News

Wait, Wait, Don't Marry Me

How to Stop Worrying and Love Domestic Partnerships

Wait, Wait, Don't Marry Me

ROBERT ULLMAN

Here we are, in the third consecutive year of a deliberate, steady march toward legal parity for gay and lesbian couples under Washington State law, and it appears that after this legislative session ends, gay couples in this state will have been granted all the rights that straight couples enjoy.

It won't be called marriage. It will instead be called domestic partnership. It won't deliver any of the 1,138 federal protections that straight married couples receive. But it will bring with it every single one of the nearly 450 rights to which straight couples in this state are currently entitled—even the highly coveted right to inherit sea-urchin-gathering licenses.

That's progress. Not full equality, but tremendous progress nonetheless. Going from zero to domestic-partnership parity in three years won't be too shabby for a state in which the supreme court, in October of 2006, upheld the legislature's 1998 ban on gay marriage, calling it "essential to the survival of the human race" and important for "the well-being of children." With a supreme court that's hostile to marriage equality and a legislature that's not yet ready to overturn its 1998 gay-marriage ban, domestic- partnership parity is the only realistic alternative gay-rights supporters currently have—and it appears to be going quite well. We're not Massachusetts, sure. But we're not Utah, either.

And yet, in what is becoming an annual tradition, there are questions in gay-rights circles about whether things are moving fast enough toward the end goal—marriage. There are even some straight people complaining—a variation on the tradition that's actually another sign of huge progress. When KOMO TV's Ken Schram is handing out one of his "Schrammies" to lament how long full marriage equality is taking (as he did on January 29), you know things are changing.

Upbraiding state senator Ed Murray (D-43), one of the state's most prominent leaders on gay-rights issues, Schram wrote: "I can appreciate Murray's cautionary step-by-step attitude, but believe he underestimates the momentum that's on his side. Over the past few years, the state legislature has shown its willingness to support homosexual rights. Why not take the shot?"

Responding to this sort of complaint, Murray told The Stranger: "We're in a marriage clusterfuck inside an echo chamber." What he means is that those complaining that gay-rights groups aren't demanding full marriage equality from the legislature this session are missing the bigger political picture. And he's right.

The bigger picture, in addition to the reality of the 1998 ban and the 2006 supreme-court decision, is this: While 66 percent of Washingtonians support legal parity for gay and lesbian couples, that support drops to 37 percent if the word "marriage" is used, according to a 2008 University of Washington poll. In that environment, it's totally inconceivable that any savvy gay-rights supporter would demand a push for marriage in the state legislature this year.

"We need four things to move the marriage bill," said Josh Friedes, advocacy director for Equal Rights Washington. "A house that will pass the bill, a senate that will pass the bill, a governor who will sign the bill, and an electorate that will protect the bill when it goes up for referendum" (meaning a popular vote to repeal the bill). "What we do not have right now is certainty about the electorate."

In reality, gay-rights advocates don't have much certainty about the state legislature, either. This year's domestic-partnership bill has 56 sponsors in the house (more than enough to pass it), but in the senate it only has 20 sponsors (of 49 total members), which means Murray and others will be lobbying for additional votes. And that's for domestic partnership. Imagine if the demand was marriage or nothing.

"Most of my colleagues outside of Seattle have never heard from anybody on the issue of marriage equality," Murray said. "To me, that speaks to the major Achilles' heel of the gay and lesbian political movement."

Some of this urgency about pushing for gay marriage immediately is no doubt linked to the rise in activism this state saw after Californians passed Proposition 8 in November, repealing marriage equality there. But this confuses the activist impulse with the political imperative; one of the major lessons of Prop 8 is that if you're going to risk a popular vote on your rights, you need to be sure you can win.

If you're a gay-rights advocate looking for something to debate about, here's the real question: When, exactly, should Washington's gay-rights leaders push for the legislature to pass a marriage bill? Next year, 2010, will find a lot of legislators up for reelection, which could make some of them reluctant to take a risk on a "social" issue. The year after, 2011, is an off-year, electorally speaking, which means that a spring passage of a marriage bill by the legislature would be followed by a low-turnout November election in which a referendum to overturn gay marriage would surely be on the ballot. A low-turnout election (in which mainly old folks and political devotees show up) doesn't favor beating back a referendum like that.

What's left? Well, there's 2012, another election year that might spook state legislators, but perhaps a time far enough in the future for gay-rights advocates to change public opinion. Get that UW poll to come back with more than 50 percent of Washingtonians supporting marriage for gays and lesbians, and the whole problem is—potentially—solved. recommended

This article has been updated since its original publication.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Oops! The state Supreme Court issued its opinion in July 2006, not October 2005. Not sure where the 2005 date came from, but I remember the day clearly and bitterly. The first dp law was passed in the session immediately following the decision - and that was important progress for a dispirited community.
Posted by brie on February 4, 2009 at 1:53 PM · Report
2
Absolutely correct. People don't seem to realize that pretty much every 'gay rights' bill that passes the legislature does so with the threat of facing a public vote on a referendum to appeal the next fall. In that scenario, it makes zero sense to pass a bill that will then be rejected at the ballot. It would only set the cause back multiple years.
Posted by thewalrus on February 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM · Report
3
What cowards. This is the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall riots and it's pathetic to see the ideas that are forced fed to the lgbt community. Shitty ideas like "we shouldn't fight back when we're bashed". Or "don't push too far because you might lose." Or "half equal rights are good enough." ELECTORAL POLITICS ARE A FAILURE AND WE WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL WE STOP TYING OUR MOVEMENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND CORPORATE-CONTROLLED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS! Not gay rights, but gay liberation!
Posted by Lonnie on February 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM · Report
4
Newly formed LGBTQ and allies group dedicated to grassroots organizing against homophobia and other issues affecting the LGBTQ community, both locally and nationally. Our aim is to build a broad based coalition of progressive queers and their allies to fight for equal rights and social justice for all. Join the struggle, meetings every Friday at 7pm. We're still looking for a permanent space, so message us if you want to come.

http://www.myspace.com/queerallycoalitio…
Posted by Queer Ally Coalition on February 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM · Report
5
Who are the Q people?

Socialist of all colors don't like election politics since they can't win - let's just get it out there.

So calling well intended and hard working non socialist activists ugly names is one of their favorite games.... such an ugly tirade about their own community, which, as Eli has shown, is moving forward quite well.

Lonnie, get some respect and real time political smarts. Were it not for the Washington Democrats, and the many from Greater Seattle, the right wing would have jailed you and me as perverts long ago.
Posted by Max on February 4, 2009 at 4:35 PM · Report
6
With due respect to Sen. Murray (who I agree with wholeheartedly when it comes to spending the time to educate the public on marriage equality before attempting to pass the bill - so as to avoid another ugly referendum loss like California's Prop 8 passing here), I do have to say I take issue with the statement that legislators outside of Seattle aren't hearing about issues surrounding LGBT civil rights.

As a long-time volunteer with Equal Rights Washington, I know first hand that people outside of Seattle routinely engage with their legislators on issues affecting our community through email and telephone campaigns, meeting with their legislators in their districts, and even through lobbying events like the ERW equality day coming up in March (everyone come - it's gonna be super fun!!!).

That said, it is really important that people continue to talk to people in their lives about LGBT equality, both in Seattle and outside Seattle.

And Lonnie - there's really no need for that kind of language. Moreover, what would you have people do? Stand in the streets and scream until they lose their voice? Man - that'd get a heckuva lot accomplished. Sheesh.
Posted by zinger44 on February 4, 2009 at 6:21 PM · Report
7
There's a bunch of stuff that people can do to help with achieving full marriage equality. Here's ERW's website: http://equalrightswashington.org/

And links to a petition: http://eqfed.org/campaign/MarriageEquali…

Registering for Equality Day: http://equalrightswashington.org/events/…

And a video project: http://www.oneminuteformarriage.com/

So yay! Go out and help make change! Walk your talk, and such...
Posted by Rodger on February 4, 2009 at 6:53 PM · Report
8
Why the hell is this an issue? If a couple of dudes want to get married, let them get married. And contrary to "popular" belief, this will not open the door to people being able to marry horses or dogs or whatever other bullshit reasoning people come up with. Just more christian fundamentalist crap interfering with our everyday lives, and bogging down our broken political system. And I love how "the well being of children" comes into this. I'm going to say that pretty much 100% of gay couples looking to adopt a child are way more qualified to raise a child than half the people pumping out kids these days. How many unwed, 16 year old gays are having children? Probably none. Compared to the baby factories I see walking around with 3+ kids in tow, how is a gay person any less qualified to raise a child? How many middle aged gay couples met working for minumum wage at McDonalds? How many gays are getting knocked up by their unemployed hood rat boyfriends?...NONE. Just stop lying to me about your reasoning you assholes. If you don't want gays to get married because you think its wrong, just say you think its wrong. Don't feed me a bunch of bullshit. This is exactly whats wrong with this state, and our beloved "free" country. What happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" You've stolen everyones liberty, and banned their pursuit of happiness, and with cops killing so many innocent people lately, all of our basic rights according to the Constitution/Bill of Rights have just been raped from every citizen in this nation. Land of the free my ass.....
Posted by raincityradio.org on February 5, 2009 at 3:03 PM · Report
9
I support gay marriage - but this is not about equality; this is about the scope of government. The government is only necessary (in this issue) to protect the rights of those who are married - to oversee the necessary legal issues associated with a marriage contract. The real question shouldn't be: why won't the state recognize gay marriage? It should be: why does the state designate what is and isn't marriage? The push shouldn't be for domestic partnerships for gay couples; it should be for domestic partnerships for everyone. The state doesn't know what is and isn't marriage.
Posted by libertarian on February 5, 2009 at 6:51 PM · Report
10
I know this lesbian chick at the college. We were talking one day about gay marriage, and I mentioned that I thought the problem was that they were fighting over a word, not the rights. From what I could see, if the GLBT activists and pro-gay politicians just concentrated on getting gays the rights, regardless of name, then the rest will follow. My classmate agreed, saying, "I don't care if they call it dog shit, as long as my partner and I get the benefits and rights of a married couple."

I think Washington state is on the right track, actually. After they gain domestic legal equity for gays and lesbians in this state (and hopefully other states follow), then they can start working on domestic equity on a federal level.

For some reason, that damn word seems to be a hot button. I seriously don't get it. Go on, research the history of marriage. It's freaking hilarious and mildly appalling.
Posted by studious_mom on February 5, 2009 at 8:45 PM · Report
11
NO gavernment has a right to be involved in ANY citizens life, but the current domestic partner program is NOT available to hetero couples who want to use the benefits (financial and health) unless one of the couple is at least 65 years old. i know - i wanted to use this program and was told by the atty generals office that i couldn't because neither of us are 65. this is extremely discriminatory against hetero couples. gay couples now have MORE rights than hetero couples in the state of washington. and if a gay couple want to get married (for any reason) the government should have no right to say no.
Posted by jon on February 6, 2009 at 10:48 AM · Report
12
Ouch Rainycity...While I agree that there's a great many gay couples who would be wonderful parents, don't you think it's kind of a problem that politicians are determining who can have children at all? Isn't it the whole idea that we should control who has children or starts family kind of the problem? I think the same people who say gay couples shouldn't have children are also the same people who tell 'hood rats' that they aren't entitled to have children because they're poor and not white. Instead of supporting systems that try to control who has families, why don't we work on supporting systems that help people- regardless of sexual orientation, race, or economic class- raise children in healthy, hate-free environments.
Posted by Jean on February 6, 2009 at 7:32 PM · Report
13
Years ago, I was in France and discussing Civil Unions with some Parisians. France had instituted Civil Unions with the intention of conferring many legal rights for homosexual couples. Ultimately, many young heterosexual couples also began to utilize this legal contract since it fits better with the time (and, I was told, cheaper). So, perhaps we could just be like the French and drink more wine while enjoying hetero- and homo- Civil Unions. Let's actually ruin marriage by moving to only having Civil Unions.
Posted by anon on February 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM · Report
14
Wow. Okay, jon. Gays have more rights than you do in the state of Washington. Just because you can't access a pallid facsimile of an institution to which you have *full* access? Why don't you just get married? Like most of us would if we were allowed to.

Here's what I'm waiting for: the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Once that happens, and queers are allowed to serve openly, we'll see how long it takes for parity at the federal level. All sorts of questions about dependents and benefits will be raised for military members. Something will have to give.
Posted by dthomasg on February 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM · Report
15
Why the hell is this an issue?

Why does all the logic and fairness and equality in the world not suffice?

""Most of my colleagues outside of Seattle have never heard from anybody on the issue of marriage equality," Murray said. "To me, that speaks to the major Achilles' heel of the gay and lesbian political movement."

Translation: legislators from outside Seattle NEVER HEAR FROM ANYONE in their districts on this issue.

Solution: obvious.
Posted by Politics 101 on February 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM · Report
16
There is something to be said about the wording. If I am asking my new employer about benefits, why should I need to "come out" just to find out if they support domestic partnerships instead of knowing their policy on married couples as a default. I am not closeted in any way, but just think it should be my prerogative how and when I come out, rather than having be put in a potentially awkward situation because of wording. It's like trying to play the pronoun game all over again.
Posted by Dennis on February 9, 2009 at 8:44 PM · Report
17
Get outta there sistah. Laura balladur http://www.bondage.com/u/mytabu/user.htm…
Posted by laura balladur on April 12, 2009 at 10:26 PM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in News

  • Out of Step Why Is Seattle's Port CEO Lobbying Against Environmental Reform?

  • Give 'Em Heck Democrats could lose a congressional seat in southwest Washington this fall. Why they need to get behind a candidate now, and why that candidate is Denny Heck.

  • Police Beat Teacher Schooled by Student

  • My Marriage License This gay man got a marriage license in Seattle last week. Unfortunately, I only obtained it by agreeing to marry a lesbian.

  • Pot Potato A Bill to Decriminalize Pot Is Popular with Voters—So Why Won't the Legislature Pass It?