Battle Over Washington State's Gay Partnerships Law In Court

September 8, 2009 1:05 p.m. EST

Olympia, WA (AHN) - The battle between a gay advocacy group and conservatives behind a referendum petition for a bill granting same-sex couples domestic partnership rights is in the hands of a Thurston County judge, who hears arguments on Tuesday about the validity of thousands of voter signatures counted by the Secretary of State.

The hearing before Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee comes less than a week after a King County Superior Court Judge dismissed an earlier lawsuit from Washington Families Standing Together that similarly argued that 35,000 petition signatures were wrongly counted by the state.

The pro-gay group is blocking the initiative, called Referendum 71, saying conservatives want to repeal a new law, Senate Bill 5688, that grants more rights to state-registered domestic partners similar to those enjoyed by married couples.

To qualify for the November 3 ballot, sponsors led by Protect Marriage Washington needed 120,577 valid signatures and a rejection rate of no more than 12.4 percent.

Protect Marriage Washington has said the law "will demolish the state's historical understanding and definition of marriage as that of uniting a man and a woman for life."

Secretary of Sate Sam Reed on Sept. 2 certified the referendum for the ballot on the basis of 122,007 signatures verified by checkers and an error rate of 11.51 percent, the third lowest in the last two decades. He has asked the Thurston County court to issue a timely ruling, given that the state needs to print a Voters' Pamphlet that will include the whole text of the contested gay partnerships law -- about 37 pages of text -- by Thursday.

The issue on whether to publicly disclose the petitions is also expected to be settled around the same time when U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issues a ruling.

Protect Marriage Washington had successfully gained an order from Settle keeping the names and addresses of those who signed the petitions private, citing possible harassment an retaliation.