By
Casey Smith
November 4, 2009
With 339,665 votes still to be counted after polls closed last night, the approve Referendum 71 movement had a slight lead over its opposition at 51 percent. Of the remaining votes, 115,000 of those to be counted are from King County, which has been approving the referendum at 61.59 percent. Other influential counties such as Spokane, with an estimated 40,000 uncounted votes are overwhelmingly rejecting the referendum. However, it appears that the majority of the votes that remain to be counted fall within demographics that have shown voter trends supporting Referendum 71. Polls are expected to be updated later today. Look for updates online at dailyuw.com.
20 Comments
#1 Neil B.
on November 4, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.(Modesto, CA)
GREAT!!! Much better than California. GOD I hate this place.....
#2 Randy
on November 4, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.(Spokane, WA | Unverified Name)
As a Spokanite, I apologize for my red-necked neighbors that voted against this. Thank goodness for King County on this one. This is a civil rights issues plain and simple and the ones who voted against it are on the wrong side of history. Good for us Washington. We got one right.
#3 Marcia
on November 4, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.(Pasco, WA | Unverified Name)
I'm a Spokanite, and I guess if you live here, Randy, you are a "red-neck" too. (why are all people who disagree with you instant red necks anyway? I grew up in Tokyo.) Why don't you move to King County if you feel that we are all too stupid and embarassing to associate with? Is it because you are enjoying the benefits of living in a safer city like Spokane, but feel that you've earned the "right" that those people on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY fought and died to protect? Don't apologize for people you obviously know nothing about. And this is more of a travesty of justice rather than a "civil rights" issue. Pathetic.
#4 Brian
on November 4, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
You're an idiot Marcia? What are you from little house on the prairie days
#5 Chad
on November 4, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Let me be articulate on this -- Shut up Marcia. You go Randy!
#6 Brian
on November 4, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
You're an idiot Marcia!What are you from little house on the prairie days?
#7 Kat W.
on November 4, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I am so glad this is looking like it will be approved, although I'm disappointed that the margin is so small. I was hoping this country had gotten rid of the idea that some humans are less people with fewer rights than others. Every tax-paying US citizen deserves the same rights.
#8 Joe D.
on November 4, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Kat W you are just a bit too much in sync with your age group we in the 45+ range have lived through the changes and know that much is till just below the surface-just as with race. Lots of people out there still lug around very old ideas but think if they don't say anything or act that erases what they feel. Then you let them vote and it comes out.
#9 Travis. T.
on November 4, 2009 at 11:57 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Marcia,
I encourage you to challenge your idea that Seattle has more crime than Spokane. In actuality, the two cities are almost exactly the same in this aspect. They have the same rate of property crimes (1.82 times the national average by population) and almost the same violent crime rate (1.15 times the national average for Seattle, and .98 times the national average for Spokane.) As well, Spokane actually has significantly MORE acts of forcible rape and murder than Seattle (.86 murder, 1.17 rape for spokane/ .77 murder, .83 rape for seattle.)
Thinking of criminality and crime as specific to the city is an archaic idea, and one that does a huge disservice to everyone.
Furthermore, I don't understand why R-71 is a "travesty of justice." This really doesn't even pertain to the judicial system. No one's being prosecuted, and it doesn't really change any criminal laws. It's pretty much solely a civil rights issue, as in "relating to the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship." whether you're for or against this referendum, it's still unquestionably one of civil rights.
Also, I don't know why you're using quotation marks around the term "right," or the specific "right" that you're referencing? Did heterosexuals fight and die to protect their visitation rights? Is that what the war of 1812 was really about? The British didn't want straight couples to visit their dying loved ones? I'm super lost on this, and I'd love some clarification.
#10 Nick CK
on November 4, 2009 at 12:04 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
As a gay person, I am greatly relieved that slightly more than half the voting population of the state, and about six out of every ten people in my immediate vicinity, thinks I deserve equal rights.
#11 Nick CK
on November 4, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
But I shouldn't be so negative. I'm really glad this looks like it's going to pass.
#12 Michael
on November 4, 2009 at 12:55 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I am well over 45, and have seen many civil rights changes during my lifetime. But I am STILL amazed that some of our citizens would vote to remove rights from others. What year is this ?!
#13 John W
on November 4, 2009 at 1:36 p.m.(Bellingham, WA | Unverified Name)
Perhaps I should move from King County to Spokane. Sounds like they've got it right over there.
#14 believedis
on November 4, 2009 at 1:49 p.m.(San Francisco, CA | Unverified Name)
seriously, why does being over 45 make it acceptable to turn the other cheek when someone loses rights?
I'm 43, on the brink, I think taking away DP and s/s marriages is as criminal as absolving a black/white marriage on basis of race.
#15 dave
on November 4, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
I am in the same boat as nick on this one as a gay man the thought of having less rights feels like an injustice furthermore why are people so anti r-71 its not all that much to ask for to have the same rights.
#16 Matt D
on November 4, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.(Bellingham, WA | Unverified Name)
Everybody knows the R-71 is just a gateway to gay marriage. I doubt people who voted against R-71 really care all that much about denying people equal rights. That's what civil unions are for, and the polls show that most people support those.
But come on, we're not stupid. We all know that this isn't about equal rights. This is about a group of people forcing their views on society by trying to redefine marriage.
The irony here is that these same people claim that they are being victimized by society forcing its views apon them.
Hypocrisy? You bet.
#17 Sarah
on November 4, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I don't buy it Matt. Our government recognizing the partnerships of some couples isn't forcing anything on other couples.
The opposition to Ref. 71 has a firm base in some churches who are vehemently opposed to homosexuality in all forms. They've made no secret out of the fact that they believe it's wrong.
But being gay is not illegal. It's totally neutral in the eyes of a secular government. Just like being heterosexual is. The state government will issue a marriage license to any (single and adult) heterosexual couple that wants it and there's no secular reason why this shouldn't be extended to homosexual couples.
The government isn't in and nor should it be in, the business of vetting the morality of the partnership of two consenting adults. But those oppose to gay partnerships want the government to do just that. Specifically they want the government to defer to the moral tenets of their particular churches. If anything is being forced on anyone, it's these groups demanding that the government force the general population to abide by their particular religious beliefs.
Is the fact that divorce legal forcing a re-definition of marriage on people morally oppose to divorce? Is the fact that alcohol consumption is legal forcing a certain view point on Muslims or Mormons who happen to believe that it's immoral? Is the fact that eating meat is legal forcing a view on Hindus, Buddhists and Seven Day Adventists who abstain from it for religious reasons?
No?
That's because people who choose to do all those things in no way affect those who are morally oppose to them. People making different life choices for themselves are in no way, forcing anything, on anybody.
You may notice that when Ref. 71 goes into effect it will make zero difference in your life, or those of heterosexual married couples and families. But it will have a great, positive effect on homosexual partners and their families.
#18 JV
on November 4, 2009 at 9:55 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name | UW Community)
First things first. I'm all for free speech and believing in what you want to believe in. The constitution is a great document that sets the United States of America apart is the greatest nation in the history of the world.
That doesn't mean we're perfect, though. At least not yet.
Haven't any of you anti-71ers ever heard of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?" As in, the guiding principle that our amazing country was founded upon? As in, everyone deserves an equal chance at happiness, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, and orientation?
You're pure evil if you think that any law-abiding American citizen doesn't deserve the same rights as you.
Pure and simple.
No gray area.
#19 Red
on November 5, 2009 at 3:42 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Matt, this does nothing to re-define marriage. It is simply a change in rights and laws. Marriage is a religious idea that has been partially adopted into the legal system in order to help support it, but it is still more defined in religion than law. If you were to saw only law defined marriage, than whos laws? Americas? Other countries? Are you then saying that every person outside this country is not married simply because their laws define the tax benefits differently? Your argument is a backhanded way of trying to stop equal rights. S/S Marriage is a far different ideal than giving those who do not want a religious union, but do want the same legal rights as other citizens. Gays and lesbians can live in this country, they can pay taxes, they can serve in the government, they can die for American ideals. They should sure as hell be allowed the same legal rights as every other citizen.
#20 Chelsea
on November 6, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.(San Francisco, CA | Unverified Name)
I am a Seattlite, recently relocated to Spokane. Spokane County voted to reject, however, most of the districts within the city limits of Spokane and Spokane Valley voted to approve. At least the cities got it right over here. Too bad for the rural areas, which I will assume generally are more religous and less educated than the metro population.
Post a comment