February 6, 2012 in Region

WA House committee advances gay marriage bill

Associated Press

OLYMPIA — A House committee on Monday approved a measure to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state, setting the stage for final passage this week.

The House Judiciary committee advanced the measure on a 7-5 vote after a final public hearing. The bill could be up for a vote on the House floor as early as Wednesday. The Senate passed the measure on a 28-21 vote last Wednesday. Once passed by the House, the bill goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire for her signature, likely next week.

Opponents have promised a referendum challenge at the ballot.

Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, testified in support of the bill, joined by her partner of 23 years, Laura Wulf, and their 11-year-old son, Wulf.

“We all understand that marriage is not just about contracts and rights and responsibilities,” she said. “It’s about love and commitment.”

Maureen Richardson, the state director for Concerned Women for America, argued that the measure would negatively affect families.

“Marriage is just too important to the culture to be redefined,” she said.

Several Republican amendments were rejected, including one that would have added private businesses and individuals, such as bakers and photographers, to the exemption in the measure that doesn’t require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages and doesn’t subject them to penalties if they don’t marry gay or lesbian couples. Another would have added a referendum clause.

Even though lawmakers aren’t adding a referendum clause to bill, opponents can still challenge the measure at the ballot with a referendum. Because there is no emergency clause on the bill, the law won’t take effect until June 7.

Opponents must turn in 120,577 signatures by June 6 if they want to challenge the proposed law. They are not allowed to start gathering signatures until after Gregoire signs the measure. If opponents fall short in the number of signatures they turn in, gay and lesbian couples would be able to be wed as soon as the signature count is done, likely sometime in June. Otherwise, they would have to wait until the results of a November election.

Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and an “everything but marriage” expansion of that law since 2009.

Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Under the measure that passed the Senate Wednesday, the more than 9,300 same-sex couples currently registered in domestic partnerships would have two years to either dissolve their relationship or get married. Domestic partnerships that aren’t ended prior to June 30, 2014, would automatically become marriages.

Domestic partnerships would remain for senior couples where at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included to help seniors who don’t remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits.

43 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

misjustice on February 06 at 2:54 p.m.
Sweet!
; )
Local on February 06 at 3:05 p.m.
120,577 signatures by June 6 is very doable.
nslopeofw on February 06 at 3:29 p.m.
Kinda strange that her partners last name is Wulf, and they named their son Wulf. So if they get married, would his name be Wulf Wulf?
johnclarke on February 06 at 3:31 p.m.
Yeah, good luck finding 120,576 more bigots.
jessiepn on February 06 at 3:33 p.m.
“Maureen Richardson, the state director for Concerned Women for America, argued that the measure would negatively affect families. ‘Marriage is just too important to the culture to be redefined,’ she said.”
The article didn’t quote Richardson as saying why that would be the case, but I fail to see how letting same-sex couples marry would do damage to the institution of marriage when adultery and high rates of divorce don’t seem to have hurt it any.
RedCedar on February 06 at 3:41 p.m.
Given the natural organizing power of churches and the passion many people have against gay marriage, you’re probably right, Local. However, the tide of public opinion has turned and at this point our leaders are finally following where the people have led. It probably won’t take long to get 120,577 signatures on an anti-gay-marriage referendum, but passing it in November is an entirely different matter. In a way, I do hope that the bill is challenged at the polls, rather than in court, and that gay marriage wins solidly at the polls.
In most states, gay marriage has been imposed by court order, and that tends to leave the proponents with a fragile and hollow victory and the opponents feeling swindled. It also grants the opponents the opportunity to use the “activist judges” argument, which does carry some weight. Lastly, if I was a gay man wanting to get married (I’m neither), it would just feel better to me to know that most of the citizens were on my side on this, rather than that most of them are out to get me but at least for now the courts are stopping them.
nslopeofw on February 06 at 3:45 p.m.
Jessiepn-
You are forgetting the Jesus factor. The religious folk are the ones with the issue. I suspect Christian and Islamic people would vote against it, while the Buddhist’s, and Wiccan’s (non Jesus) would be for it.
I could be wrong!
WillyPeter on February 06 at 3:51 p.m.
RedCedar - Remind us again, how many staes have allowed their citizens to vote on this matter? And how many of those states voted to approve gay marriage?
WillyPeter on February 06 at 3:58 p.m.
Johnclarke - Nah, it’s easy John.
Bigots here, bigots there, bigots everywhere…
Many of your fellow progressives have said that they don’t believe that I should be allowed to marry whomever I want.
Pretty bigoted, I think…….
johnclarke on February 06 at 4:25 p.m.
Agreed. A progressive against gay marriage is hardly progressive at all.
Marry whomever you like. Except for me of course.
Local on February 06 at 4:35 p.m.
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
Johnclarke have you ever thought your own intolerance towards the opinions of others could place you in the same black kettle?
RedCedar on February 06 at 4:40 p.m.
WillyPeter, I wish I could find the exact numbers all collected together somewhere, but as far as I can recall, in every state where they held a vote on the matter, the majority voted against gay marriage. That’s why the shift in public opinion in Washington and the likelihood of it passing in Washington by popular vote before anywhere else is so significant. I can very much appreciate gay marriage proponents being shy about taking the risk, and trying to cover themselves with lawsuits and threats thereof, but I really think it can pass handily in Washington. A large part of the reason of course is simply the dominance of King County in state politics, but another part is the gradual approach that’s been taken, with less in-your-face confrontation than has been standard in other places. It’s gotten to where a reasonable moderate right-leaning voter, even a Republican, can reasonably think, “It’ only fair”, and “It’s none of the government’s business”.
The only risk, really, is that evangelicals are really good at getting our their votes, whereas “radicals” would much rather spend a day or a week protesting than 10 minutes voting. So, it may come down to turnout, assuming there is a referendum challenge. In the long run though, it will be worth it to get to a place where both the courts and the majority of the voters agree that gay marriage is okay.
garyc on February 06 at 5:29 p.m.
Should’ve waited until 1994 on mixed marriages?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx
Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s ban in 1967, when America was overwhelmingly against it. Some said it would be bad for the children.
Now … not so much.
So does this fall into the rights category, which is something we don’t vote on?
greenlibertarian on February 06 at 5:55 p.m.
Hmmm, can’t start collecting signatures until the governor signs the measure… what if she waits…as LONG as is possible…bwaaa haaaa haaaa hha ha ha.
johnclarke on February 06 at 6:01 p.m.
Local on February 06 at 4:35 p.m.
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
Johnclarke have you ever thought your own intolerance towards the opinions of others could place you in the same black kettle?
I guess I’m not following your logic, unless you mean I’m a bigot of bigots? I’m in favor of gay marriage. I’m not in favor of people that want to deny people rights based on sexual orientation. If that makes me a bigot, then I’ll send away for the tshirt.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 06 at 6:14 p.m.
I would love to see the signature-gathering effort fail, but I doubt that will happen. I would love to see the law passed at the polls and I’m reasonably confident about that. There are lots & lots of people out there who do not go trumpeting their views all over the place, who actually believe that everyone should have the same rights.
Local on February 06 at 6:25 p.m.
Johnclarke,
Perhaps you should re-read the definition again. Read it real close and slow. If that doesn’t work. Read it again.
johnclarke on February 06 at 6:28 p.m.
RedCedar on February 06 at 4:40 p.m.
WillyPeter, I wish I could find the exact numbers all collected together somewhere, but as far as I can recall, in every state where they held a vote on the matter, the majority voted against gay marriage
oops. Now look Red Cedar, this is really not personal but you have to learn how to use the internet for more than just posting your opinion.
RedCedar on February 06 at 6:33 p.m.
Well, yes, gl, she will probably do exactly that. But she must sign it, and the petitions will be written, with the printers ready to go to press as soon as the AG approves the language, and the signature-gathering organization already in place ready for someone to say “go!”. This is fine. There’s been too much emphasis on legal maneuvering and trying to get some advantage by trickery or procedural games. Let both sides play their games, if they must, but I’m hopeful that an honest and direct vote will settle the question the right way.
Local on February 06 at 6:35 p.m.
“…this is really not personal but you have to learn how to use the internet for more than just posting your opinion.”
Like finding the meaning of a word like bigot?
The_Seer on February 06 at 6:38 p.m.
An exception for bakers and photographers?
I look forward to more business, not proving my ignorance by rejecting new customers. Is this the best the GOP can do in our state? No wonder they are a permanent minority.
Inslee in 2012!
Re-elect Cantwell!
Dazzeetrader11 on February 06 at 7:20 p.m.
It’ll get to the Supreme Court again and the Court will blow it up.
Although I don’t mind gays, the majority do mind this gay marriage approach..
Gay marriage is far from a civil right. It’s just the wish of a fringe minority group. I still think the legislators should be spending time on more important things.
No offense jd and Liberal in….well whatever your name is.
johnclarke on February 06 at 7:37 p.m.
Whoa Daisy ! You forgot to offend me.
Look on the bright side, now you can come out.
jdspokanewa on February 06 at 8:05 p.m.
What I think local is trying to get at is that he’s a bigot and you’re a bigot for not respecting his right to be a bigot? Correct?
And Dazzeetrader11 said:
Gay marriage is far from a civil right. It’s just the wish of a fringe minority group.
As is the case with most civil rights issues, the minority needs to stand up to the majority to gain those rights that the majority already has because they made the rules.
and…
I still think the legislators should be spending time on more important things.
I totally agree, why legislators even bother spending so much time trying to block this type of legislation instead of working on more important things I will never understand, great insight Dazzeetrader11.
Traveler on February 06 at 8:05 p.m.
Dazzee seems fairly secure in her sexuality, but she’s real sensitive about her wealth. Go ahead and criticize the rich and watch her hackles rise.
greenlibertarian on February 06 at 8:06 p.m.
Trolls are incapable of offense as long as:
PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL!
Given a normal campaign on both sides, marriage equality would prevail probably around 53-55 percent in the affirmative.
If either side tanks on their campaign, or again, the money goes big one way or the other, it’s a crapshoot and/or a landslide either way.
If the Mormons go all-in again like in CA, that will be a factor, I think they could mobilize as many as 2-3 percent of the vote.
Traveler on February 06 at 8:42 p.m.
“Marriage is just too important to the culture to be redefined.”
Polygamy was legal in the United States until July 1862 (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act).
Mixed-race marriages were still illegal some parts of the United States until 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled against those laws in (the ironic-but-appropriately-titled) Loving v. Virginia.
Newt Gingrich has married two adulteresses, one of whom he hopes will become our first lady.
Seems to me as though it’s already a pretty fluid definition.
Here’s my take on same-sex marriages vs. “civil unions” gay people should “be content” with: When my wife and I married, we signed one document and mailed it to the city clerk. Suddenly we were given all the rights marriage entails — no lawyers, no multi-page forms, no special applications with certain employers, no legally-sanctioned hassles from landlords, nothing — and when we moved here from another state, we didn’t have to do anything; all those rights automatically came with us. I don’t even know where our marriage certificate is (probably in the safe deposit box).
So why should two people whose only difference from my wife and I is that they have the same “plumbing” be forced to go through all the rigmarole of applying for “everything but marriage” status, and have to carry around that plastic card so they can go into the hospital room with their loved one in case of an accident, and have to determine whether the next state they plan to move to will grant them any rights at all? So someone else’s marriage won’t be “threatened”? What a crock!
Dazzeetrader11 on February 06 at 8:58 p.m.
Well….Daisy is beyond caring about money. Principles are more important. This country is built on capitalism and it’s done well with it. The prblem is more fundamental: Entitlements. Capitalists produce jobs and welath. The socialist liberals take it. A country cannot be successful with the wealth being plundered by politicians who smuggle money from those who earn it to those who do not.
While I don’t care so much about gays being married, I do think it’s flawed. What Daisy really cares about is the waste of money spent on it…moreso when the politicians spend ALL this time on a non issue. It’s a practical opinion…what’s more important? Gay marriage or saving the economy? And there’s a choice..which would mostmake easily.
BUT given the Dem libs are in charge, I guess they would rather spend time on gay concerns….and this is why the economy’s failing….not gays..it fails because voting habits and the priorties of the governing body. When the legislature runs out of time and must be recalled by the Governor to finish business, you might understand how expensive it can be to shirk the real duties.
Traveler on February 06 at 9:22 p.m.
The Traveler thinks that how any society treats its citizens is one of its fundamental raisons d’etre, and I believe America is the bestest country in the world — or should be (ten countries are ahead of us on this fundamental right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world), as are six states and one district ahead of our fair state.
The Traveler would just hate it if he was told that the budget was more important than correcting a millennia-old wrong being perpetrated against him, patted on the head and told I should just hope for more time in next year’s legislative session.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 06 at 9:41 p.m.
Those against gay marriage, then don’t have a gay marriage, that way it will never affect you.
Those who don’t think this is a civil rights issues, also were the same people who thought interracial marriage wasn’t a civil rights issue and should never have been legalized.
To those fighting against gay marriage…..can you imagine if you put in half the effort into fix straight marriage as you do into trying to prevent gay marriages you might not have 48 hour marriages by celebrities and weddings just to have a TV show and make a couple million bucks on it. You might not have as many people getting married 8, 9, 10 or more times. You might not have a divorce rate of over 50%. There might not be drive-thru wedding chapels in Las Vegas. And there might not be someone running for the presidency on his third wife after asking to have an open marriage with his second wife who he meet and was sleeping with while the first wife had cancer.
Yea, gay marriage is what is ruining the “institution of marriage”
Dazzeetrader11 on February 06 at 9:53 p.m.
Interracial marriage was never a civil right issue.
Gauys have the same or higher divorce rates.
Quit playing vicitm. You make your choices and you live with them
Have a job yet Libby?
Traveler on February 06 at 10:20 p.m.
“Interracial marriage was never a civil right issue.”
Because marriage isn’t a civil right?
“Gauys have the same or higher divorce rates.”
In the first place, I don’t believe that (according to Wikipedia, “The divorce rate of same-sex couples within 30 months of the introduction of legally binding civil partnerships was slightly less than one percent in the United Kingdom.[1]”), but even if it were true, so what? Is that any reason to deny them the right, or whatever you think marriage is?
And according to U.S. News, states with same-sex laws have lower divorce rates (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage) — so gay marriage might actually be good for the institution.
“You make your choices …”
Wow. So when you had your first crush on someone all those years ago, you found boys and girls equally desirable, and intentionally chose a boy? And you could, if you wanted to now, choose to be a homosexual? Who would intentionally choose the kind of hatred and disgust you so clearly represent?
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 06 at 10:39 p.m.
I am going to kick myself for replying to your incoherent ramblings, but this is the LAST TIME I ever reply to you, so I am going to make it so worth it.
First off, gays have a higher divorce rate? Please, but at least use a reference to cite that claim. I am not disputing it or anything, but please cite something to back it up it if you are going to make it. Also, notice you cannot defend any of the other things I listed that straight people have done destroying marriage on their own without help from the gays.
As for my job Dazzee…as if its ANY of you damn business…I actually own my own small business and do very well for myself thank you very much, so stop attacking me saying I don’t have a job or never worked and don’t work when you obviously know NOTHING about me. However, I will say, I have mentioned this MANY times in articles about business and the economy, so can you also not read along with not able to spell and use proper grammar?
Since you always attacked me for not having a job, how the heck did you ever make a dime of money with how truly uneducated you come across on here? You don’t come off uneducated because of your views as there are A LOT of people on here I don’t agree with, but at least you can tell they are smart, which is not something anyone can say about you with what you post on here. I sure hope you are just drunk from morning until night, because seriously, at least you would have a reason for looking so dumb sometimes. So, with that, did you just marry someone with money and thats how you have all this money you talk about? Because I have a HARD time believing by reading anything you have EVER posted on here that makes you look like you could ever hold a job longer than 2 weeks. Also, not sure why you are bringing my job up in an article about gay marriage.
Also, what is your obsession with me? I haven’t replied to you or anything you have said in weeks yet you seem to invoke my name a lot in your posts. Please, stop using my name in your incoherent rambling posts, I really don’t want anything to do with the hate you are spreading and I have no desire to ever reply or converse with you on here anymore, so please stop addressing me on here and stop using my name on here and this will be the last time I reply to you…no matter what you might say to me or about me again.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 06 at 10:48 p.m.
How about yesterday Libby? Whatta ruckus you caused with your rant against Porsche owners? ANd then ME specifically??
No matter though…let’s get the legislature solving economic problems…not economic problem makers. lol..gotha!
Traveler on February 06 at 11:08 p.m.
liberal, I, too, wince whenever I read any of her frothings because of all the spelling and grammar errors, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said she married into her money. It really is the only explanation that makes sense.
And I know responding to her is like wrestling with a pig, but I don’t do it to get any reasonable response from her (I learned the impossibility of that from my very first exchange with her), I do it so that the batsh*t crazy stuff she says isn’t the last word, and so her incoherent ramblings further expose her. She literally hangs herself with her own words.
It’s almost depressingly easy — like shooting fish in a barrel.
greenlibertarian on February 07 at 12:03 a.m.
WTF did I tell you, LONG ago?
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!
johnclarke on February 07 at 8:14 a.m.
56traveler on February 06 at 11:08 p.m.
liberal, I, too, wince whenever I read any of her frothings because of all the spelling and grammar errors, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said she married into her money. It really is the only explanation that makes sense.
Or, she’s lying.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 07 at 8:44 a.m.
*spraying Troll-B-Gone*
Could somebody open a window? I know it’s cold outside, but it smells really bad in here.
nslopeofw on February 07 at 3:17 p.m.
Someday, i want to meet Daisy. I wonder if you are beautiful?
Traveler on February 07 at 5:52 p.m.
Well, nslopeofw, if she is, it’s only on the outside.
nslopeofw on February 07 at 6:18 p.m.
Yeah, but all that money, and if she is a babe? wheeew! I could be a kept man……..
johnclarke on February 07 at 6:31 p.m.
nslopeofw on February 07 at 6:18 p.m.
Yeah, but all that money, and if she is a babe? wheeew! I could be a kept man……..
I don’t think she plays for the right team my man.
nslopeofw on February 08 at 9:46 a.m.
ahhhh!