2009 Senate Bill 5688 (State registered domestic partnership rights)

Legislation watch

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

Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray, (D-Seattle) (D) on January 28, 2009, provides that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. (See also Companion HB 1727).
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on January 28, 2009.
  - Substitute offered in the Senate on February 12, 2009, removes the reference to domestic partners in the definition of "marriage" in the statute dealing with sex offenses. The requirement that agencies amend their rules is subject to the availability of funds and language is added stating that nonconforming rules are still valid. The delayed effective date applies to the section amending the Basic Health Plan. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 12, 2009.
  - Referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on February 16, 2009.
    - Substitute offered in the Senate on February 17, 2009, to remove sections of the bill dealing with the State Health Care Authority and the Public Employees Benefit Board. The delayed effective date of those sections of the bill having fiscal impact is changed from 2012 to 2014. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 17, 2009.
    - Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 17, 2009.
      - Amendment offered by Sen. Ed Murray, (D-Seattle) (D) on March 10, 2009, to make technical corrections to make provision of the bill cohesive with federal rules and regulations. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 10, 2009.
      - Amendment offered by Sen. Dan Swecker, (R-Rochester) (R) on March 10, 2009, to add a referendum clause, requiring a vote of the people for adoption or rejection at the next general election. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on March 10, 2009.
      - Amendment offered by Sen. Dan Swecker, (R-Rochester) (R) on March 10, 2009, to add a "reverse severability" clause. The entire act is null and void and has no effect if any provision of the act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on March 10, 2009.
Passed in the Senate (30 to 18) on March 10, 2009. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 13, 2009.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 13, 2009.
- Referred to the House Ways & Means Committee on March 30, 2009.
- Referred to the House Rules Committee on April 6, 2009.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Hinkle, (R-Cle Elum) (R) on April 15, 2009, to provide that the legislature has expressly prohibited same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, and that this act and any other provision in the code are not intended to, and shall not be construed to, modify or supersede the state law regarding what constitutes marriage. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 15, 2009.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne, (R-North Bend) (R) on April 15, 2009, to add a referendum clause to the bill. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 15, 2009.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. Charles Ross, (R-Naches) (R) on April 15, 2009, to provide that curricula, materials, classes, programs, and activities sponsored, authorized, or distributed by a public school and that presents, describes, or discusses lawful marriage in Washington must present, describe, or discuss lawful marriage as between a man and a woman and may not describe domestic partnerships as lawful marriage. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 15, 2009.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (R-Spokane Valley) (R) on April 15, 2009, to amends the marriage statutes to state that marriage does not include state registered domestic partnerships and a state registered domestic partnership does not constitute marriage. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 15, 2009.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (R-Spokane Valley) (R) on April 15, 2009, to recognize the provisions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion granted by the U.S. and state Constitutions. Provides that the Legislature recognizes that there is a difference between a discriminating decision or act, or the lawful expression of one's belief, based on one's view of a person's sexual orientation versus a discriminating decision or act, or the lawful expression of one's belief, based on one's view of what constitutes marriage. Provides that a person, organization, or religious entity is immune from civil and criminal liability for: lawful speech expressing its beliefs about domestic partnerships and civil unions and its beliefs about marriage and lawfully acting consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs by refusing to participate in, endorse, facilitate, or otherwise assist any marriage, marriage ceremony, reception or other activity, or any domestic partnership, domestic partnership ceremony, reception, or other activity. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 15, 2009.
Passed in the House (62 to 35) on April 15, 2009. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on May 15, 2009, provides that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses and that provisions of the act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 5688 (State registered domestic partnership rights) [by jminton1100 on November 6, 2009]

Have you ever had to walk through a locker room and be
mocked and made fun of because of a choice that your parent(s) made (kids are
cruel)? Have you ever had to be one who has to be seen in public and receive
stares from everyone? Your books and studies are wrong. I know because I've
lived through it. So until you’ve lived through it, you can keep your studies
and books.

Line

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 5688 (State registered domestic partnership rights) [by firedup! on June 23, 2009]

I am so impressed with out state, and our legislature! I just wish that we would take it the next step, learn that marriage is all about love, and love is what we need in our life! If two people love eachother, than why should they not be granted the same God given rights as every other citizen in our great state! We must be a people united, not divided! Just as we faught against those of African decent, now it is homosexuals that are ridiculed, why is this, are we not happy unless we are hating someone? I hope that is not the case, we need to have understanding and love for every other person! my thanks to our leaders.

Line

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 5688 (State registered domestic partnership rights) [by LawGratton on April 5, 2009]

Whatever happened to Honesty and Integrity?

Why can we not find Politicians who Say What They Mean and Mean What They Say!

From a President who said he was going to have open government and then signs stimulus packages with into law without giving us, or the Congress a chance to read them!

To a Governor who said she was not going to support the Homosexual and Lesbian agenda and then said it was the happiest day of her life as she signed Washington Sates ‘Domestic Partnership’ law.

To Senator Ed Murray who was infuriated that I accused him trying to pass Homosexual Marriage legislation and then stating ‘It’s all about Marriage, and always has been.’ And when their petition before the Courts to Validate Homosexual Marriage was refused because they did not have all the rights of Marriage; what do you think they did?

That same Senator Ed Murray of King County introduced a new Bill, SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” to correct His oversight. Once SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” is signed by Our Governor Christine Gregoire it into law and most likely Before the Ink is even dry; The Homosexual and Lesbian lobby will be requesting a new date on the Court’s docket. And this time they will most likely be rewarded for their labors while The “Marriage Covenant” will be buried in the graveyard of acceptance without knowledge or action by those it affects most.

Once "Marriage" is no longer confined to a Man and a Woman and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "Love" and "Mutual Commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "Relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that homosexuals and lesbians' marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" was totally unacceptable.

What are homosexuals and lesbians' looking for? Validation of their life style?

At what cost? Marriage? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will degrade and destroy the "Marriage Covenant." A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to birth the next generation of mankind. A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to love, cares for, protect, raise, and instill knowledge and wisdom in a new born child.

At what cost? The Family? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will tear apart the "Family" that is the backbone of our society and a life style that cannot birth new generations that ensure the continuation of the "Family."

AT what cost? The continuation of mankind on the earth? Homosexuals and lesbians' cannot reproduce. The can only recruit.

The destructive effects of redefine the institution of marriage may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

Hear This: You Get What You Pay For! If you do not DEMAND HONESTY and INTEGRITY of your leaders, You will not receive it. So what right do you have to expect it…

The "Marriage Covenant" must survive and take the MORAL HIGH GROUND it so justly deserves.

Line

View Full Conversation