Latest from The Spokesman-Review
“We’re on a long road and today was a Mach 1 step forward,” Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, said. “It doesn’t mean we’re at the endpoint.”
When the Legislature approved a same-sex marriage law last spring and voters affirmed it in the November elections, that invalided the state’s version of the Defense of Marriage Act. But same-sex couples weren’t eligible for some federal benefits, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill’s prime sponsor, said. . .
To read the rest of this item, or to comment, continue inside the blog
OLYMPIA — A vote on a bill that would require a background check for private gun sales might be delayed because it doesn't have enough support to pass, a co-sponsor said.
The vote on HB 1588 will probably not take place today, Rep. Mike Hope of Lake Stevens,who may be the lone Republican supporter of the bill. Democrats, who have a comfortable majority in the House, may not have the votes needed to pass it, he said.
With Gov. Jay Inslee spending time in the House wings trying to drum up support for background checks around lunchtime, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, had predicted the bill would be among a package of gun-control proposals to be put to a vote starting around 3 p.m. But after easy votes on four the chamber went into recess and Democrats began talking about holding debates on health care legislatrion instead.
billson the package that involvine changes to the mental health system, Pedersen said through a spokeswoman the background check bill could still come up for a vote later in the day, or in the evening.
All legislation must pass the chamber where it was introduced by 5 p.m. Wednesday, or be dead for the session.
Despite heavy criticism last week from gun-rights activists, the House Judiciary Committee passed the so-called Universal Background Check bill on a 7-6 vote.
It would require buyers in most private firearms sales either to submit to the same background check they would undergo if buying the gun at a licensed dealer or to produce a valid state concealed pistol license. . .
To read the rest of this item, or to comment, click here to go inside the blog.
OLYMPIA — By a single vote, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to allow same-sex marriage in Washington, turning down a pair of amendments by a Spokane Valley legislator.
Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, argued that all business owners with a religious objection to same-sex marriage should be given protection from any civil suit for refusing to participate. That would be in keeping with the state constitution's guarantee of “absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment,” he said.
Without it, “private businesses will be subjected to massive new lawsuits,” Shea said.
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said such concerns were raised years ago when the state first began considering anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and didn't materialize: “We don't have any evidence of any abuse.”
Shea also proposed changing the bill to require couples getting married be residents of the state for at least six months. He said he was open to a lower time limit, but one should be placed in the law because “we don't want people abusing our marriage laws here in the state.” The provision would cover all marriages, not just those involving same-sex couples.
But Rep. Mary Helen Roberts, D-Lynnwood, said residency requirements “don't work in ther real world.” It would put restrictions on all couples in which one is from out of state, and members of the military “would have a very difficult time meeting that requirement,” she said.
The committee also rejected an effort to place the law on the November ballot through a referendum.
After all three amendments were rejected on voice votes, the bill itself passed 7-6 on a party-line vote.
Lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced bills to broaden the rights of couples who register with the state as domestic partners. So far, nearly 5,000 couples have signed up for the registry. Many are same-sex partners; others are heterosexual senior citizens. (The latter group could marry, but doing so would mean that some widows and widowers would lose pension benefits or other rights linked to a deceased spouse.)
Two years ago, lawmakers approved the registry and granted the partners rudimentary rights, such as being able to visit each other in the hospital and make health care decisions for each other.
Last year, those rights and responsibilities were expanded to cover property rights and set up a formal process for dissolving the partnerships.
This year’s legislation — a first draft was nearly 2,000 pages long — is an attempt to give those couples virtually all the rights and responsibilities of married couples in Washington. It covers about 300 things, including pension benefits, estate taxes and things as mundane as automatically transferring a business license to the surviving family member.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships…
the bill says repeatedly. The couples would not, however, be married. Two other bills would allow same sex marriage, but neither of those is expected to pass this year.
“It is not marriage, but it is everything that heterosexual families have currently,” said Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle.
Marriage, he and other proponents say, remains the goal.
“What we know