Proposed Same-Sex Marriage Ban Sets Off Rhetoric Senate Committee Expected To Approve Measure Today

A proposed ban on same-sex marriage was branded by foes Tuesday as a “declaration of intolerance.” Backers hailed it as a common-sense effort to buttress the endangered institution of marriage.

The Senate Law and Justice Committee is expected to approve the measure today. The committee and its House counterpart held hearings Tuesday that attracted some of the most impassioned testimony of the new legislative session.

Backers invoked the Bible, called homosexuals “a community of broken and dissatisfied people,” and said their desire to be married besmirches a sacred institution that has been the bedrock of civilization for centuries.

Foes called it a fearful, intolerant treatment of citizens who want the same basic protections and benefits that other families take for granted.

Sponsors and legislative leaders predict easy passage later this session, but probably not by the supermajorities needed to override the expected veto of Democratic Gov. Gary Locke.

Republicans, who control both houses, say they’re prepared to send it to the ballot for the voters to decide. A referendum bypasses the governor’s desk.

The bill is the centerpiece of conservative “pro-family” groups’ agenda.

House sponsor Bill Thompson, R-Everett, said the measure is needed because Hawaii may legalize same-gender marriage in the next year or two and the U.S. Constitution requires that marriages conducted in one state be honored in the others.

The legislation, HB1130 and SB5398, would follow the lead of the recently enacted federal Defense of Marriage Act in defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It also says any same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be recognized in Washington.

Forrest Messenger, a Seattle CPA, described himself as upset and confused by finding out that his father was gay. He said he was abused by some of his father’s friends and invited to a bisexual orgy.

“Lowering moral standards does not help my generation or future generations,” he said.

Committee Democrats quickly shot back that most child abuse is committed by heterosexuals and that gays are talking about safe, loving homes, not pedophilia.

The state’s only gay lawmaker, Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and his partner, Michael Shiosaki, led off the opposition.

The legislation “is a declaration of intolerance,” Murray said. “It is a painful attack on my family and my partner’s family. And it is an insult to hard-working gay and lesbian citizens throughout Washington who pay taxes, care for their families, contribute to their communities and ask only for equal rights in return.

“It is particularly insulting that this attack on gay and lesbian relationships is masquerading as a measure to strengthen family values.”

Laurie Jinkins of Tacoma, head of the gay-rights advocacy group Hands Off Washington, said, “You can dress it up, you can change its name, but it is still discrimination.”

In other developments:

Immigrant welfare

Lawmakers wrestling with the question of how much to help legal immigrants who are about to lose their welfare benefits got some advice Tuesday from experts in the field: Show some compassion.

The free guidance came courtesy of organizations that offer health care and other services to immigrants. They said many of their clients are elderly, frail, sick or injured, and the ones who can work don’t make enough in seasonal jobs to support their families.

“If the individual is here legally … they should be allowed to get public services and assistance if they need it,” Rogelio Riojas of Sea Mar Community Health Services in Seattle, told lawmakers. “We need to show the rest of the country that we can take care of our people; that we’re compassionate.”

Riojas pleaded his case before a joint meeting of the House Children and Family Services Committee and the House Health Care Committee, both of which will be key players in the Legislature’s effort to redesign Washington’s welfare system.

Lawmakers are trying to stay within the guidelines set by a federal law signed last year by President Clinton that ended the 60-year guarantee of public assistance. Instead, many welfare recipients will have to sign a pledge that they’ll look for work, go back to school or seek job training in order to remain eligible for aid.

One of the most controversial provisions of the federal law eliminates food stamps and cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income program for legal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.

An estimated 38,000 legal immigrants in Washington will lose their food stamps this year, with the first wave of cuts slated for April, according to the Department of Social and Health Services.

Official English

A proposed constitutional amendment to designate English as Washington’s official language could make the state appear racist, Secretary of State Ralph Munro said Tuesday.

“English-only laws have a long history rooted in racism,” Munro testified at a hearing by the Senate Education Committee on the measure.

Munro quickly added that he does not consider the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, to be racist.

But, Munro said, “In my opinion, this Legislature and this legislation will send the wrong message” - that Washington doesn’t want to trade with countries whose people don’t speak English.

“In Asian countries and in Mexico, English-only laws are considered very racist,” he said.

Washington is one of the most trade-dependent states in the nation. The reason so many foreigners do business with Washington is because they feel comfortable here, Munro said. If the state loses that feeling, it could lose business.

“They could go to Georgia where there’s cheaper land … or Oklahoma with its central location,” he said. “But now, they don’t feel threatened here, they don’t hear racist jokes.”

Benton said his proposed amendment is “intended to preserve, protect and strengthen, as well as perpetuate the English language.”