Thursday, March 29, 2012

R-74, I-1192. What If?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid For By Faith and Freedom PAC

Both Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192 are designed to protect marriage in Washington State. Both have a specific way of doing so. Both are vitally important for those who believe in and want to protect and preserve marriage.

Yet there are those in leadership of R-74, while advocating for R-74, are discouraging people and pastors from supporting I-1192---usually saying 2 measures on the ballot will confuse the voters. Or, it is said, there are limited resources, so R-74 should be the only focus.

Last fall I personally told Rep. Matt Shea, Rep. Jim McCune, Rep. Brad Klippert, Sen. Val Stevens, Sen. Dan Swecker and several other legislators, and Larry Stickney and others who have consistently carried the banner to protect and preserve marriage and in whom I personally have a great deal of confidence, that I would not take a formal leadership position in the upcoming battle to protect marriage, but that I would, as they knew, take a 100% role in supporting both a Referendum and/or an Initiative. And would support whoever led in these efforts.

My reason was two-fold. I understood some of the personal dynamics and felt I and Faith and Freedom could contribute more by eliminating some of the issues that were played out publicly against R-71, not by the press, but by an individual, 2 years ago. I knew we would fully support every effort to protect marriage regardless of who led or got the credit. And we are.

Secondly, I foresaw the possibility of 2 measures---referendum and initiative, being in play, which, as it turned out, is the case. I wanted to be fully committed to both because I am fully committed to natural marriage and its protection.

The thousands of people across the state with whom we are involved know full well our deepest commitment to both R-74 and I-1192. There is no question about our full support for both measures.

I am deeply disappointed with some of what I see and hear. Some of the same dynamics of the past seem to have resurfaced, simply pointed in different directions.

I am appealing to each of you who read this daily Blog and believe in protecting and preserving marriage, to work in support of both R-74 and I-1192, including those pastors who read this Blog.

This is the right thing to do. Please put aside egos and other agendas and work together for a cause that is worthy of our very best effort.

If there is confusion, lets be clear, it's not about citizens having the ability to vote for 2 rather than 1 measures.

Steve Pidgeon, a lawyer and sponsor of I-1192, has written an article titled, "What If?"

Please read it below. It should clarify any questions regarding the legitimacy of both R-74 and I-1192.

What if there was no Initiative I-1192?
by Steve Pidgeon

Suppose that the Referendum R-74 fails to make the ballot because the effort cannot obtain the necessary number of signatures:

IF there was no Initiative I-1192, then same-sex marriage would be the law in Washington.

Suppose that Referendum R-74 makes the ballot, but a lawsuit is brought to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing it on the ballot because it is only about depriving same-sex couples from a “civil right” that has already been approved by the legislature:

IF there was no Initiative I-1192, then same-sex marriage would be the law in Washington.

Suppose that Referendum R-74 makes it to the ballot, and makes it to the election, but because voters are confused by a ballot title that requires them to reject same-sex marriage, and to reject domestic partnerships for seniors, and to reject protections for religious liberty, the Referendum fails to obtain a majority of votes sufficient to overturn the same-sex marriage law:

IF there was no Initiative I-1192, then same-sex marriage would be the law in Washington.

Suppose that Referendum R-74 makes it to the ballot, makes it through the election, is passed by the voters, and a suit is brought to overturn in on constitutional grounds, and the Ninth Circuit sustains its unconstitutionality.

IF there was no Initiative I-1192, then same-sex marriage would be the law in Washington.


Initiative I-1192 asks you as a registered voter to support a new law which will declare that marriage is a civil contract between “one man and one woman” and which will prohibit marriage by persons other than “one man and one woman.” MARRIAGE = ONE MAN + ONE WOMAN.

What is confusing about this?

When approved, a two-thirds vote of the legislature will be required to overturn this new law for two years.

Compare the Initiative with the Referendum:

R-74 will ask you to accept or reject SB 6239, which allows same-sex couples to marry, preserves domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony. [Taken from the Ballot Title of R=74]

To vote to reject, you must:

· Reject same-sex marriages;

· Reject the preservation of domestic partnerships for seniors;

· Reject the preservation of the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform any marriage ceremony;

· Reject the preservation of the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to recognize any marriage ceremony;

· Reject the preservation of the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to accommodate any marriage ceremony;

We at Protect Marriage Washington are asking you to sign petitions for both the Initiative and the Referendum. Your support now is critical. We need your prayers and your commitment, your signature and your assistance in gathering signatures. Petitions are available on request, and your financial support is crucial. We are a grassroots organization, and we need the support of Washingtonians. Protect Marriage Washington was successful in 70% of Washington’s counties in the R-71 campaign three years ago, although we were outspent 25 to 1. As was the case in our last effort, we have no support from the National Organization for Marriage nor Focus on the Family; we need your support. Please donate today, and protect this effort!

Stephen Pidgeon

You may download a pdf to print I-1192 petitions here and pick up R-74 petitions at any one of these locations or sign up to be contacted by a Faith and Freedom coordinator in your area to assist you by signing up here.

This effort to protect marriage will impact the next generation and future generations. We are deciding now what social and cultural impact our children and grandchildren will experience.

And we are defining our faithfulness to a worthy, biblical cause.

Thanks to all of you who understand our times, and to those who support the ministry of Faith and Freedom.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Very Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. What you have missed is the question of "Is Initiative 1192 even a legitimate initiative?' The courts don't rule on the legality of initiatives or referendums until after the have passed and I've talked to 2 judges who think the mere wording change without a conceptual change of I-1192 will render it pointless, the referendum will trump the initiative since the referendum is about law that was signed into law AFTER the filing of the initiative.

    Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.

  2. Well said, we need to use all the tools at our disposal to defend the sanctity of marriage.

    Craig in Lacey

  3. OV. You can also find judges who believe marriage should be extended to polygamous groups and other deviant groupings. Yeah, all this referendum, initiative stuff is pointless, so how about you guys just not worry about it, don't spend a ton of money oppossing it and let it happen.

    1. The truth is the truth about Marriage and you obviously cannot see it. Marriage is a Covenant between a man and a woman. The truth is the truth and you cannot re-write what God has created.

    2. You saying what God created is a dangersous concept. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. The men who flew planes into the world trade center did so because of their faith. They believed they would be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins. You can say: "How stupid is that", but it is a belief based upon faith and all beliefs based solely on faith can be said to be stupid. Personally, I do not care who lives together or who loves whom; if the government is going to be in the marriage business than it must be equally available for all couples. My personal opinion is that government should not be in the marriage business; government should determine the rules for domestic partnerships between two or more people, people who decide to combine income and expenses and live together within a new unit, but marriage itself should be left up to the churches. Some churches would marry same sex couples and some would not.

  4. Thank you for having class and taking the high road.

  5. We don't ghet a re-do on the issue of marriage. We must all work together on this. I have heard some of what Gary mentioned about I-1192 in my circle of friends. Thanks for taking this position Gary.

  6. Childish sarcasm aside, you have a point. Wasting time on initiatives that won't pass legal muster is wrong on so many different levels. Like it or not, if the two ballot measures pass with opposite effects the referendum will be the one that prevails for several different reasons as per Washington state legal precedence.

    Mind you, I don't mind any reader wasting their time on the initiative. I do get a guilty pleasure of watching those with ill-intent hoisting themselves up by their own petards, particularly if I've warned them they were doing so ahead of time so please, collect away.

  7. Oshtur. Thank you for supporting Referendum 74 and warning all us lessor Christians of the "ill-intent hoisting" of others.

  8. Oh Jeff, I don't support the referendum attempt, but I will approve of the referendum measure if it makes the ballot. And the point of the idiom is about self inflicted injury, like wasting time, money, and effort on the initiative when it can't have any substantive effect. Its like the similar homily 'give them enough rope to hang themselves'.

  9. Just wanted to remind people and churches, confusion is of the devil, he is the author and deliverer of desception. If you are confused know this is not of God, plain and simply. Knowledge is power, let God reveal truth. He will!

    1. Amen, I am running a Bible study called the Truth Project and it is very informative. We are the light in this world and need to stand strong and show the truth because deception is NOT of God.

    2. for people who can't verify any of your fairytale, you sure throw word 'truth' around a lot. get a dictionary.

    3. Your very eyes verify the truth, so that you are without excuse. Speaking of truth, where pray tell, are the fossil records of one species slowly becoming another. I'll give you a clue. There aren't any. We believe a fairytale? LOL, that's hilarious!

      Craig in Lacey

    4. World English Dictionary
      fairy tale or fairy story

      — n
      1. a story about fairies or other mythical or magical beings, esp one of traditional origin told to children
      2. a highly improbable account

      If you want evidence that fossil records support species development, you'll need to include fossil records older than the 6,000 year limit your church puts on the universe.

  10. This is ridiculous. R74 adds nothing and serves no purpose other than to confuse people. It accomplishes the same thing as I-1192 but is subject to reversal by the legislature right away. I-1192 is simpler and could not be reversed by the legislature in less than 2 years. If I-1192 came under a court challenge, such a challenge would apply all the same to R-74.

    Obviously something fishy is going on with this pointless and confusing R74 petition. It appears that some people are want to insist on getting "their" measure on the ballot and are pushing R74 so they can take credit. All of this is undermining the cause of protecting traditional marriage in Washington. I don't think we can or should sweep this under the rug. People are playing games at the expense of the God-ordained model for the family.

    I will *not* sign any petition for R74. I will only sign for I-1192. Please consider prayerfully the issues at stake before putting your name on an R-74 petition.

    1. Both petitions exist because they both honor God and His revelation of the marriage relationship between Jesus and His Bride, The Church, thus matrimony is indeed Holy. I have an excellent flyer I've printed out on my computer briefly explaining "what's necessary" on the petitions. I'm using a broken down postal mailing box as a backboard and clothes pins to clip the petitions one on either side of this backboard and when one side is signed (R74) I just flip it over and get the other side signed (I-1192).

      Enough signatures are needed before June 6 on R-74 so homosexuals cannot automatically be declared married on that date. Should enough signatures be collected for I-1192 by July 6, would the effect be to unmarry them? I can see where the courts would end up deciding this.

      Primary emphasis should be to prevent their marriages first and foremost and then establishing the relationship one man + one woman equals marriage. I do see this can be accomplished concurrently and support it as such. So everyone do everything possible to get signatures for both as widely and as speedily as possible.

      Diane Eaton

    2. Diane:

      I know you mean well and I don't doubt your heart for a minute. But it is simply false that we need to be signing R74 in order to stop homosexual marriages from going into effect. R74 is not God-honoring. It is dangerous.

      If I-1192 gets enough signatures by the deadline, it will have the exact same effect as R74. No homosexual marriages would proceed as the initiative would override the recent action of the legislature. There is no confusion or doubt on this issue and it is only the folks who are mischievously pushing R74 who try to create confusion.

      R74 does not honor God or God's plan for marriage. R74 is a distraction and a source of confusion and all confusion comes from the Enemy, not from God. I-1192 accomplishes everything we want, and it does so simply and cleanly and with a guaranteed 2-year period in which the legislature cannot reverse it. Please do not fall for the mischief of the R74 peddlers.

  11. Two-pronged offensive!! Sure to Win! On to Victory! IN GOD WE TRUST!

  12. It would be nice if you could focus on your own personal relationship with Jesus instead of being concerned with what everyone else has done with their lives. On judgement day do you really believe God is going to praise you for all of the hate you have spread about other fellow humans. Instead of judgement why not spread love. Marriage is love so why not let two committed same-sex partners get married. If it is truly wrong then God can judge them himself when they get to that point. Until then maybe you can realize that this issue does not affect you in any way. For same-sex partners this issue actually makes a huge difference in their lives. Please explain to me how gay people getting married affects your life in any way what so ever.

  13. This hysteria over religious faith makes me think of the fanatics who flew planes into the Twin Towers, believing they would go to heaven and live with 72 virgins.

    I have to ask those who look to their bibles when depriving fellow Americans equal rights-- are you pure and devout or just fearful that you'll be denounced by your pastor if you don't hate men and women who've done you no harm?

  14. Protecting the sanctity of marriage? Why don't you people protect the REAL issues that break marriage down like affairs or cheating or people getting a divorce so easily? That is what hurts marriage. How is it right to vote down a minorities civil rights? Are you against interracial marriages too? Back in the day you kind of people were against that as well. Maybe us gay people can make marriage mean something especially since we have to FIGHT FOR IT! You people make me sick. I don’t think Jesus would agree with you idiots one bit.

  15. If you follow the logic here, then non-Christian m/f couples like me and my wife should not be allowed to be married - there is no 'Godly convenant' here. I do not understand why the attack is narrowed to same sex non-Christian couples.

  16. Whether or not R74 or I-1192 passes, the issue of a partner having rights to making decisions as a POA if their partner is unable, medically etc. Should become valid and recognized. Partners that are shown to be closer than family members deserve this right!


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.