Domestic Partnership Bill Passes

Comments

1
Sigh.
2
Hoo-fucking-RAY. About time.
3
Don't buy those invitations just yet, girls...
4
I might be deluded but the idea that Washingtonians would deny homoesexuals not-marriages seems unlikely to me.
5
I already had my Oregon marriage repealed, now they want to take away my domestic partnership.

It still is better than growing up in Idaho where gay violence was tolerated by local law enforcement based on sodomy laws making homos law breakers and therefor not entitled to protection. (and no, loveschild, I am not making that up, I am repeating what the prosecuting attorney said to me the day before I moved to Washington state)

Progress and perspective.
6
Wow.

Those people really hate you guys.
7
Problems with moving to repeal Domestic Partner benefits this year, and why it's not smart:
-Support for Domestic Partnerships, overall, is well over majority througout the state
-Seattle would be holding the most important round of elections in the state this year in a hotly contested mayoral race that may also have advisory votes on a variety of issues
-Voting rates east of the cascades drop precipitously after general elections
-Propositions voted on in off-years typically see a low turnout, even in divisive matters like gay rights

History shows that, regardless of the matter, turnout in the key counties is 80% in general elections, 60% in off-year elections. Outside of key counties with the exception of Asotin, you can typically subtract 10% from the off year total, but add 5% to the general election year total (Asotin spiked for some reason this past election). Unfortunately for these guys (and Dino Rossi), all of the Puget Sound is a key county. Well, they have Lewis.

If I had to guess, personally, I'd say that this will be put to a vote by a slim margin (but with immediate results, as in, they have enough votes to qualify due to organized petition drives) but Seattle and King County will give a leverage of at least 150,000 votes to the final vote.

An initiative this year would fail, 46 to 54.

And if it passes, it will be overturned by a hefty margin in the opening of the 2011 legislative session. It could also be used as judicial leverage against any prohibitions against equality.

Their best hope would be to focus their energy on blocking future bridge votes, like Civil Union bills or Marriage bills. I can only caution them and advise them to review the results of Domestic Partner recognition measures in King County and question how wise they feel it is to put this question up in the same year as Seattle's mayoral election.
8
@4: I thought the same thing about California.

If you'd asked me before Prop 8 if something like this could pass in Washington, I'd have said "not a chance." Now I'm not so sure.
9
@ 7,

That might be the case if this were a rational transaction, which it's not.

These sadistic assholes could pass a law banning apple pie if they raise enough money. One silver lining of the current recession/depression is that there may not be enough people willing to fork over their last $20 smackers to take a stab at the gays.
10
The thing is, if Prop 8 had been targeting "Civil Unions" I think it wouldn't have passed. Unfortunate, but I think the marriage moniker makes a difference.
11
@10: Early signs are the advertising for this will portray it as a marriage issue. If they can successfully make that connection in people's minds, they might succeed.
12
this just in: government is complicated (me brain hurts)
13
@9: You assume that:
a) California was more liberal
b) Washington is less liberal

Unfortunately, that doesn't exactly pencil, and I'm still certain that if we can build up the mayoral race Seattle could easily propel this to an even bigger win.

They can't stop equality and love, but having someone's hatred of you confirmed is pretty stinging.
14
Next stop, forcing gay marriage on people through either

1 lobbying corrupt politicians

2 rogue supreme court judges

ahh... the tough road gay activist have ahead of them!
15
Except @11 what they're suggesting would affect more than just same-sex couples - it would also have an adverse affect on elderly unmarried couples who co-habitate in order to pool Medicare resources & such, if memory serves. So, there's a whole other constituency out there who aren't going to support this, who MIGHT have done so if it didn't affect them directly.

And it's also an angle DP proponents should push to the max, if a referendum does qualify for the ballot. Tell old people they'll lose significant benefits if the ref passes, and you can pretty much guarantee it'll go down in flames at the polls next November.
16
Next stop, forcing interracial marriage on people through either

1 lobbying corrupt politicians

2 rogue supreme court judges

ahh... the tough road n*gger lovers have ahead of them!
17
@13: Another mitigating factor is that the minority community is mostly anti-gay-marriage, and California has a higher percentage of minorities than Washington. I realize this is an uncomfortable topic but it does matter.
18
About frickin time.
19
Yes, Loves (them) Child(ren), the first thing that will happen when this bill becomes law is that you and your kind will immediately be rounded up, frog-marched to the nearest Justice Of The Peace and forced to marry the first dyke or queer dude (depending) that can be stood next to you.

Because there's nothing Gay people want more than to forcibly marry a racist, homophobic, holier-than-thou God-fearing nut-case like yourself.
20
@15: Another overlooked angle is that they would be remiss if they represented a referendum or initiative as an issue of marriage when it's not effecting the same. See, they can pass things like that all they want, but a breach of that sort would remove any prohibitions on immediate executive action.

Or Governor Gregoire, being the savvy former AG she is, could easily have someone bring this to the court on her behalf.

Either way, this would be a mistake on Randall's part and a loss would mean increased currency to full marriage equality as they'd give grounds for dismissal of any other encroachment on rights.

So blah-de-blah, get your campaign boots on, we've got love to protect!
21
Lovechild is just jealous because she wants all the butt humping to herself. Sorry to tell you this, LC, but with or without gay marriage you ain't gonna manage that.
22
@ 19,

:::: spit-take! ::::
23
What is with this Hateschild, anyway?

Jiminy Cricket, Slog has the most loyal wingnut trolls on the planet.
24
Loveschild cracks me up. Anyone who disagrees with her is "corrupt" or a "rogue." Washingtonians are clearly in favor of domestic partnership rights. For each of the past four years, the bills have sailed through the Legislature and have been signed by the Governor. Now all of the sudden, there's panic that she and her bigoted friends won't have the queers to kick around any more. I'd laugh, but she's gonna have some 'splainin' to do when she meets Jesus and he asks her what she did for the poor and the oppressed.
25
STOP THE FUCKING QUEER RACISM. African-Americans do have higher rates of homophobia, but they are MORE likely to vote in support of civil rights when you call them civil rights. FACTS are important.
26
Folks, there is no such thing as "Gay Marriage". No one is asking for it. No one is fighting for it. Words DO matter.
27
@19 ... shh, don't tell them, it's a surprise.
28
No, they don't, not when you're a tea-bagging Republicunt whose sole desire is to denigrate someone you see as a lower class than you.
29
9
Don't underestimate the entertainment bang for your buck of sticking it to teh gays...
30
@25
African Americans, more than anyone else, recognize that homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. Trying to sell it as such is insulting and motivates the 3 to 1 vote against homosexual marriage California blacks delivered.
31
Faith and Freedom Network.

Good one.
32
One of those amendments would have kept any discussion of domestic partnership out of public schools to protect children from hearing about same-sex couples.

So I guess Dan and Terry's D.J. and Jamie and Eric's Tryg will just have to hear about - gasp - same-sex couples around their dining room table, in the bedroom, in the backyard - or just about anyplace gay folk t**k.

Zut alors!
33
Want to keep these rights we just won? Get out those checkbooks, sign up to volunteer, and roll up your sleeves for a fight. We might be entitled to them, but we can't afford to act that way. To quote Ru, you betta work.
34
...and learn from California and stop ANTAGONIZING relations with people of color, and start reaching out, damnit.
35
@34, WTF? Prop 8 passed in CA because the gays antagonized "people of color?" Like, we might get rights if we don't flaunt our sexuality or some such bullshit? That's really fucking retarded.
36
Irony: Gray Randall's "Faith" is so pedestrian, pathetic and weak that it is completely impacted by everyone else around him and he supports a position that denies the very essence of "Freedom".

@30 ... Are you kidding us with this BS statement? Whenever a tax-paying group is singled out and given less rights than the majority group... IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE!
37
The problem is the manufactured pavlovian response most folks have when they hear "civil rights" -- they think of the Civil Rights Movement, all caps, not civil rights, lowercase.
38
Really, everyone is missing an important data axis. It wasn't about color; it was about religion. Regardless of the skin color of the CA voter, those who were were more devoutly religious were more likely to vote Yes on Prop 8. More people of color in CA who voted identified themselves as devout or practicing than not, if I remember. Catholics and Mormons coupled with a miss in the running of the campaign against Prop 8 were the reason it passed.

This is a group of religious people who do not want U.S. citizens from having the same rights as they do. To them we are not gay people; we are straight sinners.

Regardless, The U.S. Constitution expressly forbids any laws prohibiting the freedom to exercise one's religion. Many religions perform weddings and view as married people of the same-sex. These laws prohibit religions who welcome glbt people and our relationships from practicing their beliefs. These religions range from Baptists, Methodists, Reformed and Reconstructionist Judaism, Unitarians, and Episcopalians. Government should get out of the business of determining whether two adults enter into a legal contract with one another.

Chad Justice (married to my husband for 10 years)
39
Yay! Now Dominic, will you finally write about HB2261, basic education reform, that will die in the legislature if it doesn't pass by this Friday?!?
40
I wouldn't worry about a Prop 8 type thing in Seattle... There are only like 6 black people here.
41
@40 You obviously don't live in the Central District.
42
CENTURIES OF RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION
AGAINST GAY PEOPLE MUST END NOW!

WHEN THEY USE THEIR TAX EXEMPT
STATUS TO DENY OUR RIGHTS, IT
IS TIME FOR THE IRS TO STRIP
AWAY THIS ARCHAIC PERK FOREVER!
43
I'm pretty confident the repeal won't pass, California passed because thought as long as they weren't voting to ban Civil Unions they weren't Bigots. (The fact that Prop 8. took away the right for what little interstate transferability SSM's have, as opposed to DomShips which I don't think even transfer to Oregon, apparently wasn't seen as taking rights away.) Because, you know, Gay Weddings were just being flaunted in people's faces and stuff.

Anyway, though I won't be arrogant, I think this WILL be safe. We're making progress, slowly. Hopefully some Conservative SCOTUS Justices will just go away somehow not too far off in the future.
44
It's all about slowing down the inevitable process of reform. If just lodging the paperwork for an initiative delays it taking effect, it's a cheap way of buying time to see if the game on the ground changes in their favor. They have until July 24th to lodge their referendum and that's a long time in politics.

My concern is about the accuracy and clarity of the referendum wording. If it is somehow framed as about marriage it's certain to be challenged in court. I'm sure that the civil rights advocacy organizations will be watching this closely.

Australia, my country of birth, is in the process of completing legislation that will treat same-sex couples as equal to opposite sex defacto couples under the law. The same government that pushed through these important anti-discrimination changes remains staunchly anti-marrige equality.

If the Australian federal government can move to address clear discrimination against same-sex couples and families, why can't we?