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.

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.

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!

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…

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.

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.

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...

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.