Here is a video taken at the Friday, June 19th Referendum 71 rally in Colville, WA.  Referendum 71 seeks to repeal the incremental Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009, but would not abolish the DP system in Washington.

What is remarkable about this video (below the fold) is that it shows a rally essentially devoid of participants.  One gets the sense that there were only a handful of people present besides the five who were interviewed.  This event was pitched by Larry Stickney as a means of gathering “lots of signatures”.  However, it would appear to be a total flop.Lest anyone think this video was shot to deliberately minimize the look of the “crowd”, note that the videographer wishes Rep Short luck with the referendum at the end of the video.  Notice also in her related post how she states “The law is now on “hold”  so no marriages have been performed to date.”  This implies that marriage will be available to s-s couples under the on-hold law, but that is of course not true and is emblematic of the DPs = marriage bait and switch tactic that the referendum campaign uses.  The videographer also uncritically provides the two propaganda points that Protect Marriage Washington had printed on the petition, and provides the organization’s URL.  In contrast, she fails to provide any information from the pro-equality viewpoint.  In sum, this video was shot by a person sympathetic to the referendum and thus fairly represents the magnitude of the “crowd” present at the rally.  

Interviewees were Ron Perkins; Lisa Shinn, who sits on the board of Larry Stickney’s Washington Values Alliance; Walter Stickert; Rep. Joel Kretz; Rep. Shelly Short.

Narrator:  OK, I am here at Colville city park, or Yep Kanum Park at the Protect Marriage rally here in Colville, Washington.  And I am talking to Ron Perkins.  And Ron, could you tell me a little bit about the Protect Marriage rally?

Ron Perkins: Yes ma’am.  The rally basically is a petition drive to stop a bill that has been passed by the Washington state Senate and House of Representatives and signed by the Governor, which would essentially take homosexuality and raise the status of domestic partnerships and so forth, and basically invalidate marriage in the state. It would render terms like husband and wife as gender-neutral terms as far as the law was concerned, which obviously would undermine the foundations of traditional marriage.  

This is a way for, what we believe is a majority of people who believe in traditional marriage to assert that fundamental thinking as opposed to what happens here in the state of Washington where the western side of the state because of the urban area, tends to dominate politically even though the larger masses – they don’t tend to get represented quite as well.

Narrator: I understand you are one of the organizers of this event today in Colville.  

Lisa Shinn: [nods yes]

Narrator:  What’s your name please?

Lisa Shinn:  Lisa Shinn.  So really it’s much more than just can’t we all just kind of do our own thing.  It’s so much bigger than that.  It changes our entire culture.  It changes our relationships and how we relate to on another – the terminology.  There is no longer male and female, we’ll all be gender-neutral.

But in California, when they passed it to have same-sex marriage, it actually went into effect, and there were I think 18,000 marriages in the State of California, so now they have a problem because those people really did get married under – legally got married.  And so then Proposition 8 went through, and was upheld.  Ans so, we have a different situation here.  The law was passed by the referendum was filed and put the law on hold.  It has not been implemented.

Narrator:  Ah, I see.

Lisa Shinn:  So if we get enough signatures it will not be implemented until the people decide in November whether or not they want that law in the State of Washington.

Narrator:  Can you tell me your name, sir?

Walter Stickert:  Ok, I’m Walter Stickert.  Well by profession I’m a teacher , and I’m here not only as a teacher but I’m here as a Christian and as a concerned citizen.  And I support Protect Marriage Washington.

Narrator:  If this referendum is not successful, how do you think this law is going to affect our state?

Walter Stickert:  Well, the law has already stated in such a way that it’s a given that the definition of marriage will change.  Because if they’ve all been “neutered” so to speak, then that throws out the definition of marriage as it exists now in this state, as between a male and a female.  But that goes out the window if this law – I mean it’s just a, it’s just a matter of semantics to change that.

Narrator:  Right, right.  Ok, alright.  Ok so this is Joel Kretz, our state representative, is that correct Mr. Kretz?  Ok our state representative for the 7th district here in Stevens County, Washington.  And did you vote on the bill?

Rep. Joel Kretz: Yeah.

Narrator:  Ok.

Rep. Joel Kretz:  It passed this last year.  Yeah I voted on that – voted no on that.

Narrator:  You voted no.

Rep. Joel Kretz: The citizens have a good chance to correct that thing, so we’ll see.

Narrator:  Ok, if you get enough signatures then it will be put to a referendum by the people, is that correct?

Rep. Joel Kretz: Right, a referendum to the people.

Narrator:  Shelly Short, and you are a state senator, is that right?

Rep. Shelly Short:  State representative.

Narrator:  State representative for the 7th district here in Stevens County, Washington.

Rep. Shelly Short:  Yes.  I definitely, I support what these folks are doing right here.  I voted against the bill.  We tried to make it, you know, marriage in Washington state under the Defense of Marriage Act was passed and it was upheld by the courts that recognized that marriage was between a man and a woman.  And that that was a legally-defensible, biblical, every thing else, you know, kind of definition of marriage.  

What this bill does is it basically takes all of that and makes domestic partnerships completely equal to, you know, a heterosexual married couple in everything except for the word marriage.  But it makes everything gender-neutral, they for all intents and purposes have every equal, every equality that that a a married couple, a man and a woman married couple have in this state.  

When they challenged the Defense of Marriage Act, these things weren’t in place and so the courts found in favor and upheld the Act.  What this does is undercuts that.  You will see movement now to go probably back into court and deal with the issue saying, well wait a minute, now we are equally recognized.  And that’s the concern.  It really undercuts it in every way, shape or form from the very foundation, and like I said in every term except for the fact that they’re not married they will be recognized in every other way.

Narrator:  So right now as the law stands, what rights do they not have that a normal married couple has?

Rep. Shelly Short:  Ah, certificate of marriage.

Narrator:  So that’s the only thing that they don’t have.

Rep. Shelly Short:  That’s the only thing.  I mean that is the only thing they’re not recognized.  Every other right, every other right now of a married couple.  It just undercuts the very foundation of what we’ve always recognized in this country, biblically and socially that marriage is between a man and a woman.  And this, again, we’re concerned for kids, we’re concerned about a person’s right to free speech.  You know are the now going to consider me speaking against homosexuality, are they now going to make that hate speech?  You know we put amendments into consideration that would have protected the rights of the individual to free speech, you know as well as religious freedom, both amendments were rejected.  So, we’re just not sure how it’s going to be played out.

Narrator:  I see.  Ok, well good luck to you and thank you so much for sharing that with us.

Rep. Shelly Short:  You bet.

Join Washington Families Standing Together in their fight to defeat Referendum 71 by clicking on the graphics below.