Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Washington Poll has R-71 leading, I-1033 close but failing

Post by Peter Callaghan / The News Tribune on Oct. 27, 2009 at 4:27 pm with 2 Comments »
October 27, 2009 4:27 pm

The Washington Poll conducted by political scientists at the University of Washington has taken a look at the two big statewide ballot measures.

Referendum 71, which asks voters to approve or reject a bill that further expanded the legal rights of same-gender couples, is leading 51 percent to 34 percent. If leaners are added – those who say they expect to vote one way or the other but are not yet certain – it goes to 56 percent to 39 percent.

Initiative 1033 seeks to restrict the growth in state and local revenues and devote any savings to reductions in property taxes. Of voters who say they are certain, 30 percent would vote yes and 38 percent would vote no.

If leaners are added, the vote increases to 41 percent yes and 46 percent no.

The poll interviewed 724 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.

Leave a comment Comments → 2
  1. uptodate says:

    R71 discriminates against opposite sex couples that choose to live together. This gives the gays more rights. Opposite sex couples must have at least one partner that is over 64 to get the benefits.

  2. alexosurf says:

    This is more of an article (665 words) than a comment – would you be willing to find a place to publish it as a Guest Editorial or such before the election?

    Can You Behave Your Way into Minority Status?

    Before anyone makes a decision about Referendum 71, that’s the question they need to answer. Before we ever make a judgment about equal rights and privileges, we first need to determine what the criteria is for obtaining the title of “minority.” Then indeed, if genuine minority status has been authenticated, by all means, the parties who’ve been discriminated against should receive the exact same rights and privileges as everyone else in society.

    But for hundreds, if not thousands of years, most civilized cultures have considered homosexual behavior to be just that—a behavior. Until recently, it’s never been considered something determined by genetics—like race, skin color, gender or a disability. It has always been considered a lifestyle choice—a desire to have romantic or sexual relations with someone of one’s own gender. So doesn’t it make sense that Washington State voters should take the opportunity to thoughtfully examine the evidence before making such a culture-shifting decision?

    Here’s the first question we should ask: Is homosexual behavior the result of irresistible genetic make-up, or is it an individual choice? Surprisingly, I don’t recall the question ever being thoroughly debated. Yet I’m being asked by homosexuals and their supporters to either presume the genetic evidence exists, or to just not care. I hate to assume the worst, but I get the impression that pro-homosexuals really don’t want the debate to occur. I could be wrong, but it seems like rather than being intellectually honest about the question, they choose to bully and label as homo-phobes any one who even asks what I think is a very logical question. I may not be a doctor, a therapist, or a licensed family counselor, but I am someone who still believes in a thing called common sense. So why am I labeled a homo-phobe just for wanting to ask a few reasonable questions?

    Maybe they’re nervous because they know that the APA (American Psychological Association) recently stated, contrary to their original stance in 1998, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a…gay or lesbian orientation.” (APA Online, May 2009) Or maybe it’s because they just plain like their lifestyle, and aren’t really interested in the origins of their feelings and desires. That’s fine, but is that really a legitimate rationale for altering an entire culture’s paradigm and legal system in their behalf?

    By the way, how do we know that men who choose to engage romantically with other men don’t do it simply because they find women to be too challenging? Or that some women don’t choose the companionship of another woman simply because they’ve been damaged by the irresponsible behavior of men?

    I realize I could be wrong about this. But even if there’s a chance that homosexual behavior is a choice, and not the result of natural biological processes, shouldn’t we take a little more time for the debate to unfold, and for the scientific evidence be revealed, and then add gays, lesbians, trans-genders and cross-dressers to the list of protected minorities? Otherwise we’re opening ourselves to the possibility that every conceivable behavior-related people group on earth deserves minority protection.

    Actually, I think I’d like that. If I can behave my way into minority status, I know which people group I’d join – “Middle-aged men who still love surfing, chips and salsa, and sunsets.” Our motto would be, “We can’t help ourselves – we were born this way!”

    So I guess I’m urging people to vote “Reject” on Ref. 71. I’m hoping people will be careful not to cave in to the fear of being called a “homophobe”, and will instead simply say, “Wait a minute. If there’s irrefutable evidence that homosexuals are indeed born that way, like African Americans or Hispanics, women or the disabled, then by all means, let’s give them equal rights!”
    But until then, let’s be a little more thoughtful and finish the research.

    Pastor Alex Ohlsen, Renton Christian Center

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0