The following editorial, edited for space, appeared Saturday in the Centralia (Wash.) Chronicle.

With the Democrats in overwhelming control of both houses of the Washington state Legislature and with a Democratic governor, odds have increased significantly in favor of at least some form of domestic partnership law being enacted in this state.

Democratic legislative leaders and fellow Democrat Gov. Christine Gregoire are sounding favorable or open to legislation being introduced this session that would provide domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. But the gay rights lobby isn’t stopping there, viewing the domestic partnership legislation as just a step toward full civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The Legislature’s five openly gay members, all Democrats, are also pushing legislation to allow same-sex marriage.

Meantime, our 20th District state senator, Republican Dan Swecker of Rochester, is sponsoring legislation that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thereby continuing the ban on same-sex marriage. While a domestic partnership measure may have fairly good odds of becoming law this session, same-sex marriage approval appears unlikely. And there’s about a zero chance the Legislature will pass Swecker’s amendment, because of likely greater Democratic majority opposition and the fact it would require two-thirds approval by both houses for passage (after that, the amendment would become part of our constitution with simple majority approval of the voters).

Credit Swecker for making the effort anyway. A constitutional amendment would be stronger protection for traditional marriage and, while it will be unpopular in the Legislature, likely would be passed by the voters if it got that far. Polls indicate people in this state continue to decisively oppose gay marriage. …

Furthermore, there is no trend across the nation for gay marriage. To the contrary, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage were passed by a vote of the people in seven out of eight states in the Nov. 7 election, even in a liberal voter tide. Twenty-seven states now have such constitutional bans, all approved by a majority of voters. …

Meanwhile, Swecker has some good points on the latest campaign by the homosexual lobby and its supporters to erode long-standing and soundly based traditional marriage in this state. He said the Legislature (and the governor) should respect public opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage, as reflected in the polls. Short of that, he said, let the voters decide and give them all of the choices, including an amendment further protecting traditional marriage, not just a choice between same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. …

A majority of voters might support the domestic partnership measure, which would extend benefits such as hospital visitation rights and end-of-life decisions to same-sex couples. It’s unlikely the Democrats will have the nerve to approve legislation allowing same-sex marriage and virtually certain they won’t pass a constitutional amendment banning it.

But they might well approve domestic partnerships and if they do, they would be wise to put at least it to a vote of the people through a referendum.