Referendum 71: Approval at the polls will mean endgame for same-sex marriage in Washington state

In May, the Rev. Joe Fuiten of Cedar Park Church, Bothell, appealed to his fellow conservative Christians not to challenge the state's new domestic-partnership law for same-sex couples.

Yes, they could collect signatures and put the law on the ballot and hope to overturn it. That is the right of referendum. But the polls, he said, "show us behind." Fuiten warned: "If we make a referendum effort and fail, the other side will conclude the public is with them."

Yes, they will — and the fight will be over.

This is a fight about a thing that goes by different names. One side says it's about "domestic partnerships," which is what the bill calls it, and the other side says it's about "homosexual marriage."

The labels feel different, which is intended. In fact, by not using the word "marriage," the law gives couples a lesser claim when outside of Washington. But in terms of the legal rights and responsibilities inside the state, the domestic-partnership law is marriage.

On such matters, Washington is a liberal state. Last year, we voted 58 percent for "death with dignity," being the second state to do so. In 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade, we voted 56 percent to legalize abortion.

Regarding marriage, we will leave the name off and put it on later. This is what people did in Vermont, where full same-sex marriage went into effect Sept. 1, and in New Hampshire, where it goes into effect Jan. 1, 2010.

Change comes in steps, and the last one is the least important. The crucial step was when it became OK to be openly gay, and for gay couples to adopt children. The rest follows. In America, you cannot keep a group like this in a status of inferior rights. You just can't.

You can delay. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex marriage, and more than 15,000 were done. Opponents circulated a petition and put the question on the ballot. In November 2008, same-sex marriage was voted down. The court had gotten ahead of the public.

But note this: In California, 52 percent voted against same-sex marriage. Eight years earlier, 61 percent had voted against it. Opponents are losing 1 percent of the electorate per year.

In 2006, in Andersen v. King County, the Washington Supreme Court had a chance to do what the California court did. It wisely refrained. Gay marriage is not in our state's 120-year-old constitution and it would not have passed the smell test to "find" it there. The court said proponents should go to the Legislature, which they did. They got a piece of marriage in 2007, another piece of it in 2008 and essentially the rest in 2009.

Now come the opponents, who have ignored the sage advice of the Rev. Fuiten and put Referendum 71 on the ballot. Gays were angry about that. They say they don't want their fundamental rights put on a ballot. But politically these are not fundamental rights — yet. When this passes, they will be.

A handful of other states have approved same-sex marriage, but before this year it was always by court ruling. That is an inferior victory, because the losers won't accept it.

This year, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine approved same-sex marriage by their legislatures, which is a better way. (Maine is having a referendum, too.) But no state has approved a measure like this by vote of the people — which is the best way.

On Nov. 3, Washington will be the first.

Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com