget – you can print out a placard for your window, donate and/or sign up to phone bank or canvass at Approve71.org!

    #679575

    vincent
    Member

    what rights will straight seniors lose?

    #679576

    Ken
    Participant

    http://approvereferendum71.org/

    Above is the link to the actual web site.

    Approve71.org redirects to the above which might annoy some firewalls.

    Or perhaps it assumes many people can’t spell referendum…

    The pdf posters and cards are under “handouts”

    #679577

    Jiggers
    Member

    Oh man… I better keep my lip shut tight here and don’t want to offend anybody.

    #679578

    vincent
    Member

    If the news is any measure, its totally ok to hate gays. I mean we are basically voting to see if they have rights right?

    #679579

    Diane
    Participant

    re: what rights will straight seniors lose?

    ~

    “Heterosexual seniors lost in the furor over domestic partnership”

    ~

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009814434_r71seniors06m.html

    #679580

    Jiggers
    Member

    Hateing is a very harsh word vincent.

    #679581

    Ken
    Participant

    My domestic partner is of the opposite sex. We hope to make it to 62 so we can register :)

    I support this referendum anyway but the benefits to us soon to be old farts are tangible and necessary.

    #679582

    vincent
    Member

    Blocking equal rights for people based on how they want to live, in their own houses, is pretty harsh as well.

    #679583

    Lurleen
    Member

    Vincent, straight senior domestic partners will lose the same 250 rights that same-sex domestic partners will lose. The include

    * the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner without losing your job,

    * death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty,

    * pension benefits for the partners of teachers and other public servants,

    * victim’s rights including the right of notification

    * the right to workers comp benefits if you partner is killed in the course of employment,

    * the right to adopt a partner’s child without paying for a home study.

    all these rights are rights that married people get automatically.

    http://approvereferendum71.org/

    #679584

    JoB
    Participant

    i would vote for a gay marriage act in a heartbeat… but this isn’t it.

    This is a referendum on domestic partnership rights which were granted by our state to those who aren’t married for whatever reason but are committed partners…

    some people who hate gays wanted to stop people in Washington from receiving those rights so badly that they lied about what the bill was and gathered signatures to get this referendum repealing those rights on the ballot.

    They are still lieing .. calling this a referendum on gay marriage… and they don’t care who they hurt in the process.

    Repealing this bill will hurt elders who have registered as domestic partners because marriage would reduce their income, heterosexual couples who are unmarried but raising children together and some gay couples who have registered.

    This will hit those who are unmarried but raising children hardest of all.

    Regardless of how you might personally feel about gay marriage, please help Washington families and vote to approve Ref 71.

    #679585

    chef
    Member

    Yeah – but gays and lesbians are all pedophiles don’t you know! That’s why Ref. 71 says it protects children!

    (no sarcasm here!)

    #679586

    JoB
    Participant

    Ref 71 says it protects children because without it, gays raising children lose the survivor benefits of the working partner at death… and that has a huge economic impact on their children.

    btw.. it also has a huge economic impact on our state which ends up paying for the services that would have been provided for a destitute survivor and/or children had those families had access to the benefits that were part of the deceased employees benefit package.

    #679587

    chef
    Member

    Job – uh, you got it wrong. Ref. 71 says it protects children because it upholds a traditional marriage between a man and woman. Don’t forget that the Ref. is started by anti-gay people, despite the fact that voting yes for it is voting FOR gays. See it’s a old political trick – frame the question in the form of a question that people have to answer and hope that people don’t read the question. Voter trends on Ref’s usually tend to be ‘no’ so you get votes from alot of people who aren’t paying attention.

    In this case the framers of Ref. 71 want to take away gay rights by causing people to answer ‘no’ to the question of whether dom. partnerships will be continued. That’s why they stood outside of grocery stores with their petition stating that Ref. 71 will protect children – if you vote ‘no’.

    Job – why don’t you do your research before you answer instead of spouting off? Geez…..

    #679588

    JanS
    Participant

    chef…I find much of what you say on these forums well thought out, but I have a request. Could you please leave the personal snarks and comments about other posters out of it? You have done it twice now…and I suspect that the powers that be might not approve. And , frankly, it adds nothing to the conversation at hand, and lowers the impact of whatever you say, makes one wonder if you have a personal “vendetta” about people on here.

    #679589

    JoB
    Participant

    chef..

    i did do my research…

    the opponents of Referendum 71 collected ballot signatures on the basis of a lie. Saying no to referendum 71 will not protect children.

    Saying no to referendum 71 will place children at risk of poverty and increase the state’s obligations towards those children.

    Referendum 71 is not gay marriage… all it does is extend the same kind of legal protection that those of us who could marry already take for granted.

    Someday i hope to be able to promote a gay marriage bill in Washington.. and i hope that day comes soon.. but this isn’t it… no matter how many lies it’s opponents tell.

    I could stand outside the local grocery store all day with a petition to ban trick or treating on Halloween on the basis that the practice promotes vandalism… but that wouldn’t make my assertion true… even though that misrepresentation has been fielded more than once to try to prevent trick or treating..

    the absence of parental oversight facilitates vandalism…

    trick or treating in your neighborhood can be a good way to introduce your children to their neighbors… and to foster a sense of community. It was in the neighborhood i left in Minnesota.

    Telling a lie over and over does not make it the truth.

    the truth is that Referendum 71 protects the rights and welfare of children as well as that of their parents and that’s a good thing.

    Vote yes for Referendum 71.

    #679590

    I’m confused and now my head hurts. :(

    #679591

    Jiggers
    Member

    So if I vote no on it am I a bigot now?

    #679592

    JoB
    Participant

    Todd..

    i think the opposition is counting on confusion..

    if you think it is a good thing that all gay couples and heterosexual couples over the age of 62 get some of the same basic rights as a couple that married couples receive…

    “* the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner without losing your job,

    * death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty,

    * pension benefits for the partners of teachers and other public servants,

    * victim’s rights including the right of notification

    * the right to workers comp benefits if you partner is killed in the course of employment,

    * the right to adopt a partner’s child without paying for a home study.”

    http://approvereferendum71.org/

    from Lurleen’s post #10…

    if you think children raised in those homes should have the benefit of all of the survivor benefits from their parents that are available to other employees at their workplace..

    then vote yes on Referendum 71.

    If you think that anyone who wants legal rights should get married regardless of whether they are legally able to marry or whether they would be substantially penalized financially for marrying…

    gay or over 62.. it doesn’t matter to you… if they want to have rights they have to marry…

    then vote no on Referendum 71.

    #679593

    JoB
    Participant

    Jiggers…

    or intolerant? or selfish? or bitter? or????

    I wouldn’t make that call…

    i imagine there are many who think that if they had to get married to have any legal rights then everyone else should have to as well.

    If we are going to attach all rights to marriage, maybe we should attach them all to the first marriage… forfeit on divorce….

    wedded fr life or forfeit your rights… I can’t see many going for that :)

    #679594

    flowerpetal
    Member

    Larry Stickney, and his third wife wouldn’t go for that. Last week my partner and I celebrated our twentieth anniversary. Our twenty years together did not erode one hetero couple’s marriage. And I know that in my twenty two years in Washington I have helped hundreds nay, thousands of children, supported many families with hetero parents and daresay my work has preserved some of those unions.

    We are not the threat that the No on Ref. 71 says we are. We do threaten/challenge their narrow scope of looking at couples and families.

    #679595

    bluebird
    Member

    I’m guessing the bigotry didn’t start with this referendum.

    “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

    #679596

    maplesyrup
    Participant

    The government really shouldn’t be involved in recognizing marriages. Marriage is a private, cultural and sometimes religious tradition that has nothing to do with the state.

    As far as the government is concerned, it should recognize civil unions for legal reasons and issue them to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

    #679597

    dawsonct
    Participant

    THIS is where we REALLY need to take this issue, if we are truly interested in protecting marriage, especially from the homosexual menace.

    http://rescuemarriage.org/

    God & Jesus Christ, BLESS the thoughtful & righteous Californians who are behind this holy movement!

    #679598

    JoB
    Participant

    dawsonct

    i so hope that link was the joke i think it was..

    if not, my computer got cooties:(

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 47 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.