Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 17, 2007

The vote was 28 in favor, 19 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

These bills must be defeated for three reasons. They are fiscally irresponsible. They open up a new class of entitlements on a social security and welfare system that is already broken. They are socially and spiritually irresponsible. These bills provide government incentive to live together as though married, without the commitments of marriage. They are also contrary to the spiritual and moral teaching of the Bible and the historic mores of American culture. They are a “gateway” or incremental step toward gay marriage. Mr. Murray, Mr. Moeller and others have repeatedly told the press and the public that the prize is ultimately marriage for gays.

This bill circumvents the moral and legal underpinnings of what out society subscribes to in affording married couples certain privileges because they are married, i.e. comprise a man and a women in a legal, committed union. This bill is not needed. As noted in the bill, "many" (probably all) the rights that homosexual couples are supposedly denied because they are not married "may be secured by private agreement" though, of course, "doing so is often costly and complex." Duh. So is marriage. I think that is part of the main idea. Besides this, the bill is ridiculous in that refers to committed and exclusive relationships between same sex persons. Who and how does the law define this? Obviously, will be whoever says so at the time. Studies show that homosexual partnerships are characterized by infidelity and multiple partners. I could go on and on and on. Passing this bill would be a travesty, a slap in the face to the married citizens of the State, who are still overwhelmingly heterosexual, and yes another wider crack in opening the door to gay marriage.

“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and others have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society. As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incentives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.) A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered. A second concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation will work at cross purposes to the original intent of the institution of marriage. That is, it will provide incentives for unmarried heterosexual partners (who may produce children) to remain unmarried. This is the exact opposite of the single most important goal of traditional marriage, permanent commitment. It will also diminish the value society places on this one most important union. Finally, children produced in these relationships will miss the single most important benefit of traditional marriage, the security of a mother and father committed to the lifelong preservation of the family. Many children currently lack the important elements of protection, provision, sustenance and nurturing provided by most traditional families. Creating government incentives to abandon this tradition will increase the number of children lacking these necessary elements.”

“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society. Some Christian leaders and others have proposed the adoption of ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation as an alternative to redefining marriage. Different versions of the legislation specify a variety of relationships that would be eligible for expanded benefits. Adopting this legislation, as well as legislation creating civil unions more broadly defined, would create even bigger problems for our society. As the law now stands, traditional marriage is limited to one man and one woman. This is, of course, the only type of relationship that can produce children. The intent of the law is to provide incentives for a man and a woman to remain together as long as possible, to provide benefits to spouses and offspring and to define the process of dissolving those relationships if the marriage fails (custody and provision for the children.) A first concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation would extend benefits to a much larger group of people. Any attempt to expand the eligible class of beneficiaries of both private and public programs will reduce critical resources available to sustain children and families in traditional marriages. Many of these programs are already strained for lack of resources, particularly health insurance and Social Security. With finite resources, increasing the number of beneficiaries will reduce the resources available to those already covered. A second concern is that ‘reciprocal benefits’ legislation will work at cross purposes to the original intent of the institution of marriage. That is, it will provide incentives for unmarried heterosexual partners (who may produce children) to remain unmarried. This is the exact opposite of the single most important goal of traditional marriage, permanent commitment. It will also diminish the value society places on this one most important union. Finally, children produced in these relationships will miss the single most important benefit of traditional marriage, the security of a mother and father committed to the lifelong preservation of the family. Many children currently lack the important elements of protection, provision, sustenance and nurturing provided by most traditional families. Creating government incentives to abandon this tradition will increase the number of children lacking these necessary elements.”

So studies show that homosexual partnerships are characterized by infidelity? I don't think that the homosexuals have a corner on that market. The greatest threat to families today are heterosexual marriages that fail; single parents raising kids; and/or kids raised by others (e.g., day care, baby sitters, after school programs, etc.) The loving thing to do... dare I say the Christian thing to do... is to tolerate that some people will make a different choice. I have no problem with this bill and it will not affect my marriage if it passes.

The homophobic religious right is spouting its usual distortion and spin in a desperate attempt to defeat this valuable civil rights legislation. The “domestic partnership” bills [HB 1351 and SB 5336] make abundant good sense. Contrary to the false propaganda from the religious right, this legislation is not about gay marriage. It simply follows the lead of other states and the District of Columbia in establishing a registry of domestic partners, giving them some of the legal and financial benefits of married couples. It also applies to heterosexual couples over age 62. We all have business associates, friends and family who would benefit from this enlightened, genuinely compassionate legislation; it is another major step in establishing equal rights for all citizens of Washington. If, like me, you are “straight but not narrow” please contact your representatives in Olympia and urge them to support it.

“Any redefinition of marriage would create significant problems for traditional families in our society." That is your opinion, and it may or not be true. But your point is moot since this legislation does NOT redefine marrriage.

Should the high divorce rate be tolerated? How about infidelity? It’s not the gays that are destroying traditional families but rather the selfish behavior of individuals with or without children. It seems to me that reciprocal benefits is rooted in commitment and love; that bodes well for society.

Most children do not have these pristine mother/father relationships that you tout. Your religion is not a safeguard ensuring purity. If anything, it contributes more to emotional, physical and sexual abuse in families than poverty does. In the world, your religion has always been nothing more than a tool of oppression using violence, theft, rape and deceit to get its way. I choose to have an opposite sex partner but we would never want to enter your system of "traditional marriage."

You must be off your meds, my friend. Because the garbage you spout has no connection with reality.

 Certain legislators seem to be constantly wooing the favor of fringe votes or what they see as politically correct in order to popularize themselves for the next election. This bill is typical of those legislators who won't do real work in the legislature just that which puts themselves in the limelight.