Washington State Approves Gay Partnership Bill: 'Everything But Marriage'
By Susie Madrak Friday Nov 06, 2009 9:00am
So even though the Maine results are depressing, let's look at some real progress over at the western part of the country:
Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.
The tally Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve R-71 widening its lead 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.
That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.
"Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of lesbian and gay families and the challenges they faced and sent a strong message that we want to see all families treated equally under the law in our state," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which worked for the measure's approval.
But opponents of R-71 were not conceding Thursday afternoon.
Larry Stickney, head of Protect Marriage Washington, which worked for rejection of R-71, said: "There are a lot of votes out there still. We continue to have some hope that the votes cast later will move in our direction."
Login or Register to post comments.
votes cast later won't count. Ballots had to be postmarked by midnight Nov 3rd.
...aren't the only thing this fool doesn't understand.
Hey, anybody hear a rumor that John Boehner held up his copy of the Constitution and then, MORON that he is, started to quote the Declaration of Independence? Oh man, I would love to see that video if true.
You had to watch the whole segment to fully get the magnitude of the trainwreck that was that teabagging convention.
Ballots in Washington must be postmarked by election day. Some are still in the mail. All counties in Washington except Pierce vote by mail. The late arriving ballots with Tuesday's postmark will still be counted, but there aren't enough out to make a difference.
isn't marriage a religious ceremony? Or is it actually a government thing? both?
I may be naive on this point though. perhaps we need to seperate the two from government?
the government no longer calls it marriage as it is a religous ceremony. they call it something else, then everyone can be under that and the nut jobs at the church can all be happy that "marriage" was saved.
ehh, what do I know.
You're right we need to separate the two: You get married in a church. You get a partnership license from the government.
We have to change the context and the language.
Marriage is a Legal act that provides portable Rights to both spouses regardless of State laws. Many marriages are performed with religious ceremonies. However, marriage does NOT require a religious ceremony for it to be legal.
In Washington State, we are now the "SAME, but NOT EQUAL".
My Right in Washington State to marry another man is NOT portable across State lines and I or my partner can be denied BASIC Rights and Dignities in other States.
.
The opposition to this law shows the hypocrisy at the core of the "traditional marriage" movement. Most of those people have been saying they only oppose marriage for same sex couples. They have nothing against gays they claimed. They just want to preserve traditional marriage. But this law isn't marriage and they still opposed it. Unfortunately I suspect that they will keep trying to overturn it. There will likely be a new referendum every year.
Filed away for future reference.
Yay. My vote counts.
What in the world is wrong with giving the right to a Civil or Common Law Marriage? If it's in the language of a law that should prevent concerns of government coercion of ministers and churches to marry gay people (although now days people don't need reasons for their concerns).
Any other solutions will smack of seperate but equal, struck down in education by Brown v Board of Education (1954).
But the current majority of the Supreme Court is acting as if it's 1954—1954 BCE, that is.
That would be too simple.
For about the millionth time I wonder what dimwitted assholes like our friend Larry Stickyknees actually gets out of this expenditure of energy? He could be spending all this energy and passion on something which might actually help someone, but instead he chooses to spend his time making sure other people can't do this, that or the other, or in this case, that they don't ever, ever get it into their heads that they should have the same rights he enjoys.
LOATHE these people.
Now all grade-school Thanksgiving pageants must be re-scripted as fabu dinner parties as mandated by the "teach homosexuality in the schools" clause of the bill.
.
Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), French poet and critic. He, his publisher, and the printer of his first and most famous book of poems, The Flowers of Evil, were successfully prosecuted for offending public morals.
"Unable to do away with love, the Church found a way to decontaminate it by creating marriage." --Charles Baudelaire
we are everything BUT equal.
Thanks for nothing.
Another form of legal cash confiscation no one should estimate their self worth on a stupid piece of paper.
my wife was pretty happy to get that "stupid piece of paper", but I don't think she revalued her life based upon that paper.
... it is like conducting a serious metaphysical debate with a drywall.
dagnubit...
I should pay closer attention at times.
"Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly"
LOL I guess I must be a coward.
is it came from the same stardust we do.
Marriage is a "stupid piece of paper"?
What a load cynical BS.....
There are actually people out there, gays and straight alike, who want to share their life with another person- one person...
My parents have been married 40 years and are very happy, my brother has been married 15 years and is very happy-Some marriages fail, but I have seen first hand many are lifelong and fullfilling...
If marriage is 'just a piece of paper' to you, then you my friend obviously are not cut out for marriage..Marriage isn't for everyone...
license to be in love and be dedicated lifelong partners in life. I've been married for 21 years and got the piece of paper.
Yes it entitles us to certain social and monetary benefits.
But the Marriage License is not the "glue" that keeps us together nor was it the motivation to be lifelong partners.
that is allowed to some but not to others...how hard is that to understand?
Then burn your license then if it's so unimportant you.
Get a divorce and just pledge the goodness of your heart with no legal entanglements and benefits.
Oh, you won't? I wonder why.
just love hassling me don't ya?
LOL
expect to get called on it.
And of course, no actual response, just some vague whiny comment.
You don't need a piece of paper to stay together any more than you need a religious book to mandate that you be nice to other human beings.
a legally binding document rather than a magical sky fairy book.
I shudder to think what sort of monstrous agenda they would be pushing if they were for "medium or large government" Ugh
I like the way Washington did this. The term "marriage" is too volatile. Much of America isn't ready to extend this expression. Washington gives domestic partners, including heterosexual partners with one member over the age of 62, all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without that expression.
I voted for R-71.
in saying the term "marriage" is too volatile.
A few years ago there were several states that had gay marriage measures on the ballot and all failed. At the time I wrote on a blog saying that gays should go for civil unions since it would probably pass instead of going for gay marriage that would not pass. Take what you can get and go for civil unions.
The flack I got from people was crazy. They didn't want to hear the truth and insisted that they have it all. How did that work out? It didn't.
Now civil unions has easily passed in one state and now go on to other states where most will pass such a measure. Civil unions are what you can get so please take what you can get.
I know you don't like it, and I do agree gays should have the same rights as hetero's including marriage, but gay marriage will take many years to achieve. Sorry, you must deal with reality. Several years ago I told you so.....
is that the best civil unions afford approximately 1,500 less rights than "marriage".
your "I told you so"s are really condescending to people who actually have had to deal with this in their lives.
incremental rights, half rights, etc. rub a lot of people the wrong way, and when a person is told (by a purported ally) that they should take the table scraps offered and get back on the floor and eat it out of a doggy dish - well, I'm not surprised you took some flack for your position.
Your condescending attitude might have more resonance if you agreed to give up your right to get married, and agreed to enter only into the same domestic partnership or civil union available in your state. After all, such unions are not limited to gay people.
In fact, I think that would be an excellent way for straight supporters of gay marriage to help with the cause. Refuse to get married, and only enter into civil unions until everything is equal. Hell, if enough people do it, it might make civil unions the legal norm, leaving marriage for the minority who think the word is so sacred that it should be reserved for bigots.
Totally condescending.
SweettP2063 said: "They didn't want to hear the truth and insisted that they have it all."
How would you like it if I took away some of your rights so we were equal?
same benefits as married couples.
That's the next one.
.
Evet,
When bigots stop hogging Marriage Rights for themselves.
.
I Washington if one partner is 62 or older, unmarried hetro domestic partners do get the same rights.
might view this with some disappointment because it did not give them full marriage recognition, but they should not be disappointed because that was not the issue being challenged. The court passed this ruling in favor of domestic partnerships and then the religous zealots sought to overturn the court at the ballot box, just as they challenged a court ruling in California. They failed. The people, primarily in Western Washington are generally liberal, progressive and open minded. I recognized a few of the anti sign wavers in my community as coming from the congregation of one of the largest churches in town. Live and let live is winning over those that want to dictate to others. This is a step in that direction. There are a lot of divorced people in that big church in my town that was so opposed to this ballot measure. They should look to improving their own marriage relationships before they judge others.
When you compromise, you often end up getting stuck with a pig. Domestic partnership is ersatz equality. If this is the strategy the LBGTQ community wants to take, that's fine. Good luck to them. But it's nothing to celebrate.
"We continue to have some hope that the votes cast later will move in our direction."
They really think they can won on this?
Sorry, they can't.
They maybe can win some figths, but the "war", they have no chance of winning.
People are getting more and more aceptable of gays.
It was and will be just like interracial marriage.
They had the SAME excuses for defending the "sanctity" of their marriage (with they're REALLY good in destroying themselves), but they have the need to have a scapegoat to everthing that they do that destroy their own marriages.
When gays become aceptable and then, the "homophobic family values" loose the "war", they'll soon find another "evil" minority group to say how they'll plan to destroy their marriage, sexually abuse children and the like.
had been put to a vote, I really doubt that inter-racial marriage would be legal yet either.
ref. 71 is good in that it expands already existing law, bringing rights closer in line to what marriage is, but it's still not the same, or even close.
It's great if you live in WA and never plan on moving.
Good luck if you get a job out of state.
It affirms the existing law. The bigots behind Ref 71 didn't believe the elected representatives of WA had the right to make such a law without putting it to a vote. I pretty much guarantee this will happen again every year from now on.
Haven't we been down this road before?
Let's see what happens when organization only serve or give benfits to those that are "married"...not in some civil approved relationship. It'll just be the same discrimination all over again.
Either get rid of marriage entirely or open it up to all.
Agreed. It's called equality.
press...
It was like we in the Pacific Northwest don't exist. All the focus was on Maine and NY 23 and the governerships.
Maine has 2 representatives and Washington has 9! But did you hear about the revolution underway in Washington State? Not much.
Then, after the fact, people are like all surprised about things happening in the West.
Hey, it's a different country out here.
Do those eastern national press folks ever get out of town?
I was baffled too , WA State and R71 didn't seem to exist as far as the National Media was concerned .
Because they knew it would pass in the Soviet State of Washington. They only want to report on gay marriage laws being rejected.
That pretty much sums it up SHAGGLES .
Don't worry though. There will be a referendum on this every election until it's finally overturned. If and when that happens we'll get our time in the spotlight too.
Login or Register to post comments.