Washington Votes

2007 Senate Bill 5069 (Extending retirement benefits to domestic partners.)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Margarita Prentice, (D-Renton) on January 9, 2007, to extend public employee retirement benefits which are applicable to spouses to domestic partners.
    • Referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on January 9, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Margarita Prentice, (D-Renton) on January 9, 2007. New Comment

1) Desecration of marriage [by Anonymous Citizen on January 11, 2007]
Despite the obvious (intentionally?) poor drafting of this bill, the meat of the matter is that it desecrates the value of marriage, which is the foundation of the family, which is the basis of society. As we condone such anti-family activity, we cannot ultimately expect anything from our society but anything-goes anarchy.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Definition isn't there [by Anonymous Citizen on January 11, 2007]
I agree with the above -- I know the bill refers to RCS 41.40.010 but, in reviewing it three times, I see no reference to Domestic Partner.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) 41.40.010? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 10, 2007]
Where is the definition for domestic partner? I know it refers to this term in the proposed bill, but I don't see its definiton in RCW 41.40.010.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Dewey Reynolds [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
This bill would allow gay partners to receive child support, Social Security from a deceased partner and allow state aid for all gays depending on which one is designated the female/male partner. I hardily disagree with this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Inaccuracies [by jreilly4261 on January 9, 2007]
This bill has no effect, and can have no effect, on federal benefits and entitlements such as Social Security.

Having just read most of the bill, it appears to allow a domestic partner to receive a portion of his or her partner's state pension/retirement upon the partner's death. It's pretty simple.

You can agree or disagree with it, but we shouldn't make it out to be more than it is.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) SB 5069 [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
Are they kidding? What is a domestic partner? Can my daughter qualify as my domestic partner? Are there any limits to how many domestic partners I can have?
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Read the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
Are you kidding? In the bill is this line:(13) "Domestic partner" has the definition in RCW 41.40.010.

Look it up.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: