Washington (state) -- Referendum 71 -- "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. Should this bill be Approved or Rejected?"
The Positions: An Approve (Yes) vote upholds the expanded domestic partnership rights approved by the state legislature. A Reject (No) vote withdraws those rights and benefits, although it does not overturn domestic partnership itself.
The thing to notice is that the language is the functional opposite here of what it was in Maine or California. An affirmative (approve) vote is good news for same-sex couples, and a negative (reject) vote is bad for them. This has caused some confusion; one pollster has stated that as much as 10 percent of the electorate might vote in a way opposite to their true intentions.
The Polls: The only independent polling in the race is from SurveyUSA, which shows the Approve side winning 50-43, an improvement from 45-42 a month ago. GQR also polled the race on behalf of the pro-domestic partnership group Washington Families Standing Together and showed it passing 53-36, although the usual caveats apply as this is a nonindependent poll.
Analysis: Washington is similar to Maine in certain respects, being white and fairly secular, and since I think the pro-gay marriage side is more likely than not to prevail in Maine, you might think I feel the same way about the initiative in Washington state. Indeed I do feel that way, although the initiatives are not directly comparable. On the one hand, Referendum 71 does not go as far as Maine's Question 1 or California's Proposition 8 since it seeks to reaffirm an "everything but marriage" bill that does not formally bestow the title of marriage upon same-sex couples. On the other hand, a rejection of the referendum would not overturn Washington's 2007 domestic partnership law, but instead only the expanded, marriage-like benefits that were afforded to those couples this year.
Were Washington to vote on a measure to ban domestic partnership outright, it would almost certainly fail and fail badly: by a 58-42 margin, according to my statistical model. A measure to ban gay marriage but not domestic partnership would be much closer; I have such a measure failing 52.5-47.5, but there is a good deal of uncertainty there, and in an off-year election the numbers might be closer to 50:50. Referendum 71 appears to be polling somewhere in between those two goalposts, which makes sense, since it takes Washington somewhere in between domestic partnership and full-blown marriage.
There is also arguably less uncertainty about the outcome in Washington than in Maine. This is because, as in California, most Washingtonians vote by mail, and SurveyUSA has the Approve side leading 53-42 among those who have already voted. A small bit of good fortune for the Approve side is that there is a highly competitive mayoral race in Seattle, which might encourage turnout in that obviously very liberal corner of the state.
The Odds: Although there is a lot of uncertainty in both the polling and the statistical model because of the ambiguity of the measure under consideration, they do tend to point toward the same result: Referendum 71 passing by a margin on the order of 7-10 points. Coupled with what appears to be movement toward the pro-domestic partnership side -- which may reflect voters familiarizing themselves with the language of the ballot -- and what also appears to be an advantage for the Approve side in votes collected thus far, Referendum 71 appears to be fairly safe. I would give about 10-1 odds against its being rejected.
11.03.2009
2009 Elections Preview: Washington Referendum 71 (Domestic Partnership)
by Nate Silver @ 4:19 PM...see also 2009 elections, ballot initiatives, gay rights, washington
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

74 comments
Another good analysis - I hope you're right about this one!
they do tend to point toward the same result: Referendum 71 failing by a margin on the order of 7-10 points....
It's obviously so confusing I'm confused by that statement. Do the polling and statistical models point to the same result: Referendum 71 passing by a margin on the order of 7-10 points?
Well, here's hoping it passes.
You are wrong about Survey USA being the only independent poll. The University of Washington polled on the measure and released poll results last week. The UW poll is independent and usually closer to the mark on local issues.
NCT
so share that UW poll with us please.
a link perhaps ?
I am hoping Nate will be correct on all 3 [ME, WA & DC]
Hopefully not.
wow - that Washington Poll has it as a BIG win for equality:
http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/OCT_27_09.pdf
Likely Voters 57 YES only 38 NO
Reg Voters 56 - 39
Already Votes 55-45
Obama Approval 52-40-7
sample size 724
survey was in the field from
October 14 – 26
If anyone else wants to see plenty of SECULAR reasons why same-sex marriage (or even "domestic partnerships") should not be legalized:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/2009-elections-preview-maine-question-1.html
Charles said...
Hopefully not.
~~~~~~~~~~
Chucky, as I just said to you, time is not on your side.
take care, blessings
p.s. Chucky, you were thoroughly trounced in that previous Gay thread, as per usual. Your continuing spin is now mute.
ciao
moot not mute lol
carry on
SHILOH
CHARLES most likely hangs out in all sorts of gay chat rooms judging by his previous comments & the amount of time he is investing in these subjects...
shiloh:
Time was not on the Roman Empire's side either (so maybe we are headed into history's trash bin too, as I said, HOPEFULLY NOT). I realize these are simply typed words, so technically ALL of us are on "mute" (unless you have one of those computers that SPEAK like in WarGames). If you meant to use the word "moot" then I disagree as NO ONE has refuted lists of scientific studies that point out the detriment of homosexual acts.
Remember DCM in FL:
DNFTT
CHARLES = bad evil TROLL
please DNFTT
Oh, I thought that SHILOH = bad evil TROLL. My bad, feed him all you want then.
Just don't let him touch water (or is that "Gremlins"?)
Washington State is significantly less white than Maine, but we're still pretty white (75% vs. 95%).
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+state+v+maine
Charles, the Gay issue will never never be moot for you, so please continue your spin er argument.
But I must warn you, even I get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again. ;)
Whereas BDP never gets tired lol, I digress.
take care
Charles, nobody is going to waste their time going through about a million copied and pasted "facts" that you got from a "CREATION SCIENCE" website (by your own admission).
If you want to believe them, fine, go ahead, but nobody else here does. It is utterly unconvincing.
Brian:
The "CREATION SCIENCE" website linked to legitimate studies about the increased risk of STDs and suicide for active homosexuals. Those are all secular studies. Don't kill the messenger.
Oh yes, and I'm CERTAIN that said website has absolutely NO bias or agenda to push, do they? Kind of like Fox News, right?
Why don't I just produce a "scientific study" about race relations that was carried out by Louis Farrakhan. I'm sure that would be JUST as legitimate and scientific, right?
Local Washingtonian here... I believe our wording to be in fact EASIER to understand than California's Prop 8 language. I think people who follow these bills state by state get more than a little confused but the campaign, question, and general populace is very in favor of this bill.
The AGAINST Ref 71 is no steam in the state with no real politicans backing it other than a crazy rep from a north district.
...in favor of this ref. I should rephrase...
Brian:
Of course not, but creationwiki.org did not "carry out" any of those studies (all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals). If the New York Times had simply listed the names and titles of the articles, that would change the studies how?
The increased risk of suicide and STD's is why we need to encourage active homosexuals to marry each other. It will reduce both. We all know nothing stops people from having sex quicker then getting married.
The problem is that they described what the conclusions of the studies are. Though I'm sure you actually went to every single one to verify the veracity of their claims, rather than just accepting their conclusions outright, of course. And of course, if you SAY you did, we would have to just trust that you did this, since there is no way to verify it.
The bigger issue is that it is fundamentally dishonest to attempt to overwhelm the opposition with data the way you did. It took you two seconds to just copy and paste what some Creationist website SAID these studies said, and you expect us all to sit there and find the actual studies and debunk them one by one. I would imagine you would resort to this tactic, because the one time you just posted ONE study, your conclusions about it were ripped apart immediately by a number of commentators (and of course, you conveniently ignored all of these objections, and in fact continued to reference that study as if it said what you want it to).
So, that's really the main point. Who knows if the Creation Websites interpretation of these studies is true?? But you know if you simply overwhelm everyone with info, there is no way that someone is going to sit there and pick through everything.
FYI
Exit polls show a 47-47 race in New Jersey
Corzine up to 55 in Intrade, Christie down to 42
Will be a long night
Very funny, Rillion. No, there were studies cited on the other thread that dealt specifically with what homosexuals self-described as "comitted relationships" in terms of number of years / partners. Feel free to read through those over there and let me know if you have any questions.
P.S. to Brian:
I was asked for the studies, so I gave them. I don't think that shrinkers is complaining that I provided "too many" studies.
There is a fundamental problem with the studies as presented in the creation "science" web site. They are being used as arguments against homosexuality, and against same-sex marriage. They have, in fact, nothing to do with either.
What they have to do with is things such as sexually-transmitted diseases. These are neither caused by, nor transmitted by, homosexuals. They are caused by viruses and transmitted by unprotected sex.
The argument of the creation "science" website is equivalent to saying that gestational diabetes is caused by heterosexuals, and is encouraged by heterosexual marriage. Clearly, for the health of potential mothers, we must outlaw heterosexual activity, and prevent heterosexuals from getting married. Write your Congressperson today.
Cop out, once again.
shrinkers:
Were there "too many" studies for you, or any about higher rates of gestational diabetes?
@Charles
I was asked for the studies, so I gave them. I don't think that shrinkers is complaining that I provided "too many" studies.
True, Charles. I am, however, amused that you chose a source with no credibility in logic or scientific analysis.
Well Chucky boy, look on the bright side. If question 1 fails and prop 71 passes, many people will be much happier, but as proven to you time and time again, it will NOT HARM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
shrinkers:
As I pointed out to Brian, creationwiki.org did not "carry out" any of those studies (all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals). If the New York Times had simply listed the names and titles of the articles, that would change the studies how?
Please explain your derision of the "source" if the studies actually prove higher incidents of STD's. Numbers don't lie.
LOL, once again, ignoring inconvenient arguments.
And, numbers actually DO lie. Quite frequently. Which is really the bigger point.
I had asked Charles for his secular reasons to outlaw same-sex marriage, and I asked for references that did not come from an anti-gay-rights website. So the arguments Charles posted were my fault, and I take full responsibility.
However, he did not find an anti-gay website to quote from, which is sad.
Nor did he find any arguments whatever concerning same sex marriage.
What he found was an anti-gay propaganda site that provided a number of studies that allegedly found a correlation between the incidence of various physical and mental ailments and homosexual populations. I am unclear as to what this had to do with my question.
Of course, correlation is not causation - for example, many of the alleged psychological issues described are more likely due to social pressures from a discriminatory society, than they are due to homosexuality per se. Clearly, reducing the stigma attached to being gay (through means, fore example, of the legalization of same-sex marriage) would go a long way toward reducing these pressures.
In general, the ailments described in these studies are due more to the lack of acceptance by our society, than they are due to being something other than a heterosexual. And none of the studies, as I said, addressed the question I asked - to wit, secular arguments against same-sex marriage.
Brian:
Please explain how the MULTIPLE studies of twins, finding that the homosexual twin was 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide, is a "lie". It's just a study. 6.5 cannot "lie".
When did I say that study was a lie?
Once again, deflection.
shrinkers:
There aren't that many PRO-gay marriage web sites out there citing to studies that make the case against them. How about I give you the task of finding pro-choice web sites that argue abortion is murder?
Brian:
YOU said "numbers actually DO lie. Quite frequently". I gave you one number from the studies (6.5). Please explain how that is a "lie".
WHAT "inconvenient" argument do you think I am ignoring?!
Please explain how the MULTIPLE studies of twins, finding that the homosexual twin was 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide, is a "lie". It's just a study. 6.5 cannot "lie".
The problem, Charles, is the explanation for the difference. To pretend that it is because one of the pair was homosexual - rather than to look for causes such as living in a society that hates you - is simplistic and absurd.
But others of the studies you quoted were either outdated or fraudulent to begin with. I addressed one of them in the other thread, and I need not repeat it here - a physical condition that was first invented by an anti-gay-rights activist, which has since been discredited and ruled by the medical establishment as being nonexistent - yet which is still being quoted by anti-gay websites.
Even in the cases where the studies quoted are legitimate studies, the problem is the interpretation of those studies, and the hateful and slanted use to which they are being put.
Ugh, I am just going to point you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy)
So you have no point.
And even if that number is true, it doesn't really relate to anything at all.
shrinkers is doing a much better job than I care to. So, continue shrinkers :-)
So, shrinkers, the twins studies to you is akin to "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Regardless of why the homosexual is 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide, 6.5 is NOT a "lie". Maybe I'm missing something that only liberal minds can pick up on.
"Regardless of why the homosexual is 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide, 6.5 is NOT a "lie". "
This is exactly why trying to argue with you is like bashing your head into a brick wall.
NOBODY, other than YOU, asserted that THIS PARTICULAR STUDY was a lie. I simply said that it is EASY to make SOME numbers say things that they really don't.
You have proven absolutely nothing, other than the fact that you are very good at building strawmen.
@Charles -
There aren't that many PRO-gay marriage web sites out there citing to studies that make the case against them.
My hope was that you furnish your own rational thought on the topic, or source studies upon which you could base your own reasoned argument. All you found was a series of anti-gay screeds, completely unrelated to the question of same-sex marriage.
So, shrinkers, the twins studies to you is akin to "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Regardless of why the homosexual is 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide, 6.5 is NOT a "lie". Maybe I'm missing something that only liberal minds can pick up on.
Perhaps yes - it may be that closed minds are, well, closed.
It is not a "chicken or egg" situation. It is a situation in which no causal mechanism has been established. Instead, a causal relationship has been simply assumed, for the purpose of advancing the prejudicial agenda of an irrational interest group.
For the sake of argument, then, assuming all other things are equal, being a homosexual creates an approximately SIX TIMES greater risk of suicide. Shouldn't society do whatever we reasonably can to reduce that risk, rather than promoting more people to enter that risky lifestyle?
@Charles
For the sake of argument, then, assuming all other things are equal, being a homosexual creates an approximately SIX TIMES greater risk of suicide. Shouldn't society do whatever we reasonably can to reduce that risk, rather than promoting more people to enter that risky lifestyle?
This is a reasonable argument which I actually agree with completely. The first step in reducing the risk is to legalize same-sex marriage, which would let to alleviate the stigma which is likely to be a significant contributing factor, thereby reducing the risk.
A second thing we can do is to stop repeating the fiction that being homosexual is a "lifestyle". That too would help to reduce the risk by increasing the acceptance of certain innate properties of human beings.
We should NOT be encouraging more of that! So, no, I obviously don't believe those are completely unrelated to the question of same-sex marriage.
I'm afraid I'm missing your logic here. What is the "that" we should be not encouraging?
And again, I am still confused - What do any of the studies you present have to do with same-sex marriage?
So Charles, if a study found that black people were six times more likely than white people to commit suicide, then should society curtail the rights of black people, so as not to encourage them to be black?
Who cares what OTHER cause(s) there are for the results from the twins studies?! Whether it's internal pressures from being gay, or external pressures from being looked down upon, or a combination of both, the bottom line is that said persons are more likely to attempt suicide. We should NOT be encouraging more of that, should we?! So, no, I obviously don't believe those are completely unrelated to the question of same-sex marriage.
shrinkers:
The "that" is homosexuals.
Jacob:
No. Race is immutable, so I would take the approach advocated by shrinkers to address that situation.
See how easy it is to actually ANSWER questions?
@Charles
The "that" is homosexuals.
Thank you.
Please tell me, then, if I understand your argument. I believe you are saying:
1) Homosexuality is a choice, not anything innate within a person.
2) Homosexuality carries certain risks - and you do not care if those risks are an innate part of being homosexual, or if they are caused by lack of acceptance by others.
3) The solution (i.e, the way to remove these risks) is to discourage people from choosing to be homosexuals. (This, to you, is a better solution than, for example, encouraging society to accept homosexuals, the way we accept people with red hair, whether the red hair is innate or dyed.)
4) A societal acceptance of same-sex marriages would run counter to your suggested solution, i.e., discouraging homosexuality.
Does this sum up your argument fairly accurately?
But Charles, regardless of what you may believe, actual gay people do not choose to be gay. So if they were more likely to be suicidal, how would trying to criminalize their identity solve the problem?
shrinkers:
I'm not saying that homosexuality is a choice for everyone, and there are clearly persons who are "inately" (if that's even a word) predisposed to that condition. But so is alcholism and other conditions. What is a CHOICE 100% is how you ACT on those urges (homo- or heterosexual BTW). Do you not think that those who self-identified as homosexual can choose to be heterosexual once and for all (or, it that simply bi-sexual" according to your definition)?
Here's my biggest concern about societal acceptance of same-sex marriages: those who would otherwise be "on the fence" see such acceptance as the deciding factor to taking a more risk-intensive path (if you don't want to use the word "lifestyle"), who would have been happier and safer as a married heterosexual with natural biological children.
the self-loathing hateful evil TROLL continues his illogical irrational diatribes againsy gays...
I wonder if he is obese, because the exact same 'arguments' that he spews [bad habits, bad heath risks, shortened life spans, societal stigmas, ad nauseum apply] - plus 'bad genes' of course for procreation [since 'marriage' is ALL about the procreation of the species per the TROLL]
bigotry & hate is all he has, and I am sure he loathes other religions [clearly], other ethnicities, the opposite sex [most certainly] as well as all those F@Gs that want to apparently he fears want to marry him...
btw - they don't ;-) I predict 100% that you are not that hot...
Exit polling looking good for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia. Let's hope enough conservatives got out to vote in Maine, DC, and Washington!
@Charles s
I'm not saying that homosexuality is a choice for everyone, and there are clearly persons who are "inately" (if that's even a word) predisposed to that condition. But so is alcholism and other conditions.
I mean this question respectfully, not as a rhetorical device - Do you intend to imply that homosexuality is (or can be) a disease, in the sense that alcoholism is a disease?
What is a CHOICE 100% is how you ACT on those urges (homo- or heterosexual BTW).
I agree that individual actions are the responsibility of the individual acting. We will perhaps come back to that point.
Do you not think that those who self-identified as homosexual can choose to be heterosexual once and for all (or, it that simply bi-sexual" according to your definition)?
Honestly, I don't know. The more important question to me is - IF there is a "choice" involved (rather than simply innate being-ness), do we have a right - or any justification - to force this choice upon anyone? I would say no. What is your view on this?
Here's my biggest concern about societal acceptance of same-sex marriages: those who would otherwise be "on the fence" see such acceptance as the deciding factor to taking a more risk-intensive path (if you don't want to use the word "lifestyle"), who would have been happier and safer as a married heterosexual with natural biological children.
Thanks, that is clarifying. Again, I don't feel this is a choice that I have any right to interfere with. Nor do I have any reason to suspect that this would be a "deciding factor" to a significant enough percentage of people to be of any concern.
Let me ask you - if there were no health risks as we have been discussing, would you still wish to discourage homosexuality?
If there were no health risks, then I don't know why it would be prohibited in the Bible. I have to assume your question is: "If there are no health risks, but God still says don't do it?" I would have to think about that more, because there would still have to be some other secular reason for the prohibition.
And I'm not saying that homosexuality is a "disease" any more than sin is a "disease". You can't "catch it" like a virus. But, you can be encouraged to participate. That's the problem. As I understand the new "catch phrase" about alcoholism being a disease, your body is more susceptible to the chemical reactions taking a stronger hold of you. Look, there are heterosexual sex ADDICTS too. They are doing more to ruin the "sanctity of marriage" just by sheer numbers, so I'm not just blaming the homosexuals for this. They (rightly?) see everyone else having all the selfish fun they want, so why not them too? But, we have no chance whatsoever of reigning the heterosexuals in, if we can't plug the dike with same-sex marriage.
Does that answer any of your questions?
@Charles
Does that answer any of your questions?
It does indeed.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong - your reference to God and the bible imply that the root of your objection is not health effects per se, but a religious objection, since you interpret the bible as being opposed to homosexuality. Is that so?
You seem to be saying that the bible is opposed to homosexuality because (you assume) there must be some practical reason for that opposition. Is that accurate?
Not completely. There's no "practical" reason for "You shall have no other gods before me" and that's something that I want government to stay completely out of. And just because I have a religious objection to homosexual ACTS (different than homosexuality) doesn't mean there aren't valid secular reasons as well. I know you think that those are just being provided as "cover" for some huge theocracy, but that's not what I want at all.
@Charles
I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
You do, you said, have a religious objection to some "homosexual acts". Since you don't want a "theocracy", you would not want these acts to be legislated against, if there were no secular or practical considerations against them, regardless of your religious convictions.
But if we are limiting the discussion to practical and secular concerns, why bring up your view of the bible and your god at all? What relevance does that have?
Because you asked me a hypothetical completely erasing any health concerns (so, I honestly answered that there would have to be some other "secular" reason that I haven't really pondered about, since health was the primary one for me). On the distinction between homosexuality "orientation" and homosexual "acts", keep in mind that I think that heterosexual "acts" outside of marriage should be outlawed as well (again, on completely secular ground even though that is the Biblical prohibition as well). Let me know what you still don't understand.
Blogger Charles said...
"...we can't plug the dike with same-sex marriage."
Well I guess that's true.
;)
This guy is too f'ing funny sometimes
Any news on Maine 1?
Thanks, Charles. I think we've come down to some basic underlying assumptions. Some of your assumptions differ markedly from mine - and perhaps from those of many other Americans. I suspect those assumptions are unlikely to change.
For me, IF there are health considerations (and I am not convinced there are), then those health considerations should be addressed as health considerations, rather than infringing upon things I consider to be basic human rights.
For you, if I am not mistaken, you do not see the same things as basic human rights, and you feel there are health considerations which should be addressed by encouraging different behavior. You also seem to feel that the reason this is not a question of basic human rights is because of religious prohibitions - which, again, if I am not mistaken, you feel must be rooted somehow in practical matters, even if you don't always know what those practical matters are.
Your quest, then, is to find the practical considerations which justify the religious prohibitions. My quest is to protect what I see as basic human rights, and to address health considerations as unrelated medical issues.
This being the case, let me suggest that you recognize that the people who see it as a question of basic human rights will not be swayed by arguments about health issues. Your arguments will seem disingenuous, at best - while, to you, their arguments will seem to be counter to your basic assumptions of religious prohibition.
We are either equal or we are not.
In America, there has never been a time were every American has equal rights.
It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists.
Funny how the "freedom loving teabaggers" want to restrict freedom.
I agree with you, beavis. There is a question of equality and of basic rights. And anything that restricts the rights of any of us, restricts the rights of us all.
@ Charles:
"What is a CHOICE 100% is how you ACT on those urges (homo- or heterosexual BTW). Do you not think that those who self-identified as homosexual can choose to be heterosexual once and for all (or, it that simply bi-sexual" according to your definition)?"
Charles, what my experience has been is that homosexuals who have tried to follow this path, who have *tried* to be straight and entered into heterosexual marriages very commonly hit a point around middle age where they can no longer keep living a lie. Sometimes they self-destruct, sometimes they act out with a vengeance, but even if everyone involved acts completely honorably, the fallout for the family can be horrific.
So as a practical matter, what forbidding same-sex does is encourage *doomed* heterosexual marriages.
Check out the stories at someplace like the Straight Spouse Network (http://www.straightspouse.org/home.php) if you really want to understand the outcome of the policy you are advocating. Especially since encouraging these marriages are your stated *reason* for being against same-sex marriage.
link for Washington Poll:
http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/OCT 27 09.pdf
Charles:
Being a homosexual is, indeed, more akin to being black than having a predisposition to alcoholism. Homosexuality was removed from modern versions of the DSM specifically because it is recognized as an inate biological quality, like being a man or a woman, as opposed to a psycological disorder, such as alcoholism. It is important to accept this as fact if you want to continue to have a meaningful conversation about the merits of gay marriages or unions, otherwise you are starting with a set of completely different axioms and can't possibly come to any agreeance with the pro gay rights = pro civil liberties croud.
*crowd, sorry
Post a Comment