Washington state would offer same-sex couples all the rights and benefits given to heterosexual married couples under a measure that was introduced Tuesday in the Legislature.
Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who sponsored the state’s domestic partnership law in 2007, is sponsoring the expansion bill in the Senate this year; Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, is sponsoring the measure in the House. A news conference to announce the bill was planned Wednesday on the Capitol campus.
“This is everything but marriage,” Pedersen said Tuesday night.
The 110-page bill makes changes to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are addressed. The bill would add same-sex domestic partners to state statutes ranging from labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.
The March to Marriage Equality
Comments are closed.
You know, if we implemented this, think of all the increased wedding tourism we’d have and how much easier it would be to balance the budget.
Just the job creation impacts alone make this measure a good concept.
After all, it’s not like anyone is telling churches they have to hold religious ceremonies …
Smart boys and girls would take this and run.
@1 It gives everything BUT marriage. So, basically, if you live in state, you get all the bennies if you register as a domestic couple.
But, it is still NOT MARRIAGE. Gays should have that damned word. Because of the word marriage, there are legal binding agreements that employers, other than the state, abide by. I don’t believe domestic partners falls under the same treatment for health insurance benefits or other perks.
Fucking marry us already, Washington. Don’t pussyfoot around like this.
Serious question:
Other than political fear, is there a reason they can’t pass a statute equalizing rights of marriage? Does some previous constitutional amendment limit the right to legalize marriage legislatively?
If this passes a citizens’ initiative to repeal it will be filed the next day. We really need some Wa. state supreme court protection on this issue.
@3: DOMA DOMA, DOMA DOMA Obama DOMA DOMA. DOMA DOMA repealed, then we can consider tackling full equality.
But doesn’t DOMA specifically make domestic partnerships unrecognized by the gov? What’s the point of it if DOMA isn’t repealed?
@3 – then think of all the nice productive gay couples that would move to our state and take care of our old people.
Seriously, you guys are such downers sometimes.
I’m sure most of the crowd at the Gucci cocktail party tomorrow night will think this is great.
Even if you don’t.
Get real. And get moving. Actions are a lot better than sitting in the corner and whining about how nothing is perfect.
Great news! What are the chances it will pass?
I doubt our congressional wonder guppies are serious about wanting this passed. If they were, they’d avoid mentioning, rather than highlight for the fundies as they have, that they intend it only as a feint toward marriage equality.
Not even pretending to keep a poker face about it.
God forbid we get full rights without the name and leave it there, though. That would desentimentalize this way too much. What are we, English?
#3 No matter what the state calls it, you know it’s a marriage, so why do you care that it isn’t written down on a piece of paper? You get 100% of the same rights under this bill as hets. If you don’t take this then I know you are not serious about equality, you just want to fight about something.
@5: while I agree with you, I have doubts an anti-homo initiative would pass this year or ever again, given that hating homos is low on the short list of voters who are more worried about the economy.
granted, i’m optimistic
3
You would be foolish boys to hold out for the sake of a name. The Rihjt will fight to the death over ‘marriage’; not so much for the exact same thing called DP.
13 sorry- “Right”
I’m currently going through a change of heart about this. Maybe it’s just battle fatigue from Prop 8, but I’ve been thinking more and more that “marriage” actually isn’t a very good “fit” in describing committed gay male relationships. Maybe domestic partnership/civil union is a better fit for our relationships. Lesbian relationships are another story. I’m a GWM, and I don’t feel I know enough about the dynamics of lesbian relationships to make a judgment on this. I suspect that they’re closer to hetero marriage than gay male relationships, and marriage should definitely be available to lesbian couples. So I suppose I should fight for the gals when it comes to marriage equality, but I’m getting to where I’d personally be quite happy with civil unions. Now I just need to find a great guy to get civil union’ed to.
PS I personally benefited from California’s DP registry (when my ex & I lived in CA) when I was compensated by the state (with a real check!) for time off I took from work to take care of my partner when he was seriously ill.
If this passes, all the Rs&Rs will be granted to Couples wanting these Rs&Rs. THEN a suit about “separate but equal” can be filed with the State Supreme Court to challenge the State DOMA. This is a step in the right direction and we all know it’s about taking steps to get somewhere.
if it’s not federal, it does nothing for gays and lesbians with foreign partners.
This is good. Now get it passed.
@6 Huzzah. Have you sent in your letters and postcards? I have.
@7, 11 Marriage gives you a legal leg to stand on when demanding spousal/family benefits from your employer who doesn’t offer them to domestic partners. As a legal term, marriage is VERY important. A fountain is not a fountain.
@13 I’m not saying that this is a bad move. I’m saying that we need to kick this fight into high gear and SHOVE back while we can…Either that, or just kill the old people.
But, Jesus, you guys are fucking downers. What was that about Hope?
It may grant all the rights of marriage, but it sure isn’t. My partner and I are DP’d per Washington’s existing DP laws. We each have a card from the COMMERCE DEPARTMENT to prove it! It’s better than nothing, but the word MARRIAGE is built into statutory law in ways implicit that the words DOMESTIC PARTNER are not.
Unless a clause in this new law states: “The term Domestic Partner shall be equal to the term Marriage in any/all matters pertaining to law in the State of Washington” or some such thing.
That way when my legal next of kin dispute my DP’s right to call all the shots in all things pertaining to me, dead or alive, he won’t have to call in the attorneys and fight this all the way to the supreme court over some implied clause somewhere that uses the term marriage, but NOT DP.
Can’t help but wonder- were we in a Terry Schiavo type circumstance, if DP could possibly carry the weight that Marriage does in courts of law. Even the POTUS, Congress and SCOTUS could not interfere in her husband’s power to dictate her life and death. DP- not so much.