TVW and the Washington Secretary of State have released a Video Voter’s Guide to Referendum 71.  An advocate for and against the approval of Referendum 71 were each given about 4 minutes to speak to voters.  Oh, the contrast!

The Approve Referendum 71 viewpoint was represented by Jane Abbott Lighty, a gay senior citizen who joined with her partner Pete-e in a Washington state registered domestic partnership on the first day that they were available.  She is the first speaker on the video.  A transcript of her remarks are in the box below the video.

Speaking against protecting Washington families was Lawrence Stickney.  He posted his remarks recently on another blog.  They’re below the fold.  As Joe Mirabella has noted:

Larry Stickney spoke on behalf of the anti-equality activists trying to take away vital protections from Washington families. In it, he continued to lie about the content and effects of domestic partnerships.  Most notably Stickney continues to maintain that domestic partnerships are actually marriage when in fact they are not. Domestic partnerships do provide vital protections to [heterosexual senior and] same sex couples in times of crisis — but they stop short of marriage and the over 1300 federal rights given to [married] couples.

After you listen to Stickney’s remarks, I urge you to read prior rebuttals to his well-worn assertions here and

here.  I guess the million dollar question is, in the minds of average voters, do Jane’s honesty, candor and integrity stand up against Stickney’s well-oiled fabrications?

Jane Abbott Lighty:

Hello, my name is Jane Abbott Lighty, and today I’m asking you to join my family and me in voting to approve Referendum 71.

My partner Pete-e Petersen and I have been together for 32 years.  She and I registered as domestic partners on the first  day we were allowed to.  We are both retired nursing consultants from the state health department.  Before that Pete-e was an Air Force captain, and an air evac nurse in the Korean War.  

We raised a daughter Betsy who is now 42, and her husband is a federal marshal with the airlines.  My Petey is 81 and I just turned 74, and we have experienced a lot over the years.  We have always had a strong and committed relationship and feel very responsible for each other.  We sometimes worried about our daughter, always wanting to protect her, and she has grown up to be a strong and responsible citizen and loving wife and mother.

We think of ourselves as everyday Americans who want the same chance as everyone else to earn a living, be safe in our community, serve our country and take care of our loved ones.  Referendum 71 is about the hopes, dreams and values we all have in common.  We were raised to put family first, to work hard and to take responsibility for ourselves and our family. Commitment, sacrifice, duty, a sense of obligation to others, neighbors, community and country.  

As older Americans, we face medical problems more often than younger people do.  We have to make decisions about the state’s legal protections, and this take on even more importance at this time in our lives.  We need to make sure we have insurance in case something happens to one of us.  And we each have a pension we earned over the years, but we need to make sure it will be there for the other one if something happens.  That’s why this domestic partnership law is so important.  Without it we couldn’t take time off work to care for a partner the way coworkers can to care for a spouse.  or our insurance company doesn’t have to cover a partner, as part of family insurance.  Without domestic partnership law, you can’t make important decisions on behalf of your love one if he or she needs help.

Please, vote to approve Referendum 71.  The domestic partnership law will insure that all Washington families will be treated fairly and equally under the law.

Some domestic partners are heterosexual seniors.  Often they can’t marry without sacrificing hard-earned Social Security, military or pension benefits.  Referendum 71 will also protect them.  

Committed couples who want to take care of each other should have the protections they need to keep their families safe, particularly in times of crisis.  They should be allowed  to visit each other in the hospital, take family medical leave, have insurance or receive inheritance.  Children should be protected when a parent dies.  This law does not affect schools or change the definition of marriage in any way.

We have many friends and relatives who have taken some time to get comfortable with domestic partnerships.  They came from a traditional background just like we did, so it took some time.  After seeing us go through life together, and the strong foundation we have in our faith, our family and in our community, they’re now joining us in their support of this law.  They know first-hand how important the protections in this law are to so many families.  

Pete-e and I have volunteered for the Approve 71 campaign because this is so important to us.  It has been very gratifying to see individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum support the law.  Washington Association of Churches, the Childrens Alliance, the Boeing Company, Microsoft, Washington State Nurses Association, the Washington State Labor Council, Mainstream Republicans of Washington, Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and People for the American Way, plus so many others.

The Reverend Paul Benz said it so well, quote, “As people of faith, we view the roll of religion to nurture and support families, not to cast some aside.  To deny gay and lesbian families and older couples their basic rights threatens not only those families, but our collective commitment to each other.” Unquote.

This law provides essential protections to many older couples, and to families with children who would otherwise be living without a safety net.  By voting to approve Referendum 71, you will be insuring that all families will be treated the same under the law, with the same protections and responsibilities.  Pete-e and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts.  Vote to approve 71.

Here is Larry Stickney’s blurb in opposition to protecting all Washington families.

On November’s ballot is Referendum-71, one of the most hotly contested bills ever. Why? Because, in effect, SB 5688 legalizes homosexual marriage. Legalizing homosexual marriage will be the most profound public policy change in our state’s history. We believe that there are some serious questions that need to be considered before we throw out thousands of years of core family structure and re-define the institution of marriage.

Homosexual activists will claim that SB-5688 is not about “marriage.” But their own leadership says otherwise.

SB 5688 IS about Marriage!

Senator Ed Murray told the Seattle Times on Jan. 10, 2007 when announcing the Domestic Partnership Bill, “The goal is marriage equality. It’s an important statement that our eyes are on the prize, and the prize is marriage.”

Representative Jamie Pederson told the Times on Jan. 28, 2009 that SB 5688 will give homosexuals “A bridge until they can legally marry.”

Senator Murray told the Times on May 17,2009 that the domestic partnership expansion – SB 5688 – is an, “incremental approach”—“a strategic plan.”

SB 5688 is the last incremental step to same-sex marriage in Washington State!

Important Things to Consider

Homosexual marriage is being promoted over the objections of a vast majority of Washingtonians by a small minority of homosexual activists. As presently defined, marriage is a common social good, not a special interest.

If homosexual marriage becomes legal, the next step for homosexual activists is to force public schools to teach children that homosexual unions are normal, require churches to perform homosexual ceremonies, and to take away your right to speak against it, as has now become law in Canada.

Please remember that homosexual marriage is not a civil right. In fact, civil rights leaders reject this assertion. Even civil rights activist Jessie Jackson states: “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.

The results of legalizing homosexual marriage in Scandinavian countries has been devastating. Additionally, there are thousands of social science studies that prove the negative outcomes for children who lack both a mother and a father in their homes.

SB 5688 is a Trojan Horse

SB 5688 is a Trojan Horse that was crafted to deceive voters into believing that it’s not about marriage. Its writers know that a large majority of American are opposed to homosexual marriage. SB-5688 gives homosexuals every right of marriage, except the name.  If a majority of Washingtonians are duped into voting to ACCEPT SB-5688, believing that it’s about “domestic partner benefits”, homosexual activists will then simply litigate though the courts, claiming discrimination, as they did in California, and overturn our state’s Defense of Marriage Act. That is their plan.

In addition, citizens aged 62 and older were included in the bill only to help the homosexual community garner their support. Yet, there is little of consequence in SB-5688 that heterosexual domestic partners 62 and older cannot get now from a simple power of attorney.  Bottom line, senior citizens are being used!

Lastly, our opposition is not about hate. It’s about love. It’s about loving our children enough to consider fully the long-term effects of such major social engineering on their futures. It’s about keeping the teaching of morals at home, not codifying into law what a majority believe to be immoral behavior.  No nation in history that openly embraced homosexuality to this degree has ever survived.

Rejecting SB 5688 preserves the most fundamental of human institutions – the marriage of one man and one woman. It is not denying a right from someone. It is rejecting an attempt to redefine marriage, an institution that predates civil government itself.

The millions of dollars in new spending and costs of SB 5688 have still not been fully revealed. Our state is facing huge budget deficits already. New government spending of this magnitude is simply irresponsible.