Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Pro Gay Rights Group Says “There are Problems” with Proposed Marriage Ref Language

The Washington State Attorney General’s office has released its proposed ballot language for Referendum 74, which would overturn the marriage equality law passed and signed by the governor this month.

The bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, apply marriage eligibility requirements without regard to gender, and specify that laws using gender-specific terms like “husband” and “wife” include same-sex spouses. Clergy could refuse to solemnize or recognize any marriages. Religious organizations and religiously affiliated educational institutions could refuse to accommodate weddings. The measure would not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement. Domestic partnerships for seniors would be preserved.

There is a five-day period for anyone to challenge the language. Once the language is finalized—Thurston County Superior Court will take up any challenges—the sponsors can begin collecting signatures. They have until June 6—90 days after the conclusion of this year’s legislative session—to turn in 120,153 valid signatures.

The referendum is being proposed by the Family Policy Institute of Washington, the same group that tried, but failed, to overturn the state’s domestic partnership rights law in 2009. This time they pledge to be more organized and will likely get major financial support from the DC-based National Organization for Marriage, the group that outlawed gay marriage in California (Prop 8 ) in 2008.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional earlier this month.

Zach Silk, spokesman for Washington United for Marriage, the group defending the new law, tells us, “there are some obvious issues with the attorney general’s proposal.” He says “there will be a challenge” and explains: “‘Redefine marriage’ does not appear anywhere in the bill, but it is a phrase that is prominently featured in highly charged political communication from our opponents. In fact, there is ample evidence that this phrase is literally out of their playbook.”

Silk is right. National Organization for Marriage’s web site uses this wording in their recommendation for “most effective” language.

From NOM’s website:

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

We have a message out to FPIW for a reaction the ballot language.


  • Anonymous

    DC-based National Organization for Marriage, the group that outlawed gay marriage in California (Prop 8 ) in 2008.

    Do tell how an out-of-state group was able “outlaw gay marriage.” Or is this a figure of expression like “journalist?”

    Just another PubliCola “fact”

  • Anonymous

    don’t you mean the secretary of state’s office?

  • Anonymous

    just grow up wa, and focus on the shredding of the us constitution, war mongering on iran, and rampant banksterism…cheers, joe mustich, ct usa, marriage officiator

  • http://twitter.com/GarwinianMotion Ben Garwin

    What an abuse of power from Rob McKenna’s office. He’s projecting his own anti-LGBT bigotry onto the statewide ballot. “Redefine marriage” is a dog-whistle that Washington shouldn’t allow on its ballot; it would be like voting on a civil rights ballot initiative that uses racial slurs. Rob McKenna is fighting against the majority of Washingtonians who want their friends, brothers, daughters, and coworkers to have equal access to legal marriage.

  • http://profiles.google.com/riley.sweeney Riley Sweeney

    Wow, another shady giveaway to McKenna’s religious base. Why not just put in the straight-forward language rather than trying to rig it for McKenna’s friends

  • DA

    “it would be like voting on a civil rights ballot initiative that uses racial slurs.”

    Um, calm down, Ben.  No.  There are slurs for gays and lesbians, so if the ballot language actually did use slurs, then it would actually be like a civil rights ballot initiative that uses slurs (ie, “This bill lets fa***ts and d***es get married”).  But it isn’t that dramatic and offensive, is it?

  • Guest

    My advice is to let the Ref ride…and go down in flames like the Income Tax…once and for all answering the question.

  • http://twitter.com/typewriteralley Ryan Packer

    That’s what signature gathering is for. Not needing to take your advice on things.

  • Guest

    Christians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.