Pastor Joe says no to referendum whose supporters do issue a press release

On Monday, a coalition of religious and social conservatives filed a referendum to repeal legislation granting same-sex domestic partners the same rights and benefits as married couples.

Today, the group put out its promised press release which didn't say much new. It did have a list of groups in the coalition:

Washington Eagle Forum - Cindy Honcoop
Washington Values Alliance - Larry Stickney
Faith and Freedom Network - Gary Randall
Christian Coalition - Rick Forcier
Watchman Ministries - Tim Taylor
YWAM & US Renewal - Ron Boehme
Antioch Bible Church - Ken Hutcherson
National Day of Prayer - Katherine Cassady
Concerned Citizens Coalition
Facts for Freedom - Jim Galbraith

The coalition also sent out this scolding of those in the Secretary of State's Office for leaking the news of the filing without permission..

Coalition leaders will need to get over it pretty quickly because they face a larger hurdle within its spiritual and ideological ranks.

Pastor Joe Fuiten , an established force among religious conservatives, is not supportive of the referendum. He lays out his reasons in an e-mail (attached) sent today to friends, followers and the press.

Excerpted from his concluding comments:

We have not sufficiently counted the cost or built the grassroots organization to make it happen....I do not accept the notion that we have to run a Referendum just because we have to do something. Doing the strategically wrong thing, even in a good cause, is not wisdom. I am willing to die on the hill but I am not willing to die on every hill. I don't think we are settled on what to do but I am settled that a Referendum is not the thing for the moment.

The e-mail also contains comments Fuiten received from religious leaders, political operatives and conservative activists regarding the referendum. Some of them back the effort, some don't and a few are still unsure.

Among those listed are Floyd Brown, who ran a controversial web site opposing Barack Obama in the presidential campaign, and Steven O'Ban, the lawyer who defended the state's Defense of Marriage Act before the state Supreme Court.

Both respond to Fuiten's contention that if the referendum fails "the other side will conclude the public is with them on this issue. That will embolden the other side to take the final step of marriage in the next session."

Brown's comments, in part, read:

"Campaign abilities build over time. The more battles you have, the more campaign ability you develop. It is like exercising a muscle. Go to the gym it grows. Stay away and it shrinks. Donors for the next effort may be different than the ones that gave last time.

I agree totally with your political analysis. I think we will likely lose, but the names we gather and the organization built will prepare us for when they go for marriage. They are going to push for marriage whether we lose the referendum or not. For me the most compelling argument you make is that we have to be light in the darkness. I don't like this issue, I don't want to fight on this issue, but still I think we may need to fight and raise the banner as a witness.

O'Ban wrote, in part:

..I concur with Joe's analysis... a loss would almost surely be the political cover the many same sex marriage (SSM) proponents in the House and Senate need to get the votes for a SSM bill. Here is how it would work. Though our opponents would use the canard in the campaign that we oppose gays having basic rights, e.g. the right to visit their partners in the hospital, we would argue domestic partners is all about bringing in SSM through the judicial backdoor.

"After we lost, our opponents and the media would say the campaign was indeed about SSM so the voters of WA must want SSM. A loss would also help gays in the courts for the same reason.