Rev. Kurt Nagel, a pastor of Holy Family Parish in Washington state, is responding to the growing number parishes who have opted out of a campaign to repeal marriage equality by doubling down on the Church’s opposition to gay people. “The Catholic Church does not believe that people with same sex attraction are inferior,” he argued. “It is sometimes said to support the charge of bigotry that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons are ‘disordered’. That is not true”:

It is true that the sexual DESIRES for persons of the same sex are disordered. That is, such desires are not ORDERED, or aimed, at the right end or goal. But we all have disordered desires — in terms of sex, food, power, money, etc. That is because, although made in the image and likeness of God, we are also fallen creatures.” [...]

Nagel argued that “homosexual persons” already have “the legal benefits of marriage” — thanks to the Domestic Partnership law enacted when Washington voters approved Referendum 71 in 2009.

“So our opposition to redefining marriage is not now a matter of denying anyone legal rights,” Nagel told parishoners. He acknowledged that the Washington State Catholic Conference opposed the 2009 Domestic Partnership law, as “obviously” a step toward legalizing marriage and “in part because we don’t believe such sexual relationships encourage the best lives and greatest happiness for homosexual persons.”

“The Catholic Church believes that creating this new legal and social institution of domestic partnerships is, on balance, not wise,” Nagel said. “But it is doable. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believes that Gay MARRIAGE is simply not possible.”

It’s unclear how Nagel would respond to the very real and possible marriages of the thousands of same-sex couples across the country, but while his comments echo the sentiment of the Washington Archbishop — who has called on churches to take part in an effort to undo Washington’s recently-enacted marriage equality law — they don’t represent the thinking of all Catholic leaders or congregations in the state.

At least six Catholic parishes are avoiding the recall, partly because it is “hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.” Last week, Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation when he announced that the parish would not be participating in the anti-equality campaign.

Opinion polls have consistently shown that Catholics reject the Church’s opposition to marriage equality, with nearly three-quarter of Catholics favoring “either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.”

The language has been finalized for Referendum 74, an effort by conservatives to challenge Washington state’s new marriage equality law. Though opponents of the law sought to describe it as “redefining marriage,” Judge Thomas McPhee decided against such language. Here is how the referendum will appear to voters in November, assuming its proponents gather sufficient signatures:

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill. This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

[ ] APPROVED

[ ] REJECTED

Unlike efforts to overturn marriage equality in other states, referenda in Washington ask voters to uphold the law, so those who support same-sex couples will be encouraged to approve Referendum 74. This is not to be confused with campaigns in Minnesota and North Carolina to defeat the proposed discriminatory constitutional amendments.

Gary Randall, Protect Marriage Washington

Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, the group trying to overturn marriage equality in Washington state with Referendum 74, is not pleased that activist Paul Thomasson is reaching out to individuals who signed Referendum 71 in 2009. In a rant at the Faith & Freedom Network, Randall calls Thomasson a “hard core homosexual activist” and threatens equality opponents not to respond because Thomasson will reveal their identities:

He is posting every response on his website and now with KOMO reporting on it, more people will be directed to the site. I would suggest you not respond to him, however if you do, please know that your comments and probably your name will be further publicized to his readers. KOMO proudly reports, “Thomasson ‘s campaign may actually be working.” From what I’m seeing on the I-1192 petition reports, his efforts don’t seem to be working at all. The response is terrific. I am certain it will be on R-74 as well.

A quick visit to Thomasson’s site, where he has published the 66 responses he has so far received, reveals that he is only publishing first names, intentionally protecting the anonymity of the individuals who reply. Further, while Randall is generally correct that most of the responses maintain an opposition to marriage equality, Thomasson’s project already boasts two important achievements: 1) The fact that any of the petitioners have rethought their position and may decline to sign Referendum 74 represents successful progress. 2) The responses cast a sincere glimpse into the religious motivations and anti-gay animus behind those who would try to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry. These responses arguably reflect quite negatively on a campaign that claims to be “protecting” marriage, as opposed to depriving couples of it, and they could prove useful both in Washington and other states fighting ballot campaigns related to same-sex marriage.

(HT: Joe.My.God.)

Opponents of equality are currently collecting signatures in an attempt to challenge Washington state’s new marriage equality law at the ballot through Referendum 74. But Washington conservatives have pushed back on same-sex couples’ recognition before, through 2009′s failed Referendum 71, a challenge to the state’s “everything but marriage” domestic partnerships. Despite attempts to keep the signatories of that campaign hidden, they are now publicly available at whosigned.org, and one activist is attempting to reach out to all of them.

So far, Paul Thomasson has emailed almost 2,000 of the R71 signers, identifying himself as a gay veteran and encouraging them not to sign R74. So far, he has received 60 email responses, all of which he has published on his webpage. Many, if not most, of those who reply take time to explain why they oppose same-sex marriage and reaffirm their Christian beliefs, like this prototypical example:

The reason I did, and will again, is simple. The family is the foundation of our country. Relationships have been created and defined by God. When you start to redefine and do things outside of that, it is destructive. I am not a hater of homosexuals. I have good friends that struggle with it. I will not endorse the practice though. It is a counterfeit love that comes from pain/woundings. It is no different than the sins I struggle with. I don’t seperate you from me. We both fall short. And we both have a Savior who paid the price for our sins. I love you and hope GOD’s will for your life. Thanks for the email

A few respondents have actually had a change of heart or at least agreed to reconsider their position, like this couple:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for sharing your life story. Don’t worry, we will not support R 74. Good luck to you and your life partner.

Mike & [wife's unusual name redacted]

But many of the respondents are concerned that their information is publicly available. They believe that even though they signed a legal document to impact the legislative process, their identities should remain completely anonymous, like the author of this reply:

Dear Paul: I appreciate your activism. I routinely sign petitions because I believe that people should have a more direct say in the laws that govern them. However, I also strongly believe that voting and petition signing should be by secret ballot. I therefore consider the listing of petitioner’s names, irregardless of the court’s ruling on the matter, an anti-democratic invasion of my privacy and a subversion of people’s freedom. It is the sort of thing I would expect from a dictatorial form of government. I think you should consider this aspect of using the list that was made public over the petitioner’s objections before you use it. Thank You for taking time to hear my views on this. Sincerely, Cal [last name redacted]

Paul Thomasson’s email is anything but threatening, but replies like Cal’s are proving to be quite common in his project. It’s an odd perspective that these individuals expect to have the power to impact the law without having to be held accountable for playing that role. At the foundation of democracy is ensuring that lawmakers are accountable to voters, but many of these signatories seem to believe they have rights that circumvent that principle. Of course, these are also individuals seeking to roll back rights the legislature has advanced — an undemocratic notion— so perhaps it sensibly follows they also feel they should bear no responsibility for the consequences.

Nevertheless, Thomasson’s effort could make a significant difference in how many Washington voters think about Referendum 74 this year, which is crucial given how they are currently split. Plus, their replies provide a compelling glimpse into the opposition’s beliefs.

Newt Gingrich — an opponent of marriage equality — praised Washington state’s process of enacting same-sex marriage legislation. During a vist to the capital this morning, Gingrich explained that while “he disagrees personally with same-sex marriage,” states that have extended marriage rights legislatively — and will likely put the question on the ballot as a referendum — are “doing it the right way”:

“I think at least they’re doing it the right way, which is going through voters, giving them a chance to vote and not having a handful of judges arbitrarily impose their will,” Gingrich said when asked about the votes in Washington state and Maryland. “I don’t agree with it. I would vote no if it were on a referendum where I was, but at least they’re doing it the right way.”

The answer may concern some Republicans, who previously lashed out at Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for similarly suggesting that New York had the right to pass marriage equality under the 10th amendment. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) — a potential Vice Presidential pick — has expressed a similar sentiment. Marriage equality advocates strongly oppose putting a minority’s civil right up to a popular vote, however.

Gingrich is a strong opponent of LGBT rights and has previously described same-sex marriage as “a temporary aberration that will dissipate,” and an example of “pagan” behaviors.