Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 22, 2008

The vote was 62 in favor, 32 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 0 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Is it any wonder why we have such a hard time with our legislators. Take a look at this domestic partner bill and companion bill SB 6716. They completely expand the rights of domestic partners and even include a dissolution (divorce) provision. Kind of like putting the cart way before the horse considering they don't have gay marriage approval. Look at the sponsor names and remember them come voting time. They don't care what the majority of Washington voters want. Think they're trying to make us the Massachusetts of the west!

The advocates for Marriage Equality in the broad community and in the legislature have been up front from the beginning. Granting equality to same-sex couples is about honoring fairness in our state. Even as the first Domestic Partnership legislation was put to the legislature advocates said that Marriage Equality was the goal, but that same-sex couples and their families needed the protections of Domestic Partnership immediately. There is no hidden agenda and no surprises here. HB 3104 and SB 6716 talk about “dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership” because it is adding domestic partnership to the existing provisions which allow dissolution of opposite-sex marriages. Your inference that lawmakers are laying the groundwork for same-sex marriage by creating same-sex divorce is nonsense. It is a truth universally acknowledged that justice never follows when the majority votes on Minority Rights. However, even following your thought, the best polling I can find (ABC News/Facebook poll. Dec. 16-19, 2007. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS) at the national level (no Washington State data) shows that a majority (54%) does support some form of relationship recognition providing legal rights to same-sex couples and families. "Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?" . Should Should Unsure Not % % % 12/16-19/07 54 43 4 I find it hard to believe that the people of Washington State are less fair-minded than the average American.

Anyone who thinks this bill is about fairness or JUST creating Civil Unions has their head in the sand. Just look a quotes from Senator Ed Murray. He and others have been quite clear: Marriage for same sex couples is the ultimate goal. Anyone who know anything about polling and statistics knows the numbers can be sliced just about anyway you want them. Just look at accurate the polls have been so far this Presidental election cycle and how accurate they were in 2004. Murray and others continue to take a "choice" of behavior and elevate it to a discriminatory event.

I now know what progressive candidates mean by hope and change. This bill makes Washington State a national embarrassment. It is time for another good legislative FLUSH like we had in 94!

Frankly, I'm appalled by the amount of bickering being put up by anti-gay-marriage folks here. The domestic partnership laws exist, but they need additional detail work. So what? Now, to do some bickering of my own. Thank you for agreeing to recognize out-of-state gay partnerships as legally equivalent to our domestic partnerships in Washington. I'm appalled that people are worried by this, but glad that you, our legislators, have voted it in. You were completely correct to do so. I am a 26 year old college student, and frequent voter, in Sedro Woolley. I'm female, and I'm currently planning my hetero wedding to my longtime boyfriend. My conscience is already bothering me, because I'm enjoying a legal privilege that my gay friends are denied. (Though, to their credit, none of them have hassled me about it once.) Who wants to drink at a whites-only water fountain? It's not the same civil rights issue as racial segregation, but to politically aware young people like me, it feels dangerously close. I feel guilty for having a straight marriage when my gay friends can't have the same thing. But I've digressed. Regardless of how I feel about gay marriage, I'm glad that the Washington state domestic partnerships--which are not the same thing, even if they now require paperwork to dissolve in a manner somewhat reminiscent of divorce--are at least being taken seriously. Please don't worry that the anti-gay comments posted here reflect the true voting public of Washington State. There are plenty more people like me, too, who'd be comfortable becoming the West Coast Massachusetts. ~ Supportive in Sedro

You are worrying about enjoying a privelage that others are denied? You must understand the purpose of marriage first. We allow tax benefits and other benefits by law because your marriage might benefit society by bringing in children and balanced parenthood. I think gays and lesbians should be allowed to enjoy their lives together, but asking for tax and other acknowledgments does not benefit society as a whole, and so they may pursue their lives in the privacy that they rightly deserve, and do not need government support.

This is true. We all support privacy issues. Gays and lesbians, couples who choose to live together w/o marriage. Its all fine if you choose. But our society must understand that a healthy next generation is the goal, and so we choose to offer extra support to those who might accomplish this, but never should punish those who choose otherwise.

By barring one from receiving a privelege reserved for a particular group or activity is not akin to being punished. Marrige coupe are provided certain provisions for adding to society in a certain way. By not giving these same provisions to other groups is not 'punishing' them by any stretch of the imagination. "Equal rights" does not mean "Special rights" any more than I would receive "Equal rights" for choosing to remain single; because I am single, are you saying I too should be afforded the same rights and priveleges as someone who is married? If I choose to live and have sexual relations with a partner of my choice and yet, still remain single, why too, should I be afforded the same rights as married couples.

If the citizens of Washington are for this then why does the Legislature refuse to let us vote on it? When are the politicians in this state going to stop forcing their will on its people. We pass initives and they use public money to finance court actions to have them overturned or they just ignore them completely. This push to force people to accept that a Gay marriage can be equal to a real marriage is another prime example. The people have voiced their opinion, but our elected representatives think that they know better than you and I how to run our lives. As soon as my child is out of my house, I'm leaving this state. As a citizen and tax payer, I am haggard. No one in Olympia is listening.

My, my..... To the lady who wants to leave the state - go ahead! None of YOUR rights were taken away with the passing of this bill. The legislature didn't give you a chance to vote on this, as you obviously don't believe in a state that would be fair to ALL of its citizens, and would have voted NO. Thanks for your bigoted opinion and for wanting to take away my rights before I even have the chance to enjoy them. To the person who uses the "no children" argument again Gay marriage - I have 3 kids (biologically) and have been with my husband for 15 years, and know many gay couples who have adopted kids that screwed-up straight couples have cast aside as "unwanted" due to their lifestyle "choices". You also might want to read recent studies of how well-adjusted and "normal" kids of Gay & Lesbian parents are, as compared to average kid raised in a straight household. Speaking of which, since the person who indicated it was a "choice" to be gay, you wouldn't know that it's NOT a choice because you AREN'T Gay. Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?? Well, think about it. To those worried about the "sanctity" of marriage, you really should work on making DIVORCE illegal, as your sanctity is being trampled to the tune of an at least 65% divorce rate. Lovely example you set for us "militant" gays who would like to have all the rights for ourselves and our spouses that every married couple has now and either abuses or takes for granted. And don't even get me started on the religious argument. This is about CIVIL marriage and rights of U.S. Citizens. And.....thank you VERY much to the woman who's getting married (to a man) soon that believes in the rights of ALL citizens! BRAVA!! Thank you for your time..... David Seattle

It's a shame that any wording needs to be added into law to establish a group of persons rights. The purpose for our constitution is too quickly lost. One easy statement is necessary. "All citizens shall have the rights, considerations, and responsibilities equally, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, religion, disability, or other life choices." Eventually, we'll need to add in there something that states, "Campaign contributions can only be made by those who are voters for their election."

In response to only heterosexual persons should be able to get married because of children I object. As a psychotherapist and someone who has worked for CPS it's time we start looking at what the heterosexual community has done to our children, sexual abuse, molest, rape. Parents of today are selfish and we have hundreds of thousands of children that need GOOD parents which homosexual parents make GREAT parents. Our society is toxic and you need to think of all the children that are in foster care needing good homes. I want to have all the rights of any married couple as I have raised a foster child to majority and she is a successful citizen. Ocean Shores, Wa

Get off the self-righteous soapbox pulll-ease. Your insinuation that all the bad parents are heterosexual and all the good parents are homosexual is laughable at best. True, there is a larger proportion of bad parents among heterosexuals but that is only because the sheer number of heterosexual parents far outnumbers that of homosexual parents. While I'm sure there are plenty of good homosexual parents, the child in a homosexual family needs to be raised knowing full well that their family situation is the exception and NOT the norm and I'm not sure that that is being fulfilled. If homosexual parenting was the way of nature, then it would be possible for homosexuals to create life together not just raise children after they were created by someone elses intervention.

and I want my dog to have the same rights as a spouse would have. Do ya think that in maybe 10 years the insanity that we are living under in 2008 will have abated and we can get back to normal? Meaning, when are we going to start caring about the lives and futures of children rather than basing our entire world view on adult sexual preferences? Kids need a mother and a father and not two homosexuals pretending to be normal people or a man and a woman who have a child out of wedlock and then have multiple partners coming and going out of the house.

i can tell when someone is angry by the way they use capital letters and exclamation points. it is best to write/type after you calm a bit, so when you respond it is kind, well-thought out, and civil. that goes for all sides. now, if you do not know someone, please do not call them a bigot. i do not know the person you called that, but there is a very good chance that they are not. big·ot:Origin: 1590–1600,derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans! interesting to search the actual definitions of words so popular today to insite attacks and rage, isn't it? also, if you hope to make your point get across to a person who holds already a strong view in opposition to your own, it does not aid you at all to lower yourself to name-calling, right? right or wrong, an angry aggressive person appears wrong. let's debate instead! by the way, it is indeed possible to not approuve of a behavior or action, and still care about and respect the person who does the act.

Making all these legal clarifications is only for the best, they will help the law help the people. It's so important to build laws that are supposed to be accurate and exact, that would be an the ideal situation. Until the new law comes in place I have Probate Tucson for support.