Q-Seattle Events: Tacky Tourist Clubs

Roger Winters' response to "A Constitutional Tipping Point on Marriage" by Richard Land on September 12, 2007 published in the blog of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Land is head of the Southern Baptist Convention's government affairs arm and host of three syndicated radio programs.

It is clear you have concluded -- and almost never question -- that legal marriages for same-sex couples will harm either the "institution of marriage" (an abstraction -- not one couple enters the institution of marriage, each couple enters their own marriage) or will negatively impact marriages of heterosexual couples.

I believe you think this in large part because you do not strictly distinguish the privileged legal relationship given to those who are married by the civil authority from the meaning you give to the term "marriage" by applying your religious doctrines. Becoming legally next of kin through civil, licensed marriage protects any couple in hundreds of ways. You don't even begin to see that there is a huge Constitutional question of equal protection of the laws here. Your religious focus clouds your ability to see the real constitutional issues.

How is "freedom to define marriage" a right, except one seeking to exclude and punish people who do not believe as you do about their homosexuality? Who owns this "freedom to define marriage?" Baptists? All Christians? Only those who vote? The majority! But majority (the greater number prevails) is nothing, morally, but "might makes right!" It is a decision-making principle, not a basis of right. Since majority views change, if majority rule is the basis of right, then right is always changing. (Similarly, "the will of the people" always changes with each vote, poll, or guess by whoever's pretending to know what it is!)

I believe hostility to homosexuality so blinds you that you cannot think clearly on this issue. Indeed, I believe your leaders want you to choose not to think clearly and logically. Only through that kind of willful blindness can give your church standing to object to the free choices by otherwise qualified adults to marry one another even if of the same sex.

Your church has opposed mixed-race marriages (laws punished those who married someone of a different race) -- Loving v. Virginia in 1967 is a parallel issue.

(Opponents of mixed-race marriages don?t speak up now, after the Loving case and social changes in America. My [non-Baptist] father often preached we would never get to the Moon because God had set the limits of our habitation as the Earth -- you can find the Scriptural citation for that. After the Moon landing, Dad never made that point in his sermons again. He never said he had been wrong -- he just stopped saying it.)

The marriage of a same sex couple in no way affects the marriage of any other couple, just as in religion, your ability to believe as you choose does not prevent me from having a similar ability. (Let's not get into absurdities like - what if you believe it's okay to kill babies? Certain conduct is proscribed by law for good reason based in general consensus and a clear distinction between belief and action.)

This matter is like discussing freedom of religion, so what Jefferson observed in Notes on Virginia in 1782 applies:

...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

A marriage by a same sex couple neither does others harm nor prevents them from the free exercise of their beliefs on how marriages should be. The legal content of marriage is the same for non-Baptists and Baptists. Legal marriage -- allowed for imprisoned criminals -- for anyone who are of opposite sexes and otherwise qualified.

Legal marriage does not address love, children, families, or anything but establishing the privileged kinship relationship for the couple. While marital status is used in relation to children, there is no requirement to have children, to have sex, or even be in love to execute a marriage license. The legal side is morally neutral -- with typical exclusions: age, insanity, no brother-sister-cousin marriages.

Finally... Try thinking about this issue again by focusing solely on the legal content of marriage in America. It is there that equality should be mandated and the emotionally-based, religion-based arguments apply only when you explain to other Baptists that the church doctrine requires that they should not marry persons of the same sex (even if other people do so because they believe differently).

Your wish to exclude same-sex couples from the protections of the law by changing the Constitution (and thereby getting that pesky "equality" idea out of the way) is immoral, I believe, and perpetuates an evil against many of your fellow citizens. I hope these considerations lead you to think again and I trust that if you really THINK again, you will reach a different conclusion.

Labels: commentary, marriage equality, religion

A conservative group from California finally got its second day in court yesterday when its lawyers argued before a three-judge state appeals court panel that a law signed in 2004 by Mayor Greg Nickels violates the state's "Defense of Marriage Act" -- a law that grants special rights of civil marriage only to heterosexual couples.

PJI's case was dismissed by a King County Superior Court in 2004. The conservative law group filed its appeal after the state Supreme Court narrowly upheld DOMA in the split Andersen decision.

A conservative site, LifeSiteNews.com, that liberally uses scare quotes in its stories offers this take on on the case filed by Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a non-profit "legal defense" organization that defends "religious freedom" and the "rights of parents" (to use our own version of the punctuation technique).

Matthew McReynolds, the PJI lawyer who argued the case on Tuesday, stated in a PJI press release, "The people of Washington spoke unequivocally through their elected legislators, upholding traditional marriage. Mayor Nickels has absolutely no authority to recognize same-sex marriage in contradiction of state law."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, also said, "Our nation cannot exist without continued respect for the rule of law. Having spoken through their elected representatives, the citizens of Washington State are entitled to have their will respected by local officials, regardless of their ideology."

McReynolds further pushed this point before the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday, stating that the mayor was undermining the state ban on homosexual marriage. Referring to the mayor's decision, he stated according to Seattlepi.com, "It's our position that this goes way beyond employee benefits. He (Mayor Nickels) was just using this as an opportunity to undercut the Defense of Marriage Act."

The "LifeSiteNews" outfit overstates the significance of the silly Nichols order that PJI has challenged. Their story claims that Nichols

ordered that businesses give marriage benefits to same-sex couples... . The mayor extended the regular marriage privileges to those couples that were "married" by other governments, such as Massachusetts. The Mayor's policy allows same-sex couples to sign up for benefits without having to file for domestic partnership status.

The order, however, applies only to employees of city departments and not to businesses in general.

As the PI story on the suit points out, it is a mostly symbolic order.

In practical terms, both the lawsuit and the city rules it challenges are largely symbolic. Nickels' order requires city departments to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

But that order was largely symbolic because the city already had provided benefits to domestic partners since 1989. However, the order does allow married same-sex workers to sign up for such coverage with less paperwork -- signing on as "married" rather than filling out separate "domestic partnership forms."

The PI reports that one of the judges on the panel, Judge Stephen Dwyer, took a slap at the broad language used by Nichols in his limited order. "The mayor was misleading the public in terms of what he was trying to accomplish," Dwyer said.

According to Christian Post, the California-based PJI is assisted in the case by attorney Darren Walker of Vancouver, Wash. and Brian Fahling of the American Family Association who will act as co-counsel.

G.A.Y blog explains it well under the headline, If it's pro-gay and on the West Coast, PJI's gunnin' for it:

And in case you were confused, they are saying "goes against the state's DOMA law" as if challenging that discriminatory, constitution-vioalting law is a bad thing. Which seems weird to us, as in the not-too-distant future, it will inevitably be those who didn't challenge that historical blight known as DOMA who will be looked at with shrugged shoulders and "how could you not have" eyes. That's because DOMA (at both the federal and state level) is like the equivalent of legislative cow dung, only more foul.

Yet regardless of their "but a discriminatory law is on the books" claims, this executive order does not at all go against the state's wretched DOMA law, as it doesn't confer the right on anyone grant gay marriages or recognize them as legal in Washington; it merely directs Seattle city employees to grant equal benefits.

Here's just hoping the court's informed legal opinion agrees with our quasi-informed, non-legally-binding viewpoints on the order.

Labels: doma, gay news, marriage equality, Seattle

By noon on this, the first day of registrations, 105 couples had signed up at the Dolliver Building in Olympia for the state's new domestic partnership registry. (The number of reporters and TV crews there to cover the event isn't reported, but might be just as high.)

The secretary of state's office keeps a running tally of the registrations here. Among those registered are 43rd District Senator Ed Murray and his partner Michael Shiosaki and 43rd District Representative Jamie Pedersen and his partner Eric Cochran Pedersen. Murray was prime sponsor in the Senate and Pedersen prime sponsor in the House of the bill that grants domestic partnerships.

Equal Rights Washington asks everyone who is thankful for this baby-step toward marriage equality to thank legislators who passed the new law. They also suggest writing up a personal story and sending it to your local newspaper.

Like many reports, the Seattle Times story by Andrew Garber on the signups in Olympia mentions that many there -- including Murray and Pedersen -- feel that the new law doesn't go far enough.

For many, though, the celebration will be tinged with anger that lawmakers did not grant gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Sandy Mosel, who is Canadian, noted that she and Rachel are legally married in Canada, but the certificate has no legal weight in Washington. "I'm a full person in Canada, but when I cross the border I'm less than that," she said.

Washington's new law extends only a handful of the rights -- dealing with health care and death -- granted to heterosexual married couples. For example, married couples have the right to refuse to testify against each other in court. That right isn't extended to gay and lesbian couples under the new law.

"It's like signing up for second-class-citizen rights," said Sandy Mosel.

David Hopkins, of Seattle, has similar feelings. His partner wants to register, but Hopkins is resisting.

"It's a slice of a loaf when you should really get the whole loaf," he said. "I'm willing to wait until I'm admitted to the set of citizens who have full civil rights. I don't perceive this as giving me full civil rights."

Or, as the always entertaining blog G.A.Y puts it:

So remember the date, Washington kids: "7/23/2007 -- A Day Society Will Look Back Upon and Say, 'Wait, why did early 21st century Americans have to set up different ways for gays to achieve pseudo-parity? Doesn't that seem both short-sighted and un-American?!'"

Update: The secretary of state's counter might have become a bit overtaxed, since it didn't move much after noon. At 6pm it is showing a count of 155 registrations.

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, SB5336, Washington

Does the air feel a bit different out there today? Something beyond this uncommon summer rain? Do you feel the earth shaking under "traditional marriage"? Yeah... Probably not. But today is the day when domestic partnerships for gay couples and some straight couples officially become recognized in Washington. Of course, it doesn't make a lot of difference until the Secretary of State's office opens tomorrow morning at 8 am in Olympia to begin processing the registrations.

And if you are planning to head to Olympia tomorrow along with all the TV satellite trucks, the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed warns that you should expect to wait in line:

Monday July 23 is the first day that the Office of the Secretary of State will accept registrations at the Dolliver Building. The doors will open at 8:00 am.

We are expecting long lines and long waits on the first days of registration. It is likely that we will not be able to complete every registration that we receive on the first day. Review this information to help us complete as many registrations as possible on July 23

• Consider mailing or leaving the declaration form and fee to be filed. All complete registrations will be effective on the date received. We will mail the completed registrations, certificates, and wallet cards to you. You can register in person and receive your certificates on the spot, but you may need to be patient.
• Complete the forms before you come in. We will post the forms on this website on Wednesday July 18. The forms will be in PDF format. Download the form; complete it on your computer. Then print the form.
  
  If possible sign and notarize the form before coming to the Corporations Division. We will have notaries available, but notarizing the documents will add substantial processing time to each application. The more documents we have to notarize, the fewer registrations we will be able to complete on the first day.
• Parking and transportation. There is very limited parking available at the Dolliver Building. On-street metered parking is available in the area but it is difficult to find a space. Free parking is available at the Capitol Visitor parking lot. See Map. Intercity Transit offers the free DASH shuttle from the Capitol Visitors parking and the Capitol Campus. This service runs every twelve minutes and stops one block from the Dolliver Building. DASH Shuttle information.

The registration fee for partnerships is $50. Once the two of you are officially partners, each partner will receive an original (and, we trust, frame-able) "Certificate of State Registered Domestic Partnership" along with a wallet card showing the registration of the domestic partnership. (It's not clear from the website if they give a wallet card to each partner, or just one. In either case, a replacement card is available for $10.) The secretary of state's office will also provide one file stamped copy of the registration document.

Reed's office also offers a nifty FAQ to answer a few frequently asked questions about the partnerships.

Reporters have been searching out gay and lesbian partners to profile in preparation for the big day tomorrow. A few of the stories:

[Seattle PI:] After spending this weekend relaxing in Olympia, Laura Mansfield and Marilyn Guthrie plan to walk from their bed-and-breakfast to an office of the Secretary of State on Monday morning and file a notarized form. ...

For Mansfield and Guthrie, the registration comes nearly a year after their pastor at University Congregational United Church of Christ conducted a wedding for them in the front yard of their Ballard home.

"We made our commitment then, before family and God and friends," said Mansfield, 43, director of communications for Seattle Central Community College. "This (registration) is recognizing our relationship legally."

Guthrie said she hopes gay couples would gain "not only the benefits but the responsibilities of full marriage equality."

Among those, she said, is involvement in the care of partners who are hospitalized, especially when they are in intensive care. Under current law, hospitals could limit access to spouses or other close family members.

Being relegated to the hospital hallway is "sort of the big scary thing out there that you don't want to happen," said Guthrie, 46, storm water program manager for the Port of Seattle.

---

[AP via Boston Globe] Tom Richardson and Salvador Valenzuela first marked their commitment to each other with a city domestic partnership in Seattle. When Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage, they married, and hyphenated their last names.

Now back in Washington state, the Richardson-Valenzuelas plan to register for a state domestic partnership here. ...

The only problem is that by doing so, they risk getting Salvador, a Mexican national, deported, because registering could jeopardize the temporary tourist visas he uses to enter the country.

"It's really important for our relationship to be recognized," said Tom Richardson-Valenzuela, who said they both realize that the immigration laws may catch up with them. "We are a legitimate couple. If we have to leave the United States, as much as we don't want to leave the country, we will."

The AP story in the Globe warns couples that include a foreign national or a member of the armed forces to carefully consider the risks before signing up for a domestic partnership. The registry is public information subject to disclosure on request.

[The Columbian] One couple who won't be waiting are state Sen. Ed Murray, prime sponsor of the domestic partnership bill, and his partner of 16 years, Michael Shiosaki.

"In Olympia on Monday morning, amongst all the general excitement and with great joy and pride in our hearts, Michael and I will get in line with everyone else to be registered as domestic partners by the Secretary of State," Murray, a Seattle Democrat, said in a statement.

State Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, another openly gay legislator, said he and his partner will not be taking advantage of the domestic partnership law.

"We will be holding out for the big church wedding," he said. "When that becomes legal , and we can get a legal notice in your newspaper, we'll take advantage of that."

AP writer Dave Ammons offers a brief history of the legislative road that led to the domestic partnership law.

The state's first openly gay legislator, Cal Anderson, and other lawmakers struggled for nearly 30 years to get the civil rights bill through Olympia last year. Democrats padded their majorities in both houses and came right back to pass marriage-like rights this year.

On Monday, Sen. Ed Murray, Anderson's successor in the Legislature and in leading the charge, and his 16-year partner, Michael Shiosaki, will line up at the secretary of state's counter in Olympia to register their domestic partnership.

Then Murray will drive home and get started on the next phase of the battle that has sometimes consumed him.

What's next? The gay community isn't much interested in civil unions but plans to seek full marriage equality. How long that takes, say the advocates, will depend on how quickly public opinion continues to turn their way.

"I believe we will get there in a decade, if not sooner," says Murray, the senior of five gay men in the state Legislature.

Foes say they'll fight every inch of the way and insist they still have public opinion on their side. One leading evangelical, though, believes it likely is a losing battle and that gays will someday be able to marry here.

Labels: marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Just weeks after Bellevue responded to a lawsuit by allowing domestic partners of city employees to get the same benefits afforded spouses of married employees, Pierce County will consider following suit.

The Tacoma News Tribune reports that the county executive, John Ladenburg, announced the plan Tuesday. It's expected to be introduced to the county council next month.

Under the plan, the county would extend medical, dental and sick leave benefits to domestic partners for both same- and opposite-sex relationships. The county has no estimate of how many domestic partners would be eligible.

"We're joining the many cities and counties around the country that already provide benefits to employee partners," Ladenburg said in a news release. "It puts us on equal footing when it comes to attracting and keeping good employees."

In addition to Bellevue, King and Snohomish Counties, and Seattle, Burien, and Spokane offer similar plans to their employees.

Labels: equal rights, marriage equality, politics, Washington

Some local and local-ish gay news you might have missed:

• Bullying starts at home: A few Olympia parents upset by school's pro-tolerance program -- Olympian

Some parents of students at Olympia's Washington Middle School were "livid" after their young'uns had to sit through a school assembly that advocated tolerance of gay and lesbian folk among them.

And these are the folks who get "special rights" under our current marriage laws.


• Justice Bobbe Bridge to retire; Wrote dissent in gay marriage ruling -- KOMO (AP)
  Bobbe Bridge will retire from the Washington Supreme Court at the end of the year. Bridge wrote a stinging dissent in the 2005 Andersen case, in which a plurality on the Court upheld Washington's special-rights-for-heterosexual-marriage law, aka "Defense of Marriage Act."



• Smith and Cantwell offer bill to fix federal taxation of domestic partners -- 365Gay.com
  Two northwest senators -- Oregon's Gordon Smith (R) and Washington's Maria Cantwell (D) -- introduced a bill that would give domestic partners the same federal tax advantages on employer-provided health benefits now enjoyed by married couples.



• Eli Sanders goes south to visit YouTube star; Southerners upset -- The Stranger + Towleroad
  
  
  
  The Stranger's Eli Sanders traveled into unfamiliar territory last week when he went south to visit with YouTube phenom Chris Crocker. He came back with a great story about how the web gives queer folk access to a much wider world even when they live in a small Southern city. Sanders calls it "one of the most fun and heartbreaking stories I've ever had the chance to write for The Stranger."
  
  Andy Towle has been featuring Crocker's videos for months on his great news blog, but when he posted a link to Sanders' story, Towleroad readers from the South erupted with wounded Confederate pride. Something (and we can't figure out what) about Sanders' story or Crocker himself offended several Towleroad commenters.
  
  Commenters on Crocker's MySpace page responded more favorably.



• Is Sally Clark just too darn nice? -- Seattle Weekly
  
  The town's conglomerate-"alt"-weekly did a story on "Seattle nice" a few weeks back and featured the city council's out lesbian is the best current example of the phenomenon. But that's probably because the even-nicer Richard Conlin (who is neither out nor lesbian, by the way) isn't running for re-election in this cycle.



• Tina Podlowdowski to leave Lifelong AIDS Alliance -- SGN
  
  Clark's former boss and former (and not so nice, according to some reports) city council member Tina Podlowdowski has resigned from her post as executive director of Lifelong AIDS Alliance. David Richart was appointed interim executive director of the service/advocacy agency.

Updating Hutcherson and Latvia:
Redmond's Pastor Ken apparently didn't make it to Latvia for Riga's (finally) successful gay pride observance. Or if he did, he didn't tell his "prayer warriors" about it -- which would be surprising. He has, however, asked them to "Pray for my attempt to get a meeting with President Bush and Condaleeza Rice to discuss issues with the American Embassy in Latvia."

That must mean that he is, once again, upset that the US embassy joined with just about every original EU country to urge Latvian authorities to protect the right of peaceful assembly.

We post news items more quickly on two Squidoo pages: Gay Seattle (northwest items) and Gay News (national and international items).

Labels: gay news, Gay Seattle, latvia, marriage equality, youtube

Bellevue's city council voted unanimously last night to grant to the domestic partners of city employees the same benefits now offered to married spouses of employees.

"It's definitely an exciting night and a giant leap forward for the city of Bellevue," George Einsetler, a Bellevue 911 dispatcher, told the Seattle Times.

Lambda Legal filed suit in April against the city on behalf of Einsetler and two firefighters who had been denied benefits for their partners. On May 14, the union representing Bellevue firefighters joined the suit. In a letter to Bellevue's mayor and council, International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 1604 wrote, "We strongly urge the City Council to adopt a broad based domestic partner benefits program."

Bellevue firefighter Larry deGroen turned to Lambda Legal after being denied one day bereavement leave when his partner's father died.

deGroen told KING5, "I don't think I deserve to be treated like a second-class citizen, and I don't want my gay and lesbian co-workers to feel the pain that I felt in being told that my family doesn't matter... I think this lawsuit has really shown that... the time is right for the City of Bellevue to move forward."

deGroen is a firefighter and paramedic in Bellevue and has been an employee of the city for more than 12 years. He and life partner Tom Dixon have been together for more than 16 years.

Einsetler is the city's lead 911 dispatcher, and has been a city employee for 13 years. He and his life partner, Cameron Murdock, have been in a committed relationship for more than three years.

The other firefighter named in the suit, Faun Patzer, has a 17-year career as a Bellevue firefighter, and was the first female firefighter to successfully complete the city's prestigious paramedic training program. She has been with life partner Carrie Wurzburg for over four years.

IAFF had pressed for the domestic partner benefits in recent contract negotiations but had been rebuffed by the city.

After Lambda filed its suit in April, the city council directed staff to finally develop a "strategy" for equalizing city benefits. The council voted last night to adopt the staff recommendations, but benefits will not be implemented until the city's human resources department renegotiates contracts with unions, including IAFF.

In a May 14 letter to the city council, Lambda's lawyers for the case, Jennifer Pizer and Tara Borelli, wrote,

Lambda Legal and Local 1604 are delighted that the City Council is considering the adoption of a domestic partner benefits plan. As the plaintiffs in the deGroen lawsuit know well, a denial of family-support benefits inflicts real harms on dedicated, loyal City employees. Lambda Legal and Local 1604 therefore urge the City Council immediately to end the City's restriction of those benefits to only married employees.

King County and Seattle have both granted benefits to domestic partners for several years, as has the state, Snohomish County and other cities. The Seattle Times report notes that lack of benefits in Bellevue might have cost the city some employees.

Several gay employees have left the city in recent years because of the lack of benefits, according to the employees involved in the suit.

[Bellevue Mayor Grant] Degginger said he hopes the new benefits will help the city retain and recruit workers. "It's a challenging job market out there," he said.

Labels: equal rights, marriage equality, politics, Washington

The Oregon Legislature passed a civil unions domestic partnership law this week that would grant to same-sex couples in the state virtually all of the state-granted benefits of marriage. The name was a subject of some controversy in the state (more on that later), but passage of the bill was greeted with warm fuzzies at the statehouse in Salem.

Advocates on the Senate floor cast HB 2007 in grand terms. Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, called the bill's passage "of historic significance as we make a giant leap forward for fairness."

Sen. Frank Morse of Albany, one of two Republicans to back the bill, said the day's vote would "define the heart of Oregon." Sen. Ben Westlund, D-Bend, said the Legislature's willingness to extend domestic partnership benefits represented a measure of its political will and courage. [Register-Guard]

Aisling Coghlan, interim executive director of Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) -- the activist group that served as primary lobbyist for the legislation, called the final legislative vote "a moral call that both the Senate and House have strongly answered and the Governor has pledged to meet."

Oregonians know too well the value of being able to protect our families--and this bill directly reflects that deeply held pro-family belief. Basic Rights Oregon applauds the Senators who voted in favor of basic fairness for all Oregon families, a value very much in step with the majority of Oregonians.

Oregon's law appears to deserve the strong words because, whatever its name, it appears to be indistinguishable from what are called civil unions in Vermont, other New England states, and New Jersey. It comes closer than either Washington's or California's limited domestic partnership laws to granting same-sex couples the full state-granted rights and obligations of marriage. (Like every other such law and even like marriages in Massachusetts, it cannot grant the many federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.)

The Oregonian explained the bill in a Q&A sidebar:

Q: What's a domestic partnership?
A: Domestic partnership, under the new Oregon law, is a legal contract recognizing the union of gay and lesbian couples. It grants them any "privilege, immunity, right or benefit" given to married couples in Oregon.
Q: How does a domestic partnership differ from a civil union?
A: There's no legal difference. Some states have chosen to call the same-sex contract a civil union; others, a domestic partnership.

Oregon couples would apply for a partnership certificate at a county clerk's office -- the same place marriage licenses are dispensed. (In contrast, Washington's DP certificates will be dispensed through the secretary of state's office and not through county courthouses.)

Adopting the name "domestic partnership" rather than "civil union" was controversial. A editorial in one of Portland's weeklies designated BRO and the bill's prime sponsor "Rogue of the Week" for accepting the change of terminology.

Five weeks ago, HB 2007 was a civil unions bill. But last week Kotek amended the bill to use the more poll-proven domestic partnership, borrowing a phrase from our neighbors to the south (California) and north (Washington passed it last week). New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont call their same-sex couples civil unions.

"No matter what we call it, the reality is that we are getting a package of rights we've never had before,'' says Aisling Coghlan, BRO's interim executive director. "It's a historic victory that will change the lives of thousands of Oregon families."

Rebekah Orr, communications director for the House Democratic Majority, strongly agrees that the name change doesn't matter since the bill's effect remains the same and that name-change critics totally miss the point. At the same time, Orr, a former communications director for BRO, and others insist HB 2007 would have passed the Legislature if it carried the original civil-unions label.

Many took exception to the "Rogue" designation since its something Willamette Week usually reserves for people and groups that the paper's readers more clearly identify as scoundrels, but the name change still disappointed some.

The Oregonian Q&A offered one of the official explanations:

Q: The original Oregon bill called for civil unions. Why the shift in wording to domestic partnership in the legislation that passed?
A: Proponents opted for West Coast consistency (Washington and California have domestic partnership laws). They also decided that the term "domestic partnership," which is older, would be more familiar to Oregonians and more likely to win political support.

[For our part, we're all for "West Coast consistency". After all, most of us can pronounce the r's in "partner" which could be more of a problem in New England.]

The framers of the bill also omitted from the measure permission for religious folk to solemnize a partnership. With the changes, one major right-wing group in Oregon was willing to accept the law without promising an immediate ballot referendum to repeal it:

Nick Graham, spokesman for the conservative religious group the Oregon Family Council, said, "We have no plans at this point to run a referendum on HB 2007."

The group successfully pushed the 2004 gay marriage ban and lobbied against the 2005 civil unions bill.

Graham said his organization remained opposed to the bill, but wasn't planning to petition for a statewide vote because lawmakers provided opponents an opportunity to speak out against it and it differed from the 2005 version enough to soften some concerns. For instance, a minister cannot solemnize a domestic partnership, which was allowed under the civil unions bill. [Register-Guard]

Now, let's hope California's Supremes give Schwarzenegger cover to sign the same-sex marriage bill there and then we could really get to work on some West Coast consistency.

Labels: marriage equality, oregon, politics

Governor Christine Gregoire signed the domestic partnership bill into law yesterday in what's being described as an "emotional" ceremony in the capitol building's ornate Reception Room.

She was surrounded by legislators who guided the bill through the two chambers and by several of those who had told their stories in legislative hearings. The best report we've seen on the ceremony is from reporter Kathie Durban of The Columbian in Vancouver.

In a ceremony infused with joy and tears, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a landmark bill Saturday that creates a state domestic partnership registry for gay and lesbian couples, allowing them to make health care and end-of-life decisions for each other.

"This is a very proud moment for me as governor," Gregoire told a standing-room audience in the Legislative Building?s ornate reception room . She urged those who felt tearful to "let 'er rip!"

Personal stories of troubles faced by lesbian/gay couples had been important elements in each of the public hearings held during the session. Several senators and representatives repeated those stories in explaining their votes in favor of the bill. The governor did the same.

The governor repeated the story of Charlene Strong, a Seattle woman whose partner of 10 years, Kathryn Fleming, died last December after she was trapped by rising water in the couple?s flooded basement studio.

Strong was barred from Fleming's hospital room, and the funeral director who handled arrangements after Fleming's death refused to acknowledge the couple's relationship, although "he was more than willing to accept (Strong's) credit card," the governor said.

Strong was present for the ceremony. Many lawmakers said it was her moving testimony before legislative committees this year that gave the bill the margin it needed to pass both chambers.

Gregoire also told the story of a lesbian couple from Spokane. When their 6-year-old son was injured in a bicycle accident, the doctor refused to treat him because the parent who brought him in for emergency care was not his biological mother, she said.

"It's difficult enough in these tragic circumstances," she said. "Why then do we compound the tragedy?" she asked.

"Love manifests itself not in some cookie-cutter way," the governor said. "Love comes in many forms. Our families are different, but every one of our families deserves our undivided support."

Some reporters turned to anti-gay activists like Bothell preacher Joe Fuiten to issue, but his warnings that this bill could lead to full marriage equality had already been explicitly stated by supporters of the bill.

Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who led the campaign for last year?s gay rights bill, called the domestic partnership bill "a significant step in undoing the hurt this Legislature inflicted" on gay and lesbian couples in 1998 when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The state Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Sponsors of the domestic partnership bill made it clear when they introduced the bill in January that their goal is full marriage equality for same-sex couples and that they viewed domestic partnerships as an incremental step on that path.

Dawn Prentice of Olympia and her partner of four years, Kriscinda Hansen, said the two will "more than likely" decide to register as domestic partners in order to obtain the health care and end-of-life benefits the law provides.

"I'd like to see equal rights," Prentice said. "I'd like to be able to marry the person I love."

From an AP report:

"Today is a beginning, not an end," said Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who sponsored the measure and who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the state Legislature. "It offers the hope that one day, all lesbian and gay families will be treated truly equal under the law."

And here's a surprise item from The Columbian's report about the effectiveness of Fuiten's and other anti-equality lobbying efforts:

Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, one of five openly gay state legislators who worked for passage of the domestic partnership measure, said he had not received a single negative e-mail about the bill.

Here are details of the law from the AP story:

To be registered, couples must share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else, and be at least 18.

In a provision similar to California law, unmarried, heterosexual senior couples are also eligible for domestic partnerships if one partner is at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry. ...

The new law will take effect July 22. Couples can either register with the Secretary of State in Olympia, or download the form from the Web site and send it in to register and receive a certificate of the partnership.

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Governor Christine Gregoire will sign the domestic partnership bill in a formal ceremony Saturday, April 21 at 9:30 am in the State Reception Room.

According to an announcement from Equal Rights Washington (ERW), the ceremony will be held in the State Reception Room on the third floor of the Capitol Building in Olympia.

The LGBT lobbying group calls Saturday "a historic day for the LGBT community in Washington State. This bill will provide emergency protections for many LGBT couples and families until the full rights and responsiblities of marriage are secured. "

ERW's statement urges all supporters of the legislation to thank their legislators for passing the historic measure. "The emails and letters you sent and the conversations you had with your legislators, friends, and families made a huge difference," according to the statement, which also recognizes that the new law goes only part of the way toward establishing full equality of rights for all citizens of the state. "We look forward to continuing our partnership with you," ERW states, "as we move toward marriage equality."

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Updating yesterday's post about a lawsuit filed Tuesday against Bellevue by two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher seeking equal rights for their partners.

A story about the suit in Wednesday's Seattle Times has more about the possible effect of the suit, if it is successful:

A lawsuit filed Tuesday against the city of Bellevue could force all public employers in Washington -- from the largest university to the tiniest town -- to extend the same employment benefits to partners of gay workers as they now provide to families of heterosexuals. ...

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, accuses Bellevue of violating the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, which bans the granting of special privileges to one group that is not provided equally to everyone.

If that claim is upheld, all public employers across the state would be required to offer domestic-partner benefits, said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal.

And more about Bellevue's reluctance to offer equal benefits:

Gay-rights advocates have been trying for years to get domestic-partner benefits for Bellevue city employees. The firefighters union, as recently as last fall, included them in bargaining with the city, but failed to get the issue passed.

Bellevue officials say it's a question of cost.

In recent years, the city has adopted a "no new benefits" position to address rapidly escalating health-insurance costs, said Tim Waters, a city spokesman.

Studies show that extending domestic-partner benefits would add between 1 percent and 2 percent to an employer's overall compensation costs. ...

Borelli of Lambda Legal said a lack of domestic-partner benefits is a pocketbook issue as well ? about equal work for equal pay.

Family benefits constitute about 30 percent of an employee's total compensation, she pointed out. "By denying them these benefits, the city is paying them 30 percent less than heterosexual colleagues."

[Tee hee:] And Metblogs.seattle, which has always preferred to get their corporate media diet from less local and less cantakerous sources, finds a copy-editing mistake on the website version of the story to be a sign that Fairview Fanny "goes neanderthal." (We suspect that metblogs might be hearing from the Geico cavemen about that characterization.)

GAYSUIT? Did they seriously just call this a GAYSUIT?

Wait, is this a comment on the lawsuit or the snappy apparel of the fireman? I can't decide. (By the way, can we take a moment to reflect on the hotness of gay firefighter Larry deGroen? Okay, carry on.) I can't wait for more catchy wordslinging from this copy editor. Next up: immigrants from Mexico sue Bellevue in what the Times calls the "Mexisuit," and Taco Bell instantly picks up the term for a new menu item.

And of course, the "slug" used for the story is, indeed, "gaysuit" which appears even in the url "/localnews/2003670943_gaysuit18.html" But. Yes. The firefighter is hot.

The slug had been removed from the picture by 10:30 am.

Labels: LGBTQ, marriage equality, Washington

Two Bellevue firefighters and the city's lead 911 dispatcher have sued the City of Bellevue to recieve the same kind of benefits granted to married heterosexual partners of Bellevue city employees.

The suit was filed today in King County Superior Court by Lambda Legal on behalf of their clients, Larry deGroen, Faun Patzer, and George Einsetler.

The gay-advocacy law group explains in summary of the case:

Larry deGroen and Faun Patzer put their lives on the line for the people of Bellevue, Washington, each day they go to work as firefighters and paramedics. George Einsetler assists members of the public when they're at their most vulnerable as the city's lead 911 dispatcher. Each has served the city for more than 10 years with distinction. Each is in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner. Each is being denied valuable family benefits that are offered to their heterosexual married co-workers. Lambda Legal has filed a suit against the city of Bellevue seeking equal family benefits for its gay and lesbian

Unlike Seattle and several other Washington cities ad dozens of companies, Bellevue does not offer benefits to domestic partners of its employees. According to a Lambda Legal press release, the Eastside city resisted efforts by its firefighters' union to include domestic-partner benefits in its contract.

As firefighters, deGroen and Patzer are members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1604 (IAFF). In its recent contract negotiations with the City of Bellevue, IAFF pressed the city to include domestic partnership benefits for the members of its union, but the city refused.

Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney based in the organization?s Western Regional Office.Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney based in the organization?s Western Regional Office, is lead attorney for the case. Her co-counsel for the case is Derek A. Newman of Newman & Newman in Seattle.

"Because our clients aren't allowed to marry according to Washington law, they are categorically denied the family benefits extended to married city employees for their different-sex partners," Borelli said. "It is simply unfair and against the law to deny these public servants basic protections like healthcare for their partner or bereavement leave when their partner?s parent dies."

Labels: LGBTQ, marriage equality, Washington

Conservative Christian activist Gary Randall said today that his pro-discrimnaition group, Faith & Freedom Network, will not attempt to field a referendum or initiative to target the domestic partnership law that was passed yesterday in Olympia.

Andrew Garber, of the Seattle Times, called me last night and asked if we were going to run a referendum to try to kill the domestic partnership law. I told him no, we have already launched a referendum on the lawmakers. We plan to "Change The State, in '08'".

He said that his group will sponsor an intensive effort to find voters and candidates who support their views on religion, politics, and civil rights.

He urges his followers on with this exhortation:

You, not gay and secularist lawmakers from Seattle and elsewhere, can decide what Washington State will look like for your children and grand children.

So, is domestic partnerships another step toward redefining marriage and society or is it a call to action?

It's all up to you.

Indeed.

For its part, Equal Rights Washington praised lawmakers who voted for the bill in a press release:

Equal Rights Washington (ERW) applauds the House for passing the Domestic Partnership bill today. The Governor, a longtime supporter of equality for gay and lesbian Washingtonians, has said she will sign the bill. ERW wants to especially thank Senator Ed Murray and Representatives Joe McDermott, Jim Moeller, Jamie Pedersen and Dave Upthegrove for working to immediately protect Washington's LGBT families, while simultaneously championing the cause of marriage equality.

ERW (as Randall tells his minions) has vowed to continue to work toward full marriage equality.

"We view this bill as an emergency protection act. We will continue to talk about the lives of LGBT families and the importance of marriage equality," said Barbara Green, ERW's Interim Executive Director. "The Domestic Partnership bill offers only a fraction of full marriage protections. This bill has been an important vehicle for talking about all the rights and protections currently unavailable to families formed by gay and lesbian couples. ERW will continue to work for marriage equality until we achieve it."

According to Green, "Marriage provides a legal and social safety net that is unparalleled in protecting families during times of crisis. Same-sex couples need the 400 plus statewide protections, and the 1,000 plus federal protections that come with civil marriage. Nothing short of marriage will provide LGBT families with the protections and dignity we deserve."

ERW has urged everyone who supports equal rights for everyone in the state to thank the lawmakers who voted yesterday for passage of the domestic partnership bill.

[Update:] Pastor Ken Hutcherson doesn't appear to be as willing as his sometime-political partner Gary Randall to leave this off the ballots. He asks his "Prayer Warriors" on his church email list

We need to pray for the state of Washington...last night they passed SSB 5336. Our state needs to work hard to get this bill repealed!

Also, pray for me tonight, Channel 13 news at 10:00, that my words will be used as I speak them, unedited, and will be used by God.

He doesn't explain what working hard "to get this bill repealed" will entail, but don't count out a referendum.

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336

The Washington House easily passed the domestic partnership bill yesterday on a lopsided vote of 63-35 .

Three Republicans voted for the bill -- Shirley Hankins (R-8, Richland), Fred Jarrett (R-41, Mercer Island), and Maureen Walsh (R-16, College Place). Two Democrats voted against the bill, Mark Miloscia (D-30, Federal Way) and Tami Green (D-28, Lakewood).

TVW includes highlights of the abbreviated debate at the start of the April 10 Legislative Week in Review audio program. The full floor debate is also available in audio format only. Debate on the domestic partnership bill (SSB 5336) begins at time-stap 02:

The PI explains the debate process this way:

Under the current balance of power in the House and a three-minute rule that abbreviated debate, Democrats merely waited out a squall of opposition and voted down a flurry of Republican amendments.

Because some of the amendments required a voice vote, the debate is scattered, but here are a few highlights with timestamp:

[02:14:02] Rep. Mark Miloscia, one of the Democrats who voted against the bill said he was in favor of the underlying legislation except for the provision that would allow senior couples to enter into demestic partnerships.

"Our society in its history has treated terribly those individuals with a different sexual orientation those individuals who are gay and lesbian -- couples, even," Miliscia said in the floor debate on an amendment that would have stripped the senior-partnership provisions.

"Many of the institutions and parts of our society have treated these individuals in a horrible manner, and I feel a little guilty about that. And we have to deal with our brothers and sisters who are lesbian in a different way.... And we have to provide rights and protections to them and their families that they need."

But Miloscia argues that the provision that allows senior couples to enter domestic partnerships provides "an alternative to marriage for heterosexual men and women." He argues that this "marriage light" provision would "send the wrong example to our next generation."

Miloscia's amendment would have stripped that provision. It failed, as did all the others, but indicates that the vote was even closer than it appears from the 63-35 vote count alone.

It was a generally reasonable debate. Several of the proposed amendments would have significantly changed the intent or effect of the bill.

The floor discussion on the bill itself begins at 02:28:10 with remarks by Joe McDermott (D-34, West Seattle), one of the original House sponsors of the bill. McDermott admits that "I wish we were here to talk about marriage. Unfortunately in my opinion, we are not. Married couples recieve over 400 rights, responsibilites, and privileges under state law when they make this commitment. But same-sex couples are prohibited from doing this under our marriage laws, as are elderly couples who may suffer significant financial penalty. Therefore, today we advance a domestic partnership registry that provides some immediate protection for these couples."
McDermott went for a flourish with his conclusion: "From the Palouse to Alki Point, across the sate, this bill provides real relief. If you've ever fallen in love, I call on you to support this bill."

During the debate on the bill and the amendments, several opponents charged that supporters were trying to use the bill as "a precursor to same-sex marriage" [02:31:45].

Rep. Lynn Kessler (R-4) appears to assume her most ominous voice as she says, "This is a step, just as the civil right bill last year was a step. And that's the way I see it.... The next step is to solidify the domestic partner relationship in a marriage contract." [02:47:05]

The argument was less effective than it might have been because the supporters of the partnership registry admitted that full marriage equality is, indeed, their ultimate goal.

At a press conference after the vote, Rep. Jamie Pedersen said, "It's not marriage. There are more than 400 state law rights or obligations that don't come with domestic partnership and we are going to have our hands full trying to get those rights and protections, too. "

"Fifteen down, 408 to go," Pedersen added, referring to the oft-repeated list of rights, responsibilities, and privileges bestowed by the state's marriage laws.

At 02:33:00 into the floor debate, Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49, Vancouver), another of the prime sponsors, tells of burying his "gay peers" during the 80s and of the fear that, in death, they would not be able to share the life they'd built with a partner.

At 02:39:50 Rep. Dennis Flannigan (D-27, Tacoma) argues that the bill is a part of a broader long-term stuggle for civil rights. "Those of us who are not gay or lesbian have just as much a stake in this as anyone else." He said he was standing in the chamber only to grant to everyone the same rights. "I'm not here to do anything other than give you what I have, which is the right to visit my sister, to visit my partner, to visit my wife, to visit whomever needs to see me at any moment in any time, to have the right to go out and purchase a tombstone, to do the things that are so simple, so alive to the very purpose of living that I cannot be silent when it seems to me that the souls of the business we're in are at stake. Please support."

At 02:41:00 Rep. Jim McCune (R-2, Graham) gives a summary of the revisionist-historical argument that the chamber should be there to do God's work, which -- he argues -- the bill harms.

02:42:15 "Today, we did something that will help families who care for and love one another," said Rep. Lynn Kessler (D-24, Hoquiam). She recounts her days in the probate department of a Seattle law firm where she saw the effect that a reliable inheritance could have as survivors face the death of a loved one.

02:45:00 Rep. Schindler argues that she is only trying to protect "an institution that has been around for thousands of years." She argues that contract law should be enough for lesbian and gay couples. (She doesn't explain why contract law shouldn't also be adequate for heterosexual couples.)

At 02:49:00 Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43, Seattle), another of the bill's prime sponsors, points out that the Supreme Court decision upholding the state's "Defense of Marriage Act" also pointed out the gross unfairness of current law.

Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-5, Roslyn) makes a speech at 02:51:30 that might well be used as a platform plank for the satirical Iniative 557. "It's about children," Anderson inisists. He dismisses the stories that had been recounted in hearings about problems that couples face under current law because, he insists, that "the institution of marriage is about children.... Government's interest is not about how we love each other, but about how we care for our children."

You can hear the final vote, taken without reponse, at 02:58:30.

[5:00 An update adds a press-coference quotation from Jamie Pedersen. Sources linked.]

Labels: I, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

The state public affairs network, TVW, will present a live webcast and telecast this morning of the House Judiciary Committee which will be voting on SB-5336, the domestic partnership bill that has passed Senate. The meeting is scheduled to start at 8 am.

TVW is on channel 23 on Seattle Comcast systems.

This is one of several bills that will be considered by the committee. Since the bill is almost assured of passage for consideration by the full house, there might not be much debate. But, then again, opponents of the bill attempted to saddle it with complex amendments in the Senate and will probably do much the same thing in the House.

[Update:]

The testimony

An audio archive of the hearing is now available from TVW. It was the first bill considered by the committee. The bill is introduced and a staff summary starts at 1:30 into the archive. Testimony starts from about a dozen people at 6:21 with Rev. Caroline Peterson who speaks in support of domestic partnerships for older adults. At 8:30 Adrea Jesse tells a wonderful story about her "white picket fence family" from Redmond.

Opponents start at 16:10 with several "faith-based" appeals for discrimination along with the classic "agenda" warnings. As happened in the Senate, the Catholic Church and others suggest that the bill should have been made far more complex by attempting to modify the existing rights of blood relatives.

At 23:00 Rep. John Ahern (R-6) suggests that the bill would cost a bunch of money by making a domestic partner eligible for higher Social Security payments. He becomes the first to use the "slippery slope" phrase. Staff explains to him that Social Security payments are governed by federal law which cannot be altered by this state law.

All of the comments are polite and at least arguably tolerant. Most comments follow the usual script from both sides, but an interesting curmudgeonly comment by Rene Lise [spelling unclear] starts at 31:08.

She introduces herself as a "lesbian over 30 years" and tells the legislators that the bill is not supported by "the homosexual community." She says that she has never been subject to discrimination because she's lesbian and claims that "the homosexual of today has more rights and privileges than the heterosexual."

She tells the legislators, "Homosexuals want to be left alone, want to live, love, and be loved."

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, SB5336, TV

In Wednesday's Seattle Times, columnist Danny Westneat asks a politically incorrect question that many others have been asking: Why doesn't the state let churches keep the word "marriage" for themselves and abandon regulation of "civil marriage" licenses altogether.

I have long thought the solution to the marriage fight is to get government out of the marriage business. Let churches marry -- or refuse to marry -- whomever they choose. Have the state support families through civil contracts. For the most part, families are what they define themselves to be.

It's not a new argument. Local columnist Michael Kinsley argued for a similar solution years ago in Slate.

Westneat points out that heterosexual couples have been redefining "marriage" for years.

For the first time in more than a century, married households now are the minority in America. In Seattle, a whopping 67 percent of households are headed by unmarried adults.

A Washington Post story Tuesday said marriage now is "a luxury item" that "only the well educated and well paid are interested in."

That leaves a lot of families that don't fit the old stereotype. Most are heterosexual. If we're giving the oldest ones a new legal option for familydom, why not the rest? The middle-aged, the twentysomethings? Any couple that live together and care for one another?

So I agree: Why can't it be for everyone?

The answer is that because once it is for everyone, the rationale for keeping marriage laws as exclusive as they are evaporates. There'd be no reason for marriage laws at all.

It's an argument that is often advanced in web posts about the issue, but don't expect to see this kind of argument picked up anytime soon by marriage equality groups like Equal Rights Washington or Legal Marriage Alliance. Although the original charges of a "homosexual agenda" were overblown when they first appeared over a decade ago, gay activist groups eventually recognized that it would be valuable to adopt some kind of agenda even for the wildly diverse viewpoints of the LGBTQ folks they hoped to represent. And the word "marriage" is very much a part of the agenda adopted by activist groups.

Westneat found out why:

Rick Bartholomew, a family attorney in Olympia who backs [the domestic partnership] bill, says the path to equality is to grant gay marriage. He said my idea of instead giving everyone the same options for domestic partnerships is nuts.

"If you think it's tough winning gays the right to marry, wait until you propose to end civil marriage," he said. "That's a complete non-starter."

What's odd, however, is that religious groups including the Catholic Church and Gary Randall's pro-discrimination lobby group, Faith & Freedom Network tried to extend the domestic partnership bill to include a wider array of non-married couples. Theirs was not a genuine attempt to broaden rights to cover all, but rather an attempt to sabotage the DP bill by adding complex array of rules and regulations to it. But still, they were the ones who proposed the notion of a broadly available "marriage light" that would probably do more to make the government program of civil marriage even more irrelevant than it already is.

We're not going to see marriage equality groups like ERW supporting this notion of "marriage light" any time soon. Their agenda is tied maintaining civil marriage as a state program.

It's an example of the strange-bedfellow syndrome in politics wherein both the groups opposed to and supporting marriage for gay and lesbian couples insist that marriage itself as a government institution should be supported. It has become even odder in this year's legislature as anti-equality groups have tried to extend "marriage light" in the legislature to cover a broader group of people while the gay activist groups and legislators were busy protecting marriage -- as a civil contract -- from dilution.

Labels: equal rights, marriage equality, politics

Take a moment this weekend to write a note of thanks to your senator if he or she voted yesterday for passage of the domestic partnership bill, SB 5336. And while you're at it, it would be a great idea to write another note to your representatives urging them to vote for the bill when it comes to the House. (Find your legislators with this web form.)

Here's the roll call of votes on the bill. Each name links to the senator's email form at the legislature's website. You'll have to add in your physical address so the system can check to see if you live in the senator's district. (It will still let you send a message even if you don't live in the district.)

Note: In general, the form of a direct email address is last.first@leg.wa.gov. Here is the list of all direct email addresses. Some senators may not monitor for messages at the address, however, so the web form is a safer bet.

These are the senators who voted for passage:

• Berkey, Jean (D-38)
• Brandland, Dale (R-42)
• Brown, Lisa (D-3)
• Eide, Tracey (D-30)
• Fairley, Darlene (D-32)
• Franklin, Rosa (D-29)
• Fraser, Karen (D-22)
• Haugen, Mary Margaret (D-10)
• Hobbs, Steve (D-44)
• Jacobsen, Ken (D-46)
• Kastama, Jim (D-25)
• Kauffman, Claudia (D-47)
• Keiser, Karen (D-33)
• Kilmer, Derek (D-26)
• Kline, Adam (D-37)
• Kohl-Welles, Jeanne (D-36)
• Marr, Chris (D-6)
• McAuliffe, Rosemary (D-1)
• Murray, Ed (D-43)
• Oemig, Eric (D-45)
• Poulsen, Erik (D-34)
• Prentice, Margarita (D-11)
• Pridemore, Craig (D-49)
• Regala, Debbie (D-27)
• Rockefeller, Phil (D-23)
• Spanel, Harriet (D-40)
• Tom, Rodney (D-48)
• Weinstein, Brian (D-41)

Voting Nay: Senators Benton, Carrell, Clements, Delvin, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hewitt, Holmquist, Honeyford, McCaslin, Morton, Parlette, Rasmussen, Roach, Schoesler, Sheldon, Stevens, Swecker, and Zarelli

Excused: Senators Pflug and Shin

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

The domestic partnership bill introduced this year by the legislature's gay caucus passed through over its major hurdle today when it was passed by the Senate on a 28 to 19 vote.

The bill is expected to easily pass in the House where half of the members have signed on as co-sponsors. Gov. Christine Gregoire has indicated that she will sign it when the measure reaches her desk.

Among other things, the bill would allow domestic partners to:

• Inherit when there is no will.
• Give consent for health care if a partner isn't competent.
• Make funeral arrangements.
• Authorize organ and tissue donation.

The bill requires a central state registry of domestic partnerships that would be kept at the Secretary of State's Office. Couples would have to file an affidavit of domestic partnership with the office and pay a filing fee.

A semi-snarky PI blog post includes extensive excerpts from the floor debate that is described by the Times as "long, emotional and at times heated."

Here's part of Ed Murray's speech:

Imagine for a moment if your spouse was in the hospital, if your spouse was in the hospital and dying, and you could not go into your spouses room, you couldn't hold their hand. Well for lesbian and gay families in this state, that has happened and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

Imagine if you were trying to make the funeral arrangements for your spouse and you couldn't and you couldn't have the right in the future to be buried next to them. That has happened to lesbian and gay families in this state and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

Imagine that you lose the home that you lovingly created over years, that has happened to gay and lesbian families in this state and this bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.

There are some who argue against this bill because they believe it will lead to marriage equality for lesbians and gays in this state. Legally it will not and we know that. I wish it would and morally I believe it will, but legally it will not. I hope though, that through this debate you will realize when you hear the stories of our families, that there is really only one answer for all families and that is marriage.

But this bill will not allow me and my partner Michael who we have shared our lives together for 15 years, it will not allow us to marry. We still won't be able to marry. We met when Michael was in his 20's and I was in my 30's and I am in my 50's and still I can't marry.

There are some who argue against this bill because they believe that rights can be purchased, these rights can be purchased at a reasonable price or because it goes against the beliefs of a particular religion. Such a position defies the promise of the American Revolution, the promise of equality that brought so many people to our shores....

My grandparents left a country were rights were purchased, and where a state religion dictated beliefs that were not their own. Our grandparents did not move to this country for their grandchildren to have to purchase rights. We are citizens of a republic not subjects of a monarchy."

An audio webcast of the Senate floor debate is now available from TVW. after the usual housekeeping matters, the debate begins at 47:10 with an amendment by the Republican caucus that tried to circumvent passage of the bill by sending it to a public vote. The amendment was defeated on a vote of 18-29-2.

The actual debate starts with Murray's statement at 55:50. Sen. Val Stevens's (R-39) frightfully bigoted speech in opposition starts at 1:03:00. Hold onto something that can't be tossed before listening to her.

In his more reasoned statement at 1:08:00, Sen. James Hargrove (D-24) introduced the arguments that have been pressed by right-wing discrimination activists like Gary Randall and Joe Fuiten.

At 1:17:17 Sen. Rosa Franklin (D-29) begins a touching statement in support of the bill. She says that she stands on the shoulders of those who came before her, who fought for rights so that she, a grandchild of slaves, could sit in a legislature and vote on such a law. "The civil rights movement... brought people together of all religions... in order to fight for the rights that were denied to Africans Americans. ... Standing on the shoulders of my ancestors -- and I did not get here alone, I got here with the help of everyone ... -- so to my good friend, your partner, and all who contribute, gay lesbian, I support you."

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Members of the Teamsters Union employed by the Port of Seattle will be eligible for the same health and welfare, dental and vision benefits received by other spouses of port employees, regardless of gender, since 1994. About 250 port-employed union members are expected to affected by the deal which was approved unanimously by the Port Commission Tuesday night.

The port agreed to cover the additional cost -- about $16.40 per employee per month -- of the extended benefits.

Josh Friedas, advocacy directory for Equal Rights Washington, told the PI that the port deal with the Teamsters "can now be a model for other negotiations and agreements."

A Teamsters Union official estimated that the deal could eventually affect about 20,000 union members in the state if it can be replicated in other contract negotiations. Those teamsters are covered under 500 individual contracts, however, so that's a lot of negotiating.

While most of those contacted by the PI lauded the deal, the prime sponsor of a domestic partnership bill in the House, wasn't all that impressed according to the PI story:

What the union is doing isn't groundbreaking, said state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle. Other unions, such as Service Employees International Union and the Inland Boatmen's Union, have already secured some, if not all, of their members domestic-partner benefits.

Local chapters of SEIU provide the domestic partners of their janitor members with health-care benefits through a union trust, but non-janitor members of their union are subject to their individual employers standards.

"I'm happy the Teamsters are on board, but I think that there are a lot of other unions that have been there for a long time," Pedersen said.

What's this? Teamsters didn't support his campaign or something?

Labels: marriage equality, politics, Washington

The two bills that would grant significant rights to gay, lesbian, or senior unmarried couples have cleared all committee hurdles and are now just a vote in each house away from passage. Gov. Gregoire has indicated she will sign the measure.

Although she told the Times' David Postman that she hasn't yet counted the votes, Lisa Brown (D-Spokane), the senate majority leader said, "I believe we will have enough votes to pass it."

Over half of the legislators in the house have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, so passage there is virtually assured.

Nonetheless, a right-wing pastor from Bothell is making a last-ditch effort to scuttle at least one of the bills.

House Bill 1351 and Senate Bill 5336 would give partnered gays or lesbians and unmarried seniors rights to visit a partner in the hospital, inherit property when there's no will, and to make decisions on such matters as emergency health care and funeral arrangements.

Even right-wing Bothell pastor Joe Fuiten indicated to the TNT reporter (#) that he thinks the bills will pass. But that hasn't stopped him from issuing an "Urgent Call for Action!" [pdf] that he expects fellow right-wing pastors to distribute during services this Sunday.

In the alert, Fuiten tells fellow discrimination activists that

The constitutional lawyers tell us that a bill like this will be used as the basis for overturning our DOMA laws in federal court. We see this as a critical bill for the eventual imposition of gay marriage upon an unwilling public.

Hoping to strip away just enough votes to defeat the measures, he asks church-goers to contact their legislators about the bills through the legislature's hotline at 800-562-6000.

He, of course, asks callers to tell their legislators to vote against the bills. But that last-minute field-turf-lobbying makes it just as important to contact legislators urging them to vote for the bills. If you're not sure which district you live in, find out by entering your address in the legislature's district-finder (Click the "Find your district" tab). And then call 800-562-6000 and tell your senator and house members that you support SB-5336 or HB-1351 as a matter of basic fairness.

ERW also has a relatively automated email service that allows you to send a customized email message to your legislators.

As we indicated earlier, support for the senate bill has been weak in districts outside of the Puget Sound circle. That makes it especially important for those who live beyond Seattle and the eastside 'burbs to contact senators, since those are the districts that Fuiten's group has been targeting.

That makes a second step even more important for those of us who live within Washington's blue circle: Send emails to friends beyond the inland coast urging them to contact their legislators. (You could even email a link to this post with a personal note if you think that might help. Click the envelope icon below.)

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

We missed this on Saturday when he posted it, but the Times' David Postman has a great explanation of what one opponent of the domestic partnership bills is doing to stop the bills.

Right-wing Bothell Pastor Joe Fuiten is sponsoring an intensive lobbying effort to convince selected legislators to vote against both the domestic partnership bills (HB 1351 and SB 5336) and the sex-education bills (HB 1855 and SB 5297) [see prior post]. Postman posts a copy of the robo-call sent to districts represented by members of the House judiciary committee.

Equal Rights Washington sent out an action today alert asking supporters of the bills to contact their legislators and, of course, to contribute money to them so they can counter the money Fuiten's Positive Christian Agenda is pouring into their campaign against the bills.

The domestic partnership bills are still given a good chance of passage, despite the intensive lobbying efforts of Fuiten's group and of his former political partner, discrimination activist Gary Randall of the "Faith and Freedom Network."

Labels: HB1297, HB1351, HB1855, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5297, SB5336

The Seattle Times, PI, and local TV stations have now picked up on WA-DOMA's Initiative 957 and through them, the AP and just about everyone else.

And that's released a flood of blog posts on the measure that its sponsors call "political theater."

The Carpetbagger Report has a great discussion in the comments to this explanatory post. Ridenbaugh Press gives the measure a typically insightful analysis. The ever-wonderful Towleroad explains

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has filed an initiative in an attempt to expose the misguided philosophy behind the July 2006 State Supreme Court ruling that claimed a "legitimate state interest" allowed the Court to limit marriage to couples able to have and raise children together.

Several general themes or "memes" in blogospeak emerge from the coverage:

The parody meme

The initiative's prime sponsor, Gregory Gadow, has been busy explaining that this is one primary impetus for the measure.

Many get it.

Andy Heyman, on his blackwhite blog, is at least grinning:

This is the first time, that I know of, that satire and irony have been used as a legal strategy. It strikes me as pure genius.

"Sara no H" couldn't stop giggling after reading about the initiative in Daily Dose of Queer:

Okay, so I'm over here cackling like a mad old bat and cheering on this initiative, and my housemate is pursing his lips and saying, "But that's not fair to people who can't reproduce." And, probably because I'm not versed in disability rights and I'm too rapturous right now to employ any sound other than a glee-filled giggle, I can't think of a single thing to say to that. Help me out?

Michael Hanscomb, in his blog eclecticism, gives the initiative a thumbs up:

This has my support, my signature if I find someone canvassing for signatures, and my vote if it should actually make it to the ballot: the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance's Initiative 957....

I'd add that the language as written is also unfair to heterosexual couples who can't (or for any reason prefer not to) have children, hetero- or homosexual couples who adopt, or any other combination or situation you can come up with that's not the husband, wife, and two point five children scenario. I was disgusted with the ruling them, I still am, and I'm quite amused by I-957's approach to poking at the issue.

Sign me up!

Hard 7, a political blogger in Spokane calls it "Finally, a ballot measure on marriage worth supporting."

Hey, that's the only fair way to apply the court's Defense of Marriage Act ruling, right?

You might recall that I made some similar proposals last fall to take illogical anti-gay arguments to their logical extremes.

Even the kids at a fan-site message board for juvenile-shock-jocks Opus and Andy are mildly amused:

This kinda makes me laugh. How many men do you think are rushing to sign this thing? "Sorry Honey, but I don't want kids. It's not my fault, it's the law."

Queerty points out that the parody of I-957 isn't all that far from what could actually happen.

Although it may sound far-fetched, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that the baby crazy crazies would hop on the propagation band wagon. Surely they won't do so if they know the Defense Alliance just means to take the judicatory piss, but if the proposal were being put forth by, say, Focus on the Family - we can totally imagine the ultra-right signing up for the baby battle.

The I-don't-get-it-meme

Metblogs explains how this one works, but the best example of the meme in action comes from the lawyers and professional marriage-equality activists who responded to the Times for its article:

Other gay-rights groups don't appear too eager to back the proposal, either.

Longtime gay-rights activist Bill Dubay said that while he gets the point of the initiative, it is unlikely he'd sign it.

"I don't think anybody in the gay community wants to take someone else's rights away," he said. "We just want to gain the rights that everybody else has."

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children. State laws, it said, should help ? not hurt ? families.

The deny-the-argument meme

One meme among those upset by the initiative is to claim that procreation has never actually been a Christian-right argument against marriage equality.

"Beth", who writes "A Worshiping Christian's Blog" is upset:

This has to be one of the most ignorant, ridiculous, things I have heard in all my life. An initiative in Washington by same-sex marriage proponents would require heterosexual couples to prove they are able to have children before getting a marriage license and actually have children within three years or else have their marriage annulled. This type of irrational behavior by same-sex advocates does nothing more than make a mockery of their 'cause'. I get that they are trying to prove a point, but the fact is that same-sex marriage is not just an issue of gay couple not being able to procreate. It is an issue of homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the majority of men and women. If this weren't the case, then it would be legal in all 50 states and completely accepted.

She then quotes the usual-suspect Bible passages. But, Beth, those passages are not what the Washington Supreme Court based its decision on.

"Darlene" also tries to mute the arguments made by anti-marriage activists before the Supreme Court:

Certainly, children are the focus of much of the debate. But that's children and their rights, not fertility. Social conservatives don't argue from the individual point-of-view of whether or not same-sex couples affect opposite-sex couples, their arguments generally fall into institutional ones, on how a radical redefining of an institution will affect society at large.

Hmm. The Supreme Court sure did have a lot to say about "procreation and child-rearing," the first of which pretty much requires fertility (about which the Court didn't have much to say).

Here are bits of what the justices wrote [pdf]:

The State contends that procreation is a legitimate government interest justifying the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The State reasons that partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations with children the probable result and paternity presumed....

...DOMA [the Washington "Defense of Marriage Act"] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes....

DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests -- procreation and child-rearing.

...Under the highly deferential rational basis inquiry, encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

...We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

The Christian-right "Family Research Council" submitted an amicus brief to the Court in which they presented the argument that the controlling ruling of the Court accepted:

that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the Washington constitution, and that the state has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation and the optimal environment for raising children. [our emphasis]

But Christian-right discrimination activist Gary Randall of the "Faith and Freedom Network" isn't pleased to see their arguments reflected back at them. Randall isn't laughing, but he's also not repeating the arguments that he and his allies used before the Court:

Marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, has historically served the human race well for more than 5000 years. Clearly there have been abuses of that standard. However, there is no case where alternatives to one man, one woman marriage have constructively served the common good.

The backlash meme

Another opposition meme is the "backlash" argument. "Mark Smith" put it this way in a comment to a post about I-957 on the blog blackwhite -- modern thought control:

This proposal is a dumb move.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage. However, my wife and I are both childless by choice. This proposal is an attack on our marriage. I respond to attacks on my marriage from any source (family members, outsiders, legal maneuvers) VERY strongly.

This is likely to cause a backlash against the gay rights community by the very people who are straight and support them.

The aforementioned "Darlene" put it this way:

Political stunts, especially cynical, insulting stunts served up merely to "dose" one's opponents with "their own medicine" rather than attempting actual persuasive arguments have a tendency to backfire.

As sympathetic as I am to having same-sex couples be afforded some legal institution to afford them contractual rights, I'm hoping this puerile initiative born of street theatre gets the derision deserves.

Interesting way to put it: "As sympathetic as I am...". We take it, from the rest of her post that she means: "Not very."

A fellow who writes a "Moonbat Early Warning System" blog cuts to the meat of the matter with this cleverly swishy quick-take:

OH, PUH-LEEZE! Don't the homorons in Washington state have anything better to do with their lives? Get a grip, people! This is just plain stupid silliness and only serves to demonstrate a childish attitude and a complete lack of common sense.

The they-won't-get-it meme

In this one the humor of I-957's "political street theater" is recognized, but a questioned is raised about everyone else. Are they clever enough to recognize it. In a comment on Blue Oregon, "jamie" explains

i loves me a good satire, but i heard once that something like 30% of americans understand satire. the rest will yelp "rush is right! the gays are attacking marriage!"

i hope this measure makes its point, but i've lost massive amounts of faith in the intelligence of the american electorate in the last seven years.

The makes-me-mad meme

This one crops up in just about all of the discussions. We'll take a comment from one of our own prior posts as an example:

I can't believe this. Its ridiculous. After having one miscarriage 3 years into my marriage and not being able to get pregnant since would make my marriage annulled if this was a law. I cannot believe that someone even lacks the mental capacity to even think of this.

So then, maybe jamie has a point about the effectiveness of satire in politics.

Over at a conservative outfit that apparently aggregates posts, one "Doug Peyton" whines,

They can't talk about it until they get their whining done first. And frankly, the debate was pretty much over in Washington State when the same-sex marriage ban survived the path up to and including the state Supreme Court. This is just the rantings of children who didn't get their way.

Except, of course, DOMA didn't survive "up to" the Supreme Court. It was only in the high court that lower-court rulings striking it down were defeated by a slim and contentious majority.

Labels: I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

A proposed amendment that would enshrine marriage discrimination in the state constituiton has been introduced in the Washington Senate by six Republican Senators and two Democrats. It's Senate Joint Resolution 8219 [pdf]. [via Slog]

This is the full text of the proposed amendment:

Article I, section . . .. Marriage in Washington state shall consist solely of two persons, a male and a female. The uniting of two persons other than a male and a female in any marital relationship is not valid in this state, and, although valid in another jurisdiction, is not recognized as valid in this state. The legislature may provide for such restrictions or sanctions on marriage related to age or degree of kinship as it deems necessary.

The resolution has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee which has not yet scheduled a hearing on the issue.

The resolution was introduced by Senator Dan Swecker (R-20, Centralia). Co-sponsors are Senators James Hargrove (R-24, Port Angeles/Hoquiam), Don Benton (R-17, Brush Prairie/Vancouver east) , Tim Sheldon (D-35, Shelton), Jenea Holmquist (R-13, Moses Lake/Cle Elum), Mike Carrell (R-28, Lakewood/Fort Lewis), Pam Roach (R-31, Auburn/Enumclaw), Joseph Zarelli (R-18, Castle Rock/Battle Ground), Jim Clements (R-14, Yakima), Jerome Delvin (R-8, Kennewick), Marilyn Rasmussen (D-2, Eatonville/Orting).

The resolution has high-profile support among the GOP minority. Prime sponsor Sen. Swecker is the Republican Caucus Vice Chair. Co-sponsoring Sen. Delvin is the Republican Deputy Whip. Sen. Carrell is the GOP's Deputy Floor Leader. And Pam Roach? Well, she's probably packing.

Labels: gay news, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SJR8219, Washington

In the first of several meetings around the state to prepare for Equality Day lobbying event later this month, advocates of marriage equality met in Olympia last week to discuss the domestic partnership bills (HB1531 and SB5336) and the marriage equality bills.

According to The Olympian,

Josh Friedes, advocacy director for Equal Rights Washington, urged people to tell legislators, as well as neighbors and co-workers, why they support same-sex marriage.

"When people know the truth about our lives, they support us," Friedes said. "We will win if we simply talk to everyone we know."

Attendees also heard from Jerry Hebert, Washington's human-rights commissioner.

"I believe with all of my heart that marriage equality is a natural progression in equal rights," Hebert said. "I believe it's our obligation ... to show the world, not just the state of Washington, that we here are forward-thinking and progressive."

The Senate version of the DP Bill, SB5336, was passed out of committee last week. Its next step is a floor vote which has not yet been scheduled.

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, one of the bill's sponsors told the Associated Press that the partnership bill is just a small step in granting equal rights to all of the state's citizens. He said that are more than 400 legal rights connected to heterosexual married couples, while the partnership bill addresses only a dozen or so.

"This is hardly a gay-marriage bill," he said. ?We're affording some (rights) to a small minority who do not have the legal right to marry."

The advocates meeting in Olympia, sponsored by Equal Rights Washington and Lambda Legal, was the first of five. A similar meeting will be held Wednesday in Spokane at the Unitarian Church at 4340 West Fort George Wright Dr. A Seattle meeting will be held Thursday at the First Baptist Church, 1111 Harvard Ave. The final meeting will be held Sunday in Vancouver at the YMCA.

The meetings are designed as preparation for major citizen lobbying event, Equality Day, that will take place on the Capitol campus in Olympia on Monday, February 26.

On Equality Day, members of LGBT communities are expected to gather with clergy and people of faith -- both straight and gay -- and with other allies to lobby their legislators to end legal discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals and families.

A noontime rally will provide legislators and others an opportunity to hear prominent clergy and community leaders speak in support of gay rights. The Equality Day rally typically draws over 1,500 attendees.

Labels: equal rights, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

Now that it has been given its official number, I-957, by the Secretary of State's office, the proposed measure sponsored by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is starting to create a bit of a stir. If passed, the measure would require married couples to have children.

A blogger with the wonderful site name "Daily Irrelevant" has this to say:

On the one hand I don't think this is the right way to fight right-wing bigotry, on the other hand, only when a majority recognizes that tyrannizing minorities has consequences for them will the costs of bigotry be properly accounted for.

The initiative's prime sponsor, Gregory Gadow, (apparently) discusses the measure under the user name TechBear_Seattle in an enlightening thread on the discussion board for Democratic Underground website.

He cheekily explains, again, the reason for the initiative:

We, conscientious citizens that we are, are only trying to clean up the huge mess the Court left behind.

And anyway, if same-sex couples can be barred from marriage because they can not procreate together, the state constitution's requirement that all laws must be enforced equally requires that all couples that can not or will not procreate must equally be barred from marriage. It's only fair.

And it is, of course, fairness that is the ultimate goal of this grossly unfair initiative.

A poster complained, under the heading "Passive-aggressive gay-bashing" that the initiative is "anti-gay marriage."

Gadow responds

...well, that's how we do things in Seattle. If you ever want to see real passive-aggression, sit in on a meeting of the City Council

The problem is that any initiative to create equal marriage would very likely fail. Failure would only entrench the current view of marriage as a special right exclusive to heterosexuals. And strictly speaking, there is no more recourse regarding state law because the state Supreme Court has ruled, so our options are a bit limited.

Another poster notes, "I had to read this twice before I was sure it was parody. It's scarily close to the truth."

As all good parody is.

Tri-Cities TV station KNDU put it this way in the intro to their report on the initiative: "A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again." [KNDU video]

Although he mentions in the report that "many people consider the initiative over-the-top," the reporter delivered the story without the smirk or ironic eyebrow that Aaron Brown would have added to the story if he were still on KING or KIRO (or ABC or CNN or anyplace else). Despite that, the young KNDU/O reporter did a good job of summarizing the measure:

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

In response, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed the Initiative.

But they interviewed the pastor of Kennewick's LGBT-focused Metropolitan Community Church who apparently didn't catch the parody.

"There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family," said the Reverend Janet Pierce.
"They don't necessarily marry to have children," Pierce said.

Exactly. But the Rev. Pierce missed a golden opportunity (or the station's tape-editors didn't keep it) of pointing out that this is the very kind of inequality that the Supreme Court condoned in its Andersen decision.

A commenter to an earlier post on this blog about the initiative approached it in the same way:

I am for Gay marrage, but this new initiative 957 I belive is ridiculus and could ruin support that you have gotten from infertal couples.....LIKE ME.

The Stranger's Slog has noticed the initiative, but hasn't yet had much to say. But that hasn't stopped their active commenters who've called it "the craziest thing I've seen all week," "a travesty," "hilarious," "Awesome!" and more.

Gadow slogged in on the comment thread to offer the best explanation he's yet given:

Initiative 957 is political street theater. We are taking the conservatives' own rhetoric, which became the basis of last year's state Supreme Court ruling, and beating them over the head with it.

Our choice of name came from one of our early ideas, to play ourselves up as wide-eyed conservatives trying to prevent screams of "Activist court!" Try to imagine Stephen Colbert sponsoring this. That idea fell by the wayside early but not until after we had filed papers with the state. Now, the official story is that we are "reclaiming" the initials and defending the cause of equal marriage.

If we can get I-957 on the ballot, we will have won. The bigoted meme of "marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation" will be the subject of discussion around the country. For the first time, conservative objections to equal marriage will be under the national microscope. This can only help further the cause of equality, as discrimination and injustice fear few things more than the spotlight.

It would be great if I-957 passes. The Supreme Court would no doubt strike it down, which would critically weaken, if not kill, the earlier Andersen ruling which prompted this initiative.

Most likely it will fail, and (hopefully) by the biggest margin in state history. At that point, I-957 is a referendum on Andersen, and any position rejected by 80% of the voters (90%? 100%) would have to be carefully considered by both the courts and the state Legislature.

But before the initiative can either pass or fail, it needs to get on the ballot. And we need the signatures of a lot of Washington voters to do that.

LiveJournal users discuss the initiative here, with the starting comment, "Unconstitutional on its face. But I applaud the effort - if anything, it's a brilliantly-executed prank. Bravo!" But many of the subsequent comments miss the point and must be corrected by others who approach it without the requisite ironic raised eyebrow.

[Update: 2/5/07]: Timesman David Postman has now noticed the iniative via the Slog post. He comments, "Of course in order to have the full-blown absurdist argument the sponsors of I-957 will need to get signatures from 224,800 registered voters by July 6." Wouldn't that be fun?

Seattle.metblogs noticed it via the Postman post. "I'm not sure that absurdist dialogue is going to work when it comes to government.... [our long ellipses] I think it's hysterical, but a little part of me worries...[theirs] what happens if it doesn't work out that way?"

Labels: gay news, I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

Equal Rights Washington (ERW) has issued a request for contributions as it lobbies for passage in this session of the domestic partnership (DP) bill.

As we said last week after the Senate hearing, opponents of the bill are now arguing that it is discriminatory. Opponents of DP seemed pleased with their lobbying trick. ERW notes

The radical right, the Catholic Conference and religious reactionaries have stooped to a new low. They are arguing that the DP bill discriminates against brothers and sisters because they may not register as Domestic Partners. Never mind that siblings already enjoy the protections such as automatic hospital visitation and inheritance rights that the DP bill would extend to same-sex couples because they are denied the right to marry.

The first hearing for the House version of the bill in the Judiciary Committee will be tomorrow, Wednesday, February 25 starting at 1:30pm, in House Hearing Rm A of John L. O'Brien Building in Olympia, a one minute walk from the Capitol building [get directions]. Remember to sign in, in support of the bill when you arrive.

Here's a page with parking and transit information for the Capitol complex. And here's a more detailed map of the campus.

The Senate hearing last week attracted an overflow crowd. Fundamentalist opponents of the bill are expected to again bring in many to voice their opposition to equality of rights. You are welcome to attend the hearing if you can.

Even if you can't get to Olympia in person, it's important to contact legislators about the DP bills because they're definitely hearing from conservatives who oppose the measure.

Although personal mail (snail-mail type) is considered more effective, email and calls are also important. ERW has an automated form for sending email to a legislator who hasn't signed on as a supporter, and a suggested thank you letter for sponsors of the legislation.

If you'd rather not use the form, find the email address of your legislators using the search feature on the legislature's website.

The snail mail address for Senators is PO Box 404## (substitute your legislative district for the '##'), Olympia WA 98504

Because, apparently, some people still use those things, the fax for Senators is (360) 786-1999.

The general address for House members is PO Box 40600, Olympia WA 98504-0600

They don't have a general fax number.

ERW and Lambda Legal are planning a series of local events throughout the state to discuss the DP bill and other equality lobbying efforts. Seattle's meeting will be Thursday, February 8 at the First Baptist Church on First Hill [get directions]. The meetings will focus on coalition building, education, advocacy, and getting people excited about Equality Day in Olympia, currently set for February 26th in Olympia.

Track the bills progress with the state's nifty bill tracking feature. Here's the House version, 1351. Here's the Senate version, 5336.

Labels: equal rights, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, Washington

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) has been given a number for its proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. It would become Initiative 957 on the November ballot if supporters can gather 224,880 valid signatures by July 6.

The prime sponsor of the initiative is Gregory Gadow who emphasized the initiative's serious purpose in a press release announcing the number assignment.

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation," Gadow said in the printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do."

"Our agenda," Gadow explained in an accompanying statement, "is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."

If passed, Initiative 957 would:

• add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Gadow says that I-957 is the first of three initiatives planned by WA-DOMA. "The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage."

It's a fascinating strategy that's far from the official position on marriage equality taken by groups like Equal Rights Washington and legislators in Olympia, but Gadow has similar aims even if he and his co-conspirators are approaching them in an unorthodox manner.

"Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court," Gadow admits.

He welcomes court challenges to the initiatives, calling such challenges WA-DOMA's "ultimate goal."

"Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state?s Defense of Marriage Act," Gadow explained. "Eventually, Andersen will fall apart under the weight of judicial opinion, and equal marriage -- the marriage which we seek to defend -- shall become a reality in this state."

The WA-DOMA website has been relaunched, with more information about I-957 and a summary of things voters can do to help in the process.

Labels: I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

One thing you've got to say for the opponents of the domestic partnership bill over at Faith & Freedom Network (FAFREN): They've figured out these interwebs tubes better than the folks at Equal Rights Washington (ERW).

While ERW sticks with occasional notes to their well-worn old-timey email list-server, FAFREN pumps out frequent updates on their issues by both email and and active blogs.

And it was FAFREN, not surprisingly, that got the first news to the tubes about today's hearing on the DP bill. And, in so doing, offer an early interpretation of the bill that oddly matches the criticism it's been getting from the hipsters at Slog [or maybe it's just the any-way-to-get-at-Pederseners at Slog].

Their report was written by FAFREN Olympia lobbyist Jon Russell and posted not just once, but four times to their site:

SB 5336 grants benefits commonly associated with marriage to same sex partners and unmarried heterosexual couples where at least one partner is over the age of 62.
The committee hearing-room was packed with an overflow audience in another room for large screen viewing. The testimony was broken into a panel of 8. Four people spoke in favor and four spoke against SB 5336.

The proponents of SB 5336 were four middle-aged lesbian women who have all experienced problems in life due to a non-legal standing associated with their choice not to be married [sic. Playing one of their old tunes]. All of the four proponents recognized that all of these domestic benefits are already available to them, but they have to pay more money than a married heterosexual couple to obtain legal contracts.

As for the opponents of the bill, four individuals spoke about the discrimination aspects of this bill. Our side was able to explain that by only limiting benefits to two groups of people, the bill discriminates against other relationships. This bill should also include siblings, a daughter taking care of her ailing mother and so forth. They also made the argument that the bill would most undoubtedly be challenged in court for discrimination of non-married heterosexual couples under the age 62.

The post doesn't mention if FAFREN will lobby to amendments to include more people within the scope of the bill, but it seems logical to expect that they will if this is really what bothers them about it. The post also doesn't explain why siblings or children aren't covered under current family visitation rules.

Russell notes that both a lawyer [unnamed in the post] who testified after the panels and Sen. Ed Murray both said that the difference between civil marriage and domestic partnerships would be "a political and emotional benefit."

Russell was pleased with his activist group's showing at the hearing:

As I sat and watched the faces of the supporters of SB 5336 standing around the room, I could tell we had called them out on their discrimination game. They expected our side to come in and use the same argument of incremental-ism. But truth has been revealed: this is a discriminating bill which is poorly written and, in our opinion, will not stand in a court of law. For this they had no answer.

A liberal State Representative was overheard in the hallway saying, "This most certainly changes the debate."

Labels: equal rights, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

• Gray zone: Isaiah Washington, serial slur-er and a star of the fake-Seattle medical drama Grey's Anatomy, kicked off an apology tour by meeting with activists from Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and "agreed to help educate the public about the cruelty of anti-gay slurs." Not everyone is buying this act in the long-simmering drama. And other bloviating blatherers don't understand why it matters.
• ABCs of awards: Meanwhile, the ever-angry and easily offended (but always useful) folks at the inappropriately-named GLAAD gave Grey's and its home network, ABC, several nominations for GLAAD's annual Media Awards.
• Tourist attraction: Gay weddings are proving to be a popular tourist attraction in Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada. According to the first available set of stats, half of BC's marriage certs for same-sex nuptuals were given to non-Canadians. Do we smell a market for San Juan honeymoon suites?

• Witch hunts:
• The Roman Catholic Church says it will close its Brit adoption agencies if it isn't allowed to practice its Pope-given right to discriminate.
• The first gay couple married in South Africa got a lot of publicity followed by threatening calls and letters.
• Google seems to be targeting gay blogs that post even vaguely suggestive "eye-candy" photos on the site. Google has told at least two prominent blogs, Scott-O-Rama and BestGayBlogs, that if they display pictures of shirtless guys, they can no longer display the Google-supplied ads that often are a primary way for bloggers and other web sites to pay for (or partly pay for) web hosting charges. It's a good thing for Viacom that Google doesn't sell ads for eye-candy-only MTV.

Labels: gay news, marriage equality, news bites, TV

In more light-hearted initiative news, the Secretary of State's office is also reviewing an initiative filed on January 10 by one Gregory Paul Gadow and his "wa-doma.org". DOMA? As in "Defense of Marriage Act"? What could be light-hearted about that?

Well, you must read the initiative on the website (which, sponsors say, will soon be upgraded with even more information).

Gadow takes last year's Washington Supreme Court decision to its absurd satirical limits with his initiative. Since the Court decided that marriage has meaning only as a mechanism for making babies, the WA-DOMA iniative sets a fecundity [such a great word] standard for marriage licences and creates the required bureaucracy to enforce the standards.

The website explains:

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance was created on July 27, 2006. This January, WA-DOMA will propose an initiative to the people that will give Andersen the force of law while defending marriage from the worst consequences of that ruling. Under the initiative:

• Marriage will be restricted only to those couples able to have children together.
• Couples married in Washington will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law, whichever is later, to either have children together or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being annulled.
• Couples married outside of Washington who live in this state will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law or 30 days from the date they move into this state, whichever is later, to either have children or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being unrecognized as a valid marriage until proper documentation is filed.

We caught up with Gadow (via email) between his frequent news-list postings, and slipped on our woefully undeserved Mrs. Colbert hat to ask a few questions:

In its marriage decision last year, the Court gave a lot of advice to the Washington legislature, but failed to note the obvious need for a law like the one you're proposing. Is it frustrating for you to do the work of the Court?
It is. The Washington Suprme Court found that there is a "legitimate state interest" in preserving legal marriage for the purpose of "having and raising children." And yet the state constitution prohibits laws which are not applied equally (see Article I, Section 12.)

We are disappointed that the Court did not follow through on their ruling: if legal marriage does, in fact, exist for the purpose of having and raising children, and if for this reason same-sex couples may be barred from legal marriage, then the Washington constitution requires that marriage be reserved ONLY for the purpose of having and raising children, regardless of the genders of the married couple.

When the Court refuses to act and the Legislature dares not legislate, it is necessary for the People to take action.

Do you plan to run for a position on the state Supreme Court?
Most certainly not. My skin is too thin, my financial backers are too few and my sense of justice is far too strong.

Would you change your name to "Johnson" if you ran?
No.

Clearly you are worried about the fecundity of Washington's married couples. Do you think your initiative will contribute to a baby explosion in Washington?
I don't think that will happen: most childless couples I know would rather have their marriage annulled than become parents. I dare say that is a common sentiment.

Have you asked for campaign donations from the maternity department at Swedish Hospital?
There's a thought. I will put them down on my contact list, thanks.

Have you considered asking for donations from anti-immigrant groups? (After all, they're often worried about the fecundity-gap between nativists and immigrant groups?)
Another good idea. Could you provide some recommendations and contact info?

Do you think your initiative will help close the fecundity gap?
We haven't discussed this initiative in terms of a "fecundity gap." The only gaps we've been concerned with are the logical gaps found in the lead opinion for Andersen v. King County.

Have you asked for campaign contributions from Mars Hill Church which is also concerned with the fecundity gap?
My contact list already includes a large list of individuals who should find the Defense of Marriage Initiative perfectly aligned with their rhetoric. Included on that list are the Rev. Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland.

You're asking for donations to help fund your initiative campaign. Do you plan to move to Mukilteo?
Good gracious, NO! I already live on Capitol Hill in Seattle, in walking distance to both my job and the entire downtown retail core. Why on earth would I want to move anywhere else?

The initiative is still being reviewed by the Secretary of State's office and has not yet been assigned a number.

Labels: gay news, I-957, initiative, marriage equality, politics, wa-doma, Washington

The anti-equality activist at the so-called "Faith & Freedom Network," (aka Gary Randall) reports that a hearing will be held in the House for the domestic partnership bill on Thursday, January 25 at 3:30 p.m. in Olympia.

He promises, "We will be at the hearing."

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, Washington

The domestic partnership (DP) bill introduced early in this session has garnered 21 co-sponsors in the 49-member Senate and 56 co-sponsors in the 98-member House. Senate cosponsors include both the chamber's majority leader, Lisa Brown of Spokane's 3rd district, and the president pro-tem, Rosa Franklin, who represents Lakewood, Parkland, University Place in Pierce County.

That's a good start, but a map of the Senate sponsors' districts demonstrates the kind of Cascade + Sound curtain that is all too familiar in Washington politics.

Blue on the map shows the districts of the Senate sponsors. There isn't a lot of blue on a statewide map because most of the initial support for the bill comes from Senators who represent heavily populated urban districts. (Legislative districts are drawn to give each a statistically equal population, so more densely populated districts cover less area.)

Even Brown's Spokane district which wraps around Gonzaga is the most densely populated district in that mostly Republican county. There is also a touch of blue in Clark County where Craig Pridemore represents much of Vancouver and the area north toward Hazel Dell.

King County sponsors

• Ed Murray, D-43 Seattle (Capitol Hill, U District)
• Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36 Seattle (Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont)
• Adam Kline, D-37 Seattle (Madrona, Rainier Valley, Seward Park)
• Ken Jacobsen, D-46 Seattle (Laurelhurst, Lake City, Northgate, Greenwood)
• Erik Poulsen, D-34 West Seattle, Vashon Island
• Margarita Prentice, D-11 South Seattle, Tukwila, Renton
• Karen Keiser, D-33 Des Moines, Sea Tac, Kent
• Darlene Fairley, D-32 Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore
• Rosemary McAuliffe D-1 Bothell, Mountlake Terrace, Maltby
• Eric Oemig, D-45 Redmond, Woodinville, Duvall
• Rodney Tom, D-48 Bellevue (north), Redmond, Clyde Hill, Medina
• Brian Weinstein, D-41 Bellevue, Mercer Island, Newcastle

Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap County sponsors

• Jeane Berkey, D-38 Everett, Marysville
• Steve Hobbs, D-44 Snohomish, Marysville, Lake Stevens, Mill Creek
• Phil Rockefeller, D-23 Bainbrige, Kingston
• Debbie Regala, D-27 Tacoma (Commencement Bay)
• Rosa Franklin, D-29 [President Pro Tem] Lakewood, Parkland, University Place

Other Puget Sound area sponsors

• Harriet Spanel, D-40 Bellingham, San Juan Islands
• Karen Fraser, D-22 Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey

Sponsors from beyond Puget Sound

• Craig Pridemore, D-49 Vancouver, Hazel Dell
• Lisa Brown, D-3 [Majority Leader] Spokane (Gonzaga area)

Sponsorship of a bill is only one sign of the eventual support it might have. The DP bill and its companion marriage equality bill (which doesn't yet have a Senate co-sponsor to join Murray) haven't yet been given even their initial hearings. The DP bill, especially, is likely to gather more support from legislators willing to vote for it, but not to sign on as sponsors.


But the early list of sponsors shows that the bill already runs the risk of being tagged an urban measure. The problem is obvious even in King County where sponsorship support falls off significantly in the south end.

The county's expansive 5th District, which stretches along I-90 from Issaquah to Snoqualamie Pass and includes Maple Valley, is represented in the Senate by Cheryl Pflug, a Republican and in the House by two Republicans, Jay Rodne and Glenn Anderson. Like all members of the GOP caucus, they're keeping their distance from the DP measure.

South of there, the 47th District, encompassing much of the Green River valley including Covington and Black Diamond, is represented by three Democrats, Senator Claudia Kauffman and Reprentatives Geoff Simpson and Pat Sullivan. Although there is significant support in their party caucus for the DP measure, none of those legislators has signed on to sponsor the bill. [Update: Both Rep. Sullivan and Rep. Simpson are co-sponsors of the house bill. Sen. Kauffman has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the senate version.]

The 30th District (Federal Way, Milton, and Pacific) is reprented by two Democrats -- Sen. Tracey Eide and Rep. Mark Miloscia -- and a Republican -- Rep. Skip Priest . None of them have become co-sponsors.

The 31st District, including Auburn, Enumclaw, Sumner, and Buckley, is split between King and Pierce Counties and represented by the Roach family -- Ma' Pam in the Senate and sonny Dan in the House -- and by Democratic Rep. Christopher Hurst. The Roaches are among the more conservative salons in Olympia and are likely to be active opponents of the bill. Hurst is a former cop who returns to the House after leaving his seat six years ago. He contributed to the Democrat's landslide last November by winning a tightly contested race but his is considered a conservative district. He's an unlikely sponsor.

But the eventual fate of the bill will depend on supporters of this baby-step toward equality contacting their legislators in all those parts of the map that aren't colored blue. Equal Rights Washington [ERW] urges supporters to contact legislators. Anti-equality activists are also gearing up to defeat even the relatively innocuous domestic-partnership bill.

The marriage-equality bill is not expected -- even by its sponsors --to pass in this session, but the simpler partnership bill that would grant limited rights and benefits to domestic partners including "hospital visitation, health care decision-making, organ donation decisions, and other issues related to illness, incapacity, and death." [From the bill [pdf].]

The regional and the urban/rural split in sponsorship indicates that bill's fate depends a great deal on the statewide network that both ERW and the Pride Foundation claim to have built. This will become a significant test.

Labels: equal rights, gay news, HB1351, legislature, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

We've mentioned a few other cases similar to this in News Bites, and now we find another divorce case -- this one in Rhode Island -- is that might raise interesting issues about marriage rights.

After it was asked by a family court trial judge to rule on legal issues in a divorce petition from a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said yesterday that it needs more information about a gay couple?s marriage before it can decide whether a state court has jurisdiction over what is believed to be the Rhode Island?s first gay divorce case.

Some conservative groups worry that this case, and others like it, are stepping dangerously close to the kind of marriage equality that they fear. A Massachusetts anti-equality activist called the case a "ploy to get the legal system to recognize gay marriage, through divorce."

Attorneys for the gay couple say they aren't asking Rhode Island to recognize same-sex marriage, just same-sex divorce. But Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth doesn?t buy that argument.

"I think if you recognize same-sex divorce, you're recognizing same-sex marriage. It's amazing how political the activists are. The problem here is we're dealing with a very political movement and Americans on the side of decency and truth just aren't as political as the gay activists."

The same fellow can't believe that this could be a situation where a couple is just trying to sort out personal legal issues after the dissolution of a long-term relationship.

"The modus operandi of the homosexual activists is to use anything possible, even divorce, to win approval of their lifestyle. That's what the main agenda is. They are desperate for approval of their lifestyle and even if it means recognizing gay divorce as opposed to gay marriage, they'll do that."

(And, of course, the modus operandi of conservative groups is to use any case like this to push their pro-discrimination agenda. Isn't it amazing how political those activists are?)

Ever at the ready to plumb such fears, Fox News argues that these cases could become more common.

Courts nationwide could soon find themselves facing similar dilemmas, especially as more and more same-sex couples are married in Massachusetts, said Janet Halley, a professor at Harvard Law School who researches the topic. Marital status could potentially become an issue in insurance, benefit, child custody and property cases, among others.

Back in September, the San Francisco Chronicle considered some of the issues faced by lesbian or gay couples after a partnership dissolves. Few of the issues seem to be related to any kind of movement "agenda."

Many of the problems arise when ex-partners calculate their federal income taxes. For example, a California judge might order one to regularly pay the other a certain amount of money, like alimony. But, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex couples, the Internal Revenue Code treats that income as a gift and taxes it at a higher level than alimony. And, although alimony payments are deductible for straight ex-spouses, someone who has left a same-sex union can't take that deduction.

Similarly unsettled issues arise with pensions, retirement accounts and other property....

"Courts are going to be facing cases involving same-sex relationships that they haven't faced before," said Ellen Kahn, director of the Family Project for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay and lesbian rights organization.

Vermont, which recognizes same-sex civil partnerships, has slowly started to tackle new issues in divorce. "This is truly a brave new world for us," Vermont's deputy secretary of state William Dalton told the Chronicle. "Anyone who steps out first is going to create as many questions as answers."

California courts have recognized a Canadian marriage and a Vermont union in order to dissolve them. Those dissolutions likely would hold up in a Vermont courtroom, just as an out-of-state divorce decree would, said William Dalton.... But that remains untested.

A New York Law School professor who edits a monthly newsletter on LGBT legal issues and regularly blogs on the issues, believes that the justices in Rhode Island might be concerned that they would, indeed, have to address broader issues if they were to take the divorce case.

Arther S. Leonard detects the concern in the questions that Rhode Island's Supreme Court directed back to the family court judge.

In posing these questions, the court seemed to be signalling a suspicions that this was some sort of put-up case rather than a genuine case, solely brought for the purpose of getting the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling on whether Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages that Rhode Islanders contract in Massachusetts.

But Leonard doesn't think the Rhode Island courts have to worry about anything but the specific case before them of a broken relationship.

So - to hazard some speculation here, I would suggest that what the Family Court judge should really be thinking about is whether there is some important reason of established Rhode Island public policy for refusing to make its courts available to its own residents for the purpose of dissolving a marriage that was validly made in another state, or, put another way, whether denying access to its courts for this purpose would significantly advance any important state policy. The RI Supreme Court is trying to make this into a de facto marriage recognition case, but it needn't be unless they really want it to be.

Divorce is generally a painful process for any couple that breaks up -- whether they're gay or not. Activist agendas might contribute to a couple's decision to marry, but it's far less likely to play a role in divorce.

Labels: gay news, marriage equality, politics

• Lobbying log: Log Cabin Republicans in California are actively lobbying their gubernator to sign the marriage equality bill that is expected to pass (again) in the legislature this year. They probably won't be getting much help from the largest national lobbying group, HRC, which has decided it's all about Democrats. A civil rights pioneer explained in Eugene yesterday why he things gay activists are focusing on the wrong issues.
• Divorcing rights: While marriage equality or inequality makes its way through legislatures, city halls, and ballot boxes, courts continue to be asked to sort of the contractual obligations of couples that split up:
  In Maine and Connecticut, courts are sorting through inheritance rights of the ex-partner of an IBM heiress who had, in happier days, adopted her adult partner since they couldn't get married. The adoptee now claims rights to part of her ex-partner's Watson/IBM fortune.
  In Virginia and Vermont, courts are still sorting out visitation rights for a lesbian couple who were once joined in civil union in Vermont, but the later split. The bio-mom of the couple's baby moved to Virginia and denied Vermont-court-ordered visitation. A Virginia court now says the Vermont ruling should apply even to the current Virginia resident.
• Make it work: Bravo TV will close its Queer Eye after one last mini-season, but the tradition of restyling clueless schlubs will carry on when Project Runway's Tim Gunn debuts his new style show on the cable net. Project Rungay is happy that he's escaped "from the claws of that Teutonic hussy."

Labels: gay news, marriage equality, news bites, TV

• Revisit DADT: Tacoma Congressman Adam Smith, the newly minted chair of the House Armed Forces subcommittee agrees with his neighbor Gen. John Shalikashvili that the military Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) rules should be reconsidered. "Shalikashvili's right," Smith said. He doesn't plan to get into the issue right away, "But on principle," he said, "'don't ask, don't tell' does not make sense." Meanwhile, some conservatives decided they could ignore Shalikashvili because he had a stroke a few years ago.
• Bars as good neighbors: While a developer on Capitol Hill thinks he has to keep bars out of his "trendy" (as in Issaquah trends) new complex and while the town's mayor tries to clamp down on clubs, an uber-trendy and gentrified neighborhood in New York welcomes the rebirth of the historic Stonewall Inn.
• Gay cop heads to Afghanistan: Scott Oak, the gay cop who serves as LGBTI Liason to the Missoula, MT police force (and that's not the news in this bite), has been asked by the Bush State Department to help train police in Aghanistan. That's news, since Condi Rice got into trouble last year with the GOP right when she introduced the gay partner of a newly minted ambassador. And then there's the oddity of Oak working with folks from an army that would consider him unfit to serve since he's openly gay.
• Equality regs survive: It was called a "high noon" moment for equality in UK as the House of Lords considered suspending new rules banning discrimination because of sexual orientation. Hundreds from "faith groups" protested under Big Ben, but the Lords let the rules stand.
• Unions progress: As Washington takes its halting steps toward civil unions and marriage equality, the rest of the world moves on: The legislature in the Mexican state of Coahuila, which shares a border with central Texas, has adopted a law allowing more equal unions. Australia's capitol city of Canberra did the same, but conservatives there stepped in to maintain inequality. A former foe of marriage equality in Hawaii is now lobbying in favor of civil unions. The college town of Lawrence, Kansas became the first city in that state to adopt a partnership registry. But some Democrats lurch more rightward on this sort of thing, as a major party activist group hired an anti-equality campaigner as its director.
• Stepping toward madrasah: Conservative religious schools in the Muslim world are called madrasah. Maybe Federal Way should consider renaming its "School District" the "Madrasah District," since they appear to believe cultish misinformation trumps science in the district classrooms.
• Darth Eyman gets paid: Initiative huckster Tim Eyman collected a commission of $86,743 for his failed attempts last year to put two measures, including an anti-gay initiative, on the ballot. Who says failure doesn't pay? Meanwhile, a proposed legislative bill would make it more difficult for Eyman to pay the mini-hucksters who collect signatures for him.

Labels: DADT, gay news, marriage equality, news bites

The Seattle Times' David Postman reports that the legislature's unofficial gay caucus has now unveiled its two bills for marriage equality.

The bill that would grant equal marriage rights to gay couples is considered a long-term goal. Another bill would create a state-wide domestic partnership registry. The registry bill would be open to heterosexual couples where one partner is at least 62 years old.

It's seen as a first step in marriage equality, said Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle. As he and other lawmakers pledged to continue pushing for same-sex marriage, they said they would also work to incrementally increase domestic partnership benefits. They recognize that gay marriage will be difficult to get approved by the Legislature and could take years.

In an AP story on the announcement, Murray called the registry bill a stop-gap measure.

Murray said he wants to make sure at the very least that benefits are extended this year -- but he emphasized that a domestic partnership law is not enough.

"This is not about domestic partnership; this is about marriage," said Murray, the main sponsor of both bills in the Senate. "The only reason we are introducing the domestic partnership bill is to further the cause of educating the public."

The other legislators sponsoring the measure in the House echoed Murray's sentiments.

"Our goal is marriage equity, and we will work for that," said Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle, one of the Legislature's five openly gay lawmakers who are working on the measures. "In the meantime, our effort is to provide immediate relief, immediate benefits, to same-sex couples."

McDermott said the benefits sought in the partnership bill include health-care decision making, funeral planning and inheritance rights.

"An incremental approach provides the opportunity to educate people," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. "People may see that just because these two loved ones can visit each other in the hospital and plan funeral arrangements, the sky isn't falling."

According to the AP story, the domestic partnership measure will be co-sponsored in the Senate by majority leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane).

"These are very practical issues that same-sex couples face," said Brown, who said she believed the bill had a good chance of passing the Senate.

And they are also issues often faced by senior couples which is why they are included in the domestic partnership bill.

[Update:] And here is Josh Feit's post about the press conference on the boldly redesigned Slog. Feit explains

The incremental approach is certainly about gaining rights, but it's also about highlighting what rights gays and lesbians don?t have. Murray and Pedersen believe this is a way to dramatize the issue for those who may oppose gay marriage....

"What's central to going about it this way," [Rep. Jaime] Pedersen told me, "is that we can make this progress this year. If we were going to do a symbol bill where we don't think we're going to pass it, why don't we just do marriage? Or do comprehensive domestic partnership legislation. We're doing what we can do this year, knowing that we're going to keep on doing this and keep on adding things every session until we get marriage."

[Update 2:] And here's Josh Feit's excellent explanation about the part of the domestic partnership bill that specifically includes hetero senior couples:

There are elderly couples that don't get married because if they do marry, they may lose the pensions that their original spouse left them.

Meanwhile, since they aren't married to their new partner, they don't have any of the hospital visitation rights, funeral arrangment rights etc.. with that new partner. Getting a domestic partnership allows them to collect their previous spouse's pension, while also being able to have rights regarding their new partner.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

AP (via the PI) has this update on plans to introduce equality bills tomorrow in the legislature:

Two bills dealing with same-sex couples are scheduled to be announced at a press conference Thursday: one to allow same-sex marriage, the other calling for domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples.

Supporters say the dual approach is necessary to extend benefits such as hospital visitation rights and end-of-life decisions to same-sex couples, while continuing to push for full marriage rights.

"Our goal is marriage equity, and we will work for that," said Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle, one of the Legislature's five openly gay lawmakers who are working on the measures. "In the meantime, our effort is to provide immediate relief, immediate benefits, to same-sex couples."

McDermott said the benefits sought in the partnership bill include health-care decision making, funeral planning and inheritance rights.

"An incremental approach provides the opportunity to educate people," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. "People may see that just because these two loved ones can visit each other in the hospital and plan funeral arrangements, the sky isn't
falling."

Also working on the measures are Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who spearhead a gay civil-rights bill that became law last year.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, gay news, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, SB5336, Washington

The five openly gay members of Washington's legislature are expected to introduce bills tomorrow that would grant everyone in the state the same (or similar) rights and privileges to marry that are now enjoyed by a restricted group.

Senator Ed Murray of Seattle's 43rd District, the prime sponsor in the Senate, told the Seattle Times that the marriage equality bill probably won't pass in this year's session.

Murray said he's realistic about the odds of getting a bill passed this year allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry: basically nil.

"It's always hard for people who work on this to realize that most members have not really thought a lot about the issue. Most people in the state have not thought about the issue," said Murray, who led a long and ultimately successful effort to pass gay-rights legislation last year.

"It's going to take a number of years to educate people in the state as a whole and not just the Legislature," he said.

The legislators won't introduce their bills until tommorrow, but anti-equality activists like Gary Randall who calls himself the "Faith and Freedom Network" are already gearing up for a fight:

We do not expect them to immediately put forward a gay marriage bill, but rather several bills that will be incremental steps toward gay marriage.

Make no mistake about it; they do not merely want to extend a few rights and benefits. They want gay marriage.

Times political reporter David Postman notes that the legislators are following the advice of the state's Supreme Court with the bills.

The Legislature's five openly gay members are taking up the state Supreme Court's many hints that lawmakers could craft a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

They are also following a now common course of dealing with this often contentious issue on the state level rather than in the US Congress. A forthcoming report by the Human Right Campaign Fund finds that state legislatures had considered a broader range of LGBT equality issues -- most of them not directly related to marriage:

The ... bills covered other areas, including sexual orientation discrimination, hate crimes, family recognition, parenting, and education and schools, the HRC report shows.

"State capitols continue to be the epicenter in the quest for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality," says an executive summary of HRC?s soon-to-be-released report.

HRC's state legislative director, Carrie Evans, called Washington's passage last year of the long-delayed civil rights measure a highlight of the 2006 political landscape.

"For every step forward, there was a half-step back," said Carrie Evans, HRC's state legislative director.

There were 242 "favorable" bills that "furthered equality," she said and 34 of those passed, up from 24 last year. And 11 of 137 "unfavorable" bills were enacted in 2006, the same as 2005.

The highlight, said Evans, was Washington State's passage of an anti-discrimination law, the 17th to include sexual orientation in a state human rights statute and the ninth to also cover gender identity and expression. She also cited the November vote of Arizona voters rejecting a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, civil unions, and more broadly domestic partnerships for gays and straights alike-the first defeat for such a measure-and the narrower margins by which they were passed in seven other states.

Murray had sheparded that measure through the legislature for much of its long slog.

Labels: equal rights, Gay, gay news, HB1351, legislature, LGBTQ, marriage equality, politics, SB5336, Washington

• Identifying the real problem: The group that sponsored Virginia's draconian anti-gay constitutional amendment last fall might have found the real threat to marriage this time. They will now target the state's no-fault divorce law. Hmm. Why do you suppose they didn't include that issue in last year's amendment?
• DC too? While the issue is argued in MA, CA, NY and other states, Chris Crain holds out hope that he'll still be able to marry his partner in DC sometime this year (if only those "silver-haired" "elders" would get out of the way).
• Wildely inconsistent: A close ally of Pope Benedict has released a new book chock full of aphorisms from notorious queer Oscar Wilde. Headline writers have gone Wilde.
• Texas justice: Two men who killed one gay man in a beating rampage and injured others will be released on parole as early as next week. Towleroad has the reaction of the mother of their victim.
• Splitting churches: Another Episcopal church has severed ties with the national group over the 2003 consecration of a gay bishop. Andrew Sullivan suspects the splits might be a sign of a more deep-seated divide in many congregations.
• Homoerotic fashion: Lonestar Verve notes that several fashion houses have followed Calvin Klein toward ever-more homoerotic photography for their men's lines. They don't explain why, but offer plenty of examples.

Labels: gay news, marriage equality, news bites

Marriage in MA:
The state of marriage equality in Massachusetts isn't nearly as safe as it looked to some of us last week. After a scolding last week by the state's highest court, legislators meeting in a special session called a "Constitutional Convention" today agreed by a vote of 61 to 132 to put the fate of equality on the ballot in 2008.

Boston's WCVB explained the complicated process:

On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted to keep the proposal alive, while 132 voted to kill it. The proposed amendment needs 50 or more votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to get on the 2008 ballot. Late Tuesday afternoon lawmakers agreed to reconsider the vote, but a second vote still gave the proposal enough support to advance it to the next session.

Prior to the vote, the Democratic Governor-elect Deval Patrick served notice that he will treat the issue far differently than his predecessor, Gov. Mitt Romney. He wrote in a statement to legislators,

"Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth," Patrick said in a statement distributed to lawmakers.

"For practical reasons as well, it's time to move on," the statement said. "Whatever ones views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth."

He urged lawmakers to move on to more important matters.

Ford's friends:
Both Slog and Towleroad take note of a Wall Street Journal story [link will break after today] about Gerald Ford's later years. It turns out that a gay couple bought and lovingly restored Ford's childhood home in Grand Rapids, MI. Towleroad notes:

Ford later paid a visit to the couple and they began corresponding. As Joe notes, "Isn't it nice to read about non-gay-baiting Republicans?" It certainly is, and their actions perhaps contributed to Ford's views on gay marriage. News of Ford's death was poignant for the couple:

"Just past midnight on Wednesday morning, after Messrs. England and Kent went to bed, a friend called and told them to turn on their television. Watching the report of Mr. Ford's death, Mr. England says he felt sick to his stomach. A few minutes later, a local news crew pulled up in front of the home in the darkness. Mr. England went outside and pleaded with them to wait before they started shooting. He brought out the big American flag and draped it over the front porch. Then he told them they could start their cameras."

Meanwhile, at today's funeral for the former President, the pastor of the California Episcopal Church decried divisions that are arising within that church.

In his homily, Episcopalian minister Robert G. Certain touched on the fractious debate in the church over its growing acceptance of same-sex relationships, and said Ford did not think the issue should be splitting Episcopalians. He was Ford's pastor at St. Margaret's Church in Palm Desert, Calif.

"He asked me if we would face schism after we discussed the various issues we would consider, particularly concerns about human sexuality and the leadership of women," Certain said. "He said that he did not think they should be divisive for anyone who lived by the great commandments and the great commission to love God and to love neighbor.

The Episcopal Church has been under pressure from traditionalists for its 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop. Several prominent Virginia parishes have recently broken away from the church in protest.

Alaska benefits
The Associated Press caught a human-interest angle on the still-uncertain progress toward equality of benefits for partnered state employees in Alaska. AP interviewed Lin Davis, one of several parties on whose behalf ACLU filed a suit in 1999 that sought to assure equal treatment for the partners of all state employees.

The still-contentious wrangling among the legislature, courts, and administration came a step closer to solution last week when -- despite opposition to equal benefits -- the governor vetoed a bill that would have prevented their implementation.

Davis began her quest on principle. Her partner of many years, Maureen Longworth, also was a state employee and didn't need the health care, survivor benefits and other perquisites of state employment.

As the long case drew to an end, however, Longworth lost her job. Now, Davis needs the benefits to cover her partner.

"I just want to be able to sign her up for health benefits. We are planning on that for Jan. 1 because her (health coverage) runs out," said Davis, a job counselor with the state.

Legally married couples, which Alaska law defines as opposite-sex partners, automatically qualify for coverage.

The state set up a series of criteria to determine whether same-sex couples also qualified. Such factors as evidence of a committed relationship, living together and commingled finances are considered by the state to be evidence of a substantial enough relationship.

"We just want to be able to take care of each other, especially in these older decades of our lives," said Davis, who is in her 60s.

Longworth is now self-employed, with Davis' state benefit providing crucial security for her.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't support
General John Shalikashvili, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 through 1997, is now calling for the repeal of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell", the rule that prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Shalikashvili oversaw the implementation of the rule as chief military officer during the early Clinton administration.

Writing from his home in Steilacoom, WA, Shalikashvili announced his change of heart in an op-ed piece in today's New York Times [reg].

"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," Shalikashvili writes in the Times.

"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

He also notes that 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

A recent Zogby poll of military who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan indicated those now in the military are comfortable with gay folk.

According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable.

More than half of those polled said that, despite the DADT ban, they had served with gay or lesbian peers.

Labels: Gay, gay news, LGBTQ, marriage equality, news bites

This list-making, as we said, is a popular way to fill pages of papers and magazines during the usually slow holiday news weeks.

Like us, B.A.R. in San Francisco picks marriage equality in a broad sense as its top story.

The status of LGBT relationships absolutely dominated the news throughout the year, with some development popping up virtually every week. While much of what occurred on marriage was discouraging, just about everything short of using that word seemed to be to be positive.

B.A.R.'s Bob Roehr notes that Massachusetts has maintained its equality of marriage opportunity despite concerted attempts by the governor, Mitt Romney, and anti-equality activists to overturn the law. Since Romney will soon be replaced by a Democrat who supports equality and because Massachusetts law makes it hellishly difficult to modify the commonwealth's constitution by initiative, marriage equality there will likely stick.

Court decisions, like the one here in Washington and in New York and New Jersey failed to find a constitutional basis for equality of marriage as such, but urged their state legislatures to find some way to give equal rights to all couples who want to be joined a civil contract.

Editors of Washington's daily newspapers also saw the court decision on marriage equality as a major story of the year. It came in at #7 on their top-ten list.

7. The Washington Supreme Court's divided and contentious decision to uphold the state's ban on gay marriage. In a 5-4 decision, the court said lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and left intact the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Both Towleroad and the Washington Blade conglomerate of gay papers took a different tack.

Andy Towle offers a list of the outs, ins, and in-betweens as his contribution to the EOY listmania. All the usual suspects are there: Lance Bass, Mark Foley, Neil Patrick Harris, Ted Haggard, and many more.

The Blade and its corporate brethren think that the continually shrinking closet was the big story of 2006. They note the Hollywood stars who came out and contrast the often easy and unremarkable reaction to that with the often-tortured responses to the more notorious political outings of the year.

Despite his best efforts to squelch rumors about his sexual orientation, Foley was widely considered an "openly closeted" politician, whereas few people seemed to have known about Ted Haggard's double life before it was exposed by a gay male escort. The contrast displays the "different levels of outness" that exist today, Shields said.

The sadness of the Ted Haggard story was that he was a liar and played on people's fears, and couldn't be true to who he was," Shields said. "I think what people saw there was a hypocrisy to the attacks that go on against gay and lesbian couples, and gay and lesbian families."

Former Blade editor Chris Crain, who now publishes a must-read gay blog, mostly agrees with the top-story pick of his erstwhile colleagues, but chastises them for their quotations and their political analysis of the situation.

The Foley story, especially, raised anew questions about when it's justified to "out" someone in government, whether they're holding elective office or not. For Ehrenstein and Rogers, there are no limits to be observed, no boundaries of personal privacy to be respected, and for Ehrenstein at least, dissent is tantamount to complicity. The Task Force's Foreman, as well, though not dirtying his own hands with outings, has publicly said he supports them.

But Crain, like the current Blade/Window Media editors, finds that the dynamics of the closet changed significantly in 2006.

As each new public figure emerges, there remain fewer "firsts" like Ellen DeGeneres in prime time or Elton John in music or Martina Navratilova in sport, to grab the biggest headlines. And so both Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser, M.D." and "How I Met Your Mother") and T.R. Knight ("Grey's Anatomy") continue to play sexually active heterosexual men in popular TV shows, despite coming out this year in People magazine. As the Blade story notes, popular culture is once again miles ahead of politics.

[If you don't use an RSS newsreader or don't know what that is, you can keep up with the headlines of Towleroad's frequent posts in our Squidoo Gay News lens. Crain is featured in our Squidoo Queer Commentary lens. Although we don't deserve mention in the same paragraph, our headlines are included in our Squidoo Gay Seattle lens.]

Edge, a new group of east-coast gay email/web publications, puts coming-out stories in three of its top-ten spots on their year end review. Marriage equality is their #2 story. But they pick the mid-term elections as the top LGBT story of the year.

At last there may be progress on legislation affecting members of the community that has languished in Congress for the last 12 years of Republican dominance. Gay rights activists are hopeful that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will pass. The chances also are good that Congress will at least consider a bill to repeal of the ban on gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly in the military. Support to do away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell is growing among the public and lawmakers in both parties as the Pentagon finds it increasingly difficult to recruit enough men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, yes, there were web polls galore. The Malcontent asked their readers "Who's the villain? Donald or Rosie" Over 75% picked The Donald (and most of those votes came before his Mel Gibson moment with the "degenerate" comment in response to her "pimp" salvo).

When gay.com (yes, they offer more than just chat) asked its, umm..., readers (between chat sessions, no doubt) to pick the top stories of the year, they discovered the odd clicking prowess of Colbert Report fans (aka ColbertNation). The voters picked Stephen Colbert as person of the year and the Colbert Report as favorite TV show, surpassing even Project Runway. Gay.com did not reveal how many voters signed up just for that vote.

Finally, the gay.com vote gives us the excuse for that pic at the top of this post (queerfilter.com users who click on shirtless hunk posts gives us the wholly unjustified eye-candy reason [Those who feel cheated should click on the Jake pic or run our hunk-laden Rumor Machine]): Voters picked Jake Gyllenhaal as "Male celeb you most wish was gay". He won easily with 45% of the vote over Ryan Phillippe at 9% and Justin Timberlake at 8%.

Labels: Colbert Report, coming out, eye candy, gay news, marriage equality

Marriage equality
MA:
The highest court in Massachusetts today declined to intervene with the job of the legislature. They won't be forcing legislators to put to a vote a constitutional ban on equal marriage rights.

The legislators, sitting in a special constitutional convention, last month declined to vote on a petition that would have put the marriage-rights issue to a vote. The state's retiring governor, Mitt Romney, who is expected to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 allied with anti-equality activists in asking the court to intervene and force a vote. These folks usually don't like what they call "activist judges," but were hoping the judges would become uncommonly active in this case. The judges seemed to be peeved, but declined to interfere.

The ruling said: "Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the Associated Press reports.

CA:
Both judges and legislators are also involved in the equally complex wrangling in California over marriage equality. Chris Crain sorts it out.

OR:
In Oregon, a panel appointed by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski concluded that discrimination should not be legal in the state.

The task force also called for some form of "legal recognition" for gay relationships, a tricky issue considering Oregonians voted in 2004 to restrict marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Instead, task force members said Oregon should model its own system on Vermont-style civil unions, a plan that was proposed in the 2005 Legislative session, but never made it past the Republican-controlled House.

RIP
Gerald Ford died yesterday at 93. Towleroad has an interesting gay footnote on his brief presidency.

James Brown died unexpected last week at 73. He's being called the godfather of just about everything musically interesting including soul, rap, R&B, rock, shiny pants, Dreamgirls, and Al Sharpton's hair.

Anti-Mary search like WMD search
Slate's Will Saletan compares the bizarre search by conservatives for "proof" that Mary Cheney and Heather Poe won't be good parents to another conservative forlorn hope.

The 30-year search for proof that gay parents are destructive looks a lot like the hunt for WMD. The American Psychological Association has compiled abstracts of 67 studies. Some are plainly biased, and only the latest two or three have avoided the methodological flaws of earlier investigations. But after 67 tries, you'd expect the harm of gay parenting to show up somewhere. Yet in study after study, on measure after measure, kids turn out the same.

Out on the ice (Movies only)
"Toronto Maple Leafs, one of Canada's iconic teams, has lent its name and logo to a movie whose central character is a gay former hockey player." -- But, so far, no real NHL player has chosen to be a real-life example of the movie's theme. The movie is tentatively scheduled for release a year from now.

Labels: Gay, gay news, marriage equality, news bites

Virgin lizard mother
A komodo dragon at an English zoo has laid several fertile eggs that are expected to hatch sometime around Christmas Day. Nothing remarkable there, except that the mother has never mated.

"Essentially what we have here is an immaculate conception," said a zoo curator.

"We will be on the look-out for shepherds, wise men, and an unusually bright star in the sky over Chester Zoo," he joked.

Mary's baby
We don't think this is related, but President Bush was asked at this morning's press conference to comment again on the child that is expected by veep-daughter Mary Cheney and her long-time partner, Heather Poe. Once again, Bush declined to mention Poe. But he did offer "I know Mary and I like her and I know she's gonna be a fine, loving mother."

Maybe he thinks it's a virgin birth? But even the Christmas stories at least mention Joseph.

Good As You has the video.

Truthiness of the preacher
The whole thing has James Dobson and other wing-nut spokesmen all tied up. Dobson was offered paper and ink for a rant about Mary and Heather's baby last week in Time. But, it turns out that maybe Dobson should stick to condemning science rather than trying to use it to reinforce his exclusionist arguments.

One of the scientists quoted by Dobson, Carol Gilligan, a prominent psychologist and author of In a Different Voice, responded in a video:

"I was stunned to hear that James Dobson quoted me in Time magazine," Gilligan says in the video. "I had no idea. I was mortified." She says that there is nothing in her research that would lead anyone to agree with Dobson?s claim that same-gender families are unhealthy for children.

Another of the scientists Dobson quoted, Kyle Pruett, a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale, insisted that Dobson refrain from quoting (and misrepresenting) his work. In an interview with insidehighered.com, Pruett said Dobson's

analysis of his research on fathers was "destructive and highly prejudicial," and cherry-picked information. When people start spinning science, Pruett said, you have to respond.

More preachers fall
After the outing of Colorado Springs mega-church pastor Ted Haggard, his church asked another of its ministers to step down for unspecified sins. The church appealed to its members to tattle on any other ministers or fellow congregants who might also have sinned.

The Stranger is, of course, also concerned and has asked readers of Slog to help out with any information they might have. Of course, Dan is only concerned about the children.

But it doesn't happen only in Colorado. A Southern Baptist church in Memphis has put one of its ministers on leave in the wake of "a past, but highly concerning moral failure." (aka "child abuse".)

White-hood warning
But it's not just preachers and priests that we should watch out for. A southern GOP lawmaker is warning of trouble ahead if we don't hermetically seal off the country's borders.

[R]eacting to the controversy (among certain extreme conservatives, at least) over Muslim representative-elect Keith Ellison?s (D-MN) decision to be sworn in on the Koran, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) warned that the U.S. must close its borders to guard against the influx of still more Muslims.

Yikes.
Naughty hot chick
Proving that we who use any excuse to put a scantily-clad hot guy in our posts follow the MSM in that regard, the networks were having fun all week with the stories of a pageant queen. Jon Stewart has the details.

Asking judges to be activists
In our final witch hunt item, supporters of special rights for heterosexual married couples in Massachusetts have asked the state's highest court to intervene in the business of the state's legislature. They want the Court to force legislators to vote on a measure that would put a measure about gay marriage on the ballot.

John Hanify, an attorney for Gov. Mitt Romney, said supporters are asking the Supreme Judicial Court to clarify what the obligations of legislators are under a state constitutional provision that establishes the rights of citizens to petition for an amendment.

That's something usually left to legislators in a special convention, but Romney and his anti-equality supporters hope that the judges will be more activist in this case.

But maybe they're asking the Court to save them from themselves. Last weekend, at an anti-equality rally a speaker left the stage to push a pro-equality protester to the ground.

Labels: gay news, marriage equality, news bites, youtube

In her dissenting opinion to the Washington Supreme Court decision upholding the state "Defense of Marriage Act", Justice Bobbi Bridge argues, "If the DOMA is really about the 'sanctity' of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief."

Bridge emphasizes the need to keep issues about a religious ceremony that might have the same name distinct from the state's civil laws regarding the contract that also is called "marriage."

What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite -- an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith. What we have not done is engage in the kind of critical analysis the makers of our constitution contemplated when interpreting the limits on governmental intrusion into private civil affairs; what we have done is permit the religious and moral strains of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to justify the State's intrusion. As succinctly put by amici the Libertarian Party of Washington State and the Log Cabin Republicans of Washington: "To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment."

Bridge argues that her fellow justices who issued the thinly supported plurality ruling "frame the issue before us so as to ignore not only petitioners' fundamental right to privacy but also the legislature's blatant animosity toward gays and lesbians."

Bridge concludes,

The DOMA denies fundamental basic human rights to Washington's gay and lesbian citizens, human rights that impact the very core of their everyday lives. The plaintiffs in this case represent the ever-growing diversity of the openly gay community in Washington. They are teachers, attorneys, ministers, and foster parents. In their everyday lives they are bosses, coworkers, neighbors, clients, parents, friends, and volunteers. It is in these seemingly mundane, everyday roles that the discrimination imposed by the DOMA is deeply felt, but it is nowhere more wounding than in their very homes. Unless the concept of equal rights has meaning there, it has little meaning anywhere.

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights Seattle gay groups gay marriage

Labels: marriage equality

The Washington State Supreme Court decision is online here.

[Post includes multiple updates]
The Court ruled that the state's so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is constitutional -- that it's OK to grant special rights to only a portion of the population.

The decision was written by Justice Barbara A. Madsen, Justices Alexander and Johnson concurred. There are three dissenting opinions.

"Here, the solid body of constitutional law disfavors the conclusion that there is a right to marry a person of the same sex," the decision states.

Madsen concludes

...DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.

Madsen's plurality decision recognizes that the plaintiffs in the case showed hardship for their clients, but argues that it wasn't in the Court's mandate to do anything about that.

[W]e note that the record is replete with examples as to how the definition of marriage negatively impacts gay and lesbian couples and their children. The plaintiffs and their amici have clearly demonstrated that many day-to-day decisions that are routine for married couples are more complex, more agonizing, and more costly for same-sex couples, unlike married couples who automatically have
the advantages and rights provided to them in a myriad of laws and policies
such as those surrounding medical conditions..., probate..., and health insurance....

She does, however, urge the legislature to do something about those inequalities:

[G]iven the clear hardship faced by same sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the legislature may want to reexamine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights Seattle gay groups gay marriage

Labels: marriage equality

After an interminable wait, the Washington Supreme Court will finally reveal tomorrow morning if it takes the notion of equal rights seriously. It's not been a good month for these kinds of decision -- especially after New York's high court decided that the financial and contractual rights granted to married couple are special rights that can be enjoyed only by het couples.

There have been too many predictions about the Washington supremes to worry about at this point. We'll know tomorrow morning.

Whatever the decision, a number of LGBTQ groups are prepared to gather tomorrow throughout the state to mark the long-delayed ruling.

Equal Rights Washington has provided a list of statewide events in a press release:

(We've slightly obfuscated the email addresses. Substitute "@" for "[at]".)

[Updated Wednesday]

Seattle: LGBT and allied community gathering in Seattle from 5:30pm-6:45pm at Seattle 1st Baptist Church, 1111 Harvard Avenue. Organized by DontAmend.com-WA, ACLU-WA, NW Women?s Law Center, and Lambda Legal, and co-sponsored by several other organizations, including ERW.

Seattle: Evening Worship Service at 7:00 pm at Seattle 1st Baptist Church, 1111 Harvard Avenue. Organized by the Religious Coalition for Equality. All are welcome.

Tacoma: Gathering at 6:00 pm at the University of Washington Tacoma at Mattress Factory 107 located off of S. 21st and C Street. Food, drink, music and FUN will be provided. To learn more or to add your organization to the South Sound Marriage Equality Partnership email info[at]tuffpierce.org or call the Rainbow Center at 253-383-2318.

Olympia: Gathering at 5:30 pm, at Ramblin Jack's restaurant, 520 East 4th Avenue. For more information, contact WA State Now president Teresa Sykora Lovaas at 360-259-6136 or njdevilsfan[at]comcast.net

Bellingham: Gathering at 5:30 pm at Taco Lobo (corner of Magnolia and Commercial) in downtown Bellingham. Contact Sue Anderson 360-305-2205.

Spokane: Inland Northwest Equality (INWE) will hold a gathering at 5:00 pm in front of the Federal Courthouse, 920 W Riverside in Spokane. Contact David Hopkins at the Pride Foundation, david[at]pridefoundation.org, or Brooke Powers at Inland NW Equality, brooke.pjals[at]gmail.com.

Yakima: Gathering at 7:00 pm at the MCC Rainbow Cathedral, 225 North 2nd Street, Yakima. Contact Rev. Jane Newall, TheRevJane[at]juno.com.

Vancouver, WA:Gathering at 3:00 pm at Esther Short Park, West Columbia St. @ 8th in downtown Vancouver. Contact Micheil MacCutcheon at 503-330-5438 or macmicheil[at]yahoo.com or Deb Needham at 503-351-7275 or debneedham[at]hotmail.com.

Bremerton: OutKitsap is planning a strategy session at 5:00 pm at Simon August, 1100 Perry, Manatte. Contact Linda Henderson at lhenderson[at]silverlink.net

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights Seattle gay groups gay marriage

Labels: marriage equality

The PI yesterday called a tiff that arose between Stranger editor Dan Savage and 43rd District Legislative candidate Jamie Pedersen a "teapot tempest."

Maybe, but then the Slog where it all started last Sunday is -- at least by our limited local blog standards -- a pretty big teapot that was only made bigger by the PI's story.

The PI reporter, Chris McGann, called the tiff

a window into the complex world of gay politics in Seattle [that] reflects the power wielded by a man known as much for his explicit sex advice as for his iconoclastic punditry and journalism.

The whole contretemps is summarized briefly and adequately by the professional association of which Savage's paper is a part.

But, hey, if you have a moment on your holiday weekend while waiting for shower bands to pass by , why not take a look at the storm clouds in that odd teapot. (And, of course, it might help to have a few beers so that you'll be drunk enough to care about any of this -- like Savage, who might have been joking, claimed he was when he wrote the original post.)

In his original post, Savage [who might or might not have been drunk] complained that campaign workers wearing "Vote for Pedersen" t-shirts were offering sign-up clipboards at the U-District Street Fair last week that Savage mistook for initiative sign-up sheets.

The young volunteer, looking so very earnest, asked us if we supported marriage equality. Sure, we support marriage equality. Then we should sign, she said.

Savage was offended by what he took to be a critique of the other candidates in the race

Uh, Jamie? Don't you think that's dishonest? Don't all the candidates running to fill Murray's seat -- Stephanie Pure, Dick Kelley, Lynne Dodson, Bill Sherman, et all -- support marriage equality?

When I asked one of Pederson's volunteers if any of Jamie's opponents were against marriage equality, she said she didn't know for sure -- "but probably not," she added. When I asked why she was out there trying to create the impression that the other candidates in the race were opponents of marriage equality, she said, "To get your attention!" Well, it worked. You got my atttention, Jamie -- and lost my vote.

Way to be a weasel, Pederson.

A former Seattleite now blogging from DC offers this advice on the tiff:

I don't think that a volunteer stating that the gay candidate is a better advocate for our rights that the five straight candidates -- even if their stand on the issues is the same -- makes the candidate a weasel. Would you rather have someone that understands the issue on a personal level fighting for you, or someone that only understands it on a philosophical level? Dan, take a breath. This isn't an issue worth our time and, from my experience in Seattle's gay community, this is going to take up a lot of it.

A "centrist" blogger who tries to handicap hot races like this one in the 43rd is willing to call this whole thing a "mini-scandal":

[Pedersen's] recent clash with Dan Savage over campaign tactics forced the campaign to take a step back. I'm reasonably certain that Pedersen is still the race's favorite, but his lead is vulnerable in comparison to prior to this mini-scandal hiccup.

Although Savage wrote in the original post, "You got my attention, Jamie -- and lost my vote,", a later clarification by Savage in the Slog makes it clear that the issue is way more complicated than that. It's clear that there's a history here.

Savage's clarification suggests that Pedersen had lost his vote long ago -- probably as long ago as March, 2004 when The Seattle Times ran a story about the lawsuit that was then being filed to challenge the state ban on equal marriage rights.

According to that story by reporter Bob Young, Savage had played an unexpectedly key role in the timing of the suit that Pedersen had been working on with other marriage-rights advocates and King County Executive Ron Sims. Pedersen was lead attorney at the time for Lambda Legal which was preparing the suit. (The suit has been under Godot-like consideration by the state supreme court for over a year.)

According to the Times, Sims and others planning legal strategy for the suit became worried when Savage, his partner, and two other Stranger staffers showed up at a county office and asked for marriage licences.

Sims' spokeswoman Elaine Kraft confirmed that key people were worried about Savage.

"There was always that concern that a case would be brought," she said, "and Executive Sims' thinking was that the best possible case should be brought forward to question the law."

And soon.

"He said, 'Look, this is the optimum time to move forward. We could either wait for the perfect case or move with what we've got.' He urged them along," said Kraft.

That set off a scramble over the weekend, which led to Sims meeting Sunday with six gay Seattle couples who had been recommended by the Northwest Women's Law Center.

In the March 11, 2004 Stranger issue which came out the week after Sims and the "key people" worked to put together the legal challenge, Savage wrote an article explaining that they'd been wrong about his intentions. He seemed to be particularly irked that the Times reporter had used the word "blame" in his story.

If Sims and Pedersen want to blame me for forcing them to actually do something, fine. I accept the blame. However, let the record show that it was never my intention to sue the county, as they told the Seattle Times. Yes, it's true I obtained a marriage license. But I wasn't planning to make myself the center of a lawsuit.

He explains that the Stranger crew who showed up near closing time at the licencing office were there "[t]o make a point about the absurdity of our state's marriage laws."

Savage says in one of last week's comments to his clarification post

I suppose that the slimy, untrue things Pedersen said to the Seattle Times about me and my family way, way, way back when would incline me to view him as a bit of a weasel. But it doesn't help his case when he acts like a weasel.

He doesn't specify what those "slimy untrue things" might have been, but maybe he's still peeved about this quotation from Pedersen in that long-ago story:

"No offense to Dan, he is a very important voice. But what lawyers look for are people who want to achieve the ends of the lawsuit but don't have a different agenda. Dan has a newspaper. He has an interest in publicity," said Pedersen.

Except, of course, that there's nothing untrue about any of that. His is "an important voice," and he does have a newspaper, and the frequently book-touring Savage certainly "has an interest in publicity."

Maybe there was a lot more going on here than what made it into Bob Smith's story in the Times because Savage was still getting worked up over the story and its quotations last week:

According to Pedersen, I was rushing to the courthouse because I had "an interest in publicity." Since I wasn't a good test case, my vanity lawsuit -- which existed only in Pedersen's imagination -- was likely to fail. But I was, according to Pedersen, willing to risk blowing gay marriage rights for all gay couples in Washington State just to quench my feverish thirst for publicity.

None of this was true -- hell, Pedersen's statements were borderline slanderous. Maybe if I had sued him then I wouldn't have to clarify this now.

"Borderline slanderous?" Come now.

Pedersen, Sims, and those unnamed "key people" involved in the marriage rights case clearly didn't understand the nature of the Stranger-sponsored stunt in days immediately after the paper's staffers showed up at the license office and days before the next issue of Savage's paper would hit the streets. They misinterpreted it.

But Smith's story in the Times doesn't quote anyone as telling him that Savage planned to sue. The story says that advocates and Sims worried that Savage and the Stranger might sue. And that's now called "slanderous"?

And yes, trying to unravel this is a bit like trying to explain a plot element in Desperate Housewives, and probably just as significant, but at least it gives a different slant on the candidate than what was presented a few months ago in a Stranger profile of Pedersen by Stranger writer Eli Sanders.

Sanders ends that profile with some whispered criticism of Pedersen:

The knock on Pedersen is that he's too well scrubbed for the 43rd. A self-described "Eagle Scout lawyer," Pedersen is an earnest man with a first-rate legal mind, a clear commitment to social justice, and a pure-as-the-driven-snow sincerity. But his detractors whisper that he comes across as too milquetoast and has a confidence in his own understanding of issues that can at times make him politically tone-deaf.

Sanders follows that paragraph with a quote from Ed Murray who has said he won't endorse any of those running for the seat he's leaving, but which makes it sound like Murray might be one of Pedersen's whispering detractors:

"If you look at the people who have won in the 43rd District over the years, you've got to have an edge," Murray says. "You're not going to do it if you're just soft and fuzzy."

That reads like a suggestion from Murray, who is anything but cute and boyish, thinks that Pedersen is just too darn cute and boyish to really represent the 43rd. (Unfortunately, the quoted comment pretty much ignores Cal Anderson's nice, cute, boyish charm which nonetheless helped him become a 43rd District legend.)

But this whole little tiff tells us that Pedersen might, at least, "have an edge."

Tags: Washington politics, Seattle, Seattle politics, Dan Savage, Jamie Pedersen

Labels: legislature, marriage equality, politics

As everyone who cares about the issue waits and waits for the state Supreme Court to abandon its Godot act and finally announce its long delayed decision on a group of gay marriage cases, supporters of equality for all will march and rally in Seattle on March 11 during the Second Annual March for Marriage Equality.

The march starts at noon from Seattle Central Community College [get directions] on Capitol Hill and flows downhill to Westlake Park [get directions]. A number of speakers and some music will be featured during the rally at Westlake Park.

And hey, while you're down there, you might even consider showing your faith and/or hope in the wisdom of Washington's justices by setting up a wedding registry. You'd be right in the midst of it all, after all. You could just wander next door to Nordstrom, The Bon (currently disguised under the dreadful name "macy's"), or even down the street to Bed Bath and Beyond.

The event is sponsored by Marriage Equality Now, Equal Rights Washington, Legal Marriage Alliance of WA, QLaw, Action NW, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, PFLAG Bellevue/Eastside, and Seattle Gay News.

Technorati tags: Washington politics Equal rights Seattle gay groups gay marriage

Labels: marriage equality

On the day after Brokeback Mountain and actors portraying other queer characters ruled the Goldon Globe awards, the Indianapolis Star finds a real-life couple that lived a similar, but initially less tragic story. [The Star story comes to us via Towleroad]

The Star talked to Sam Beaumont, a 61 year-old Oklahoma rancher who raised three children with his partner, Earl Meadows, on a small Oklahoma spread, just like the character Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain yearned to do.

"Listen," the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. "I'm thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together -- little cow and calf operation, your horses -- it'd be some sweet life."

That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. "I was raised to be independent. I didn't really care what other people thought," Beaumont said.
...
"As far as I was concerned, I had two dads," said one of Beaumont's sons, now 33, who requested anonymity. He was 2 years old when Meadows joined the family.

"Dad helped with schoolwork and all the stuff around the house, taught me to ride horses and milk cows. Earl used to take me to the company picnics and Christmas parties. He bought me my first car."
...

"People treated them fine," said Eunice Lawson, who runs a grocery store in Bristow.

But even though he and Meadows actually lived the kind of life that Brokeback's Jack Twist could only dream about, his story turns tragic in a different way for Beaumont.

Meadows suffered a stroke and died after a year of care by Beaumont. The ranch where they had lived had remained in Meadows name.

After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn't recognize domestic partnerships.

Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.

The judge ruled that Beaumont had to sell the ranch whose value was less than the amount he'd put into it over the years. The paltry proceeds from the sale will be divided among dozens of cousins who are, by OK law, the closest living relatives to Meadows. The cousins are even trying to make Beaumont pay back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.

This story becomes particularly touching because Washington's Supreme Court is soon expected to issue its long-anticipated ruling on two cases that challenge the constitutionality of state rules here against same-sex marriage or civil union that could result in a similar situation in this state.
Technorati tags: Gay marriage Movies Brokeback Mountain "brokebackmountain"

Labels: marriage equality

Here are a few of the news items that have been posted about the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference that has attracted about 200 participants this weekend in Seattle.

Governor supports anti-discrimination bill, but still won't comment on gay marriage issue

Washington governor Christine Gregoire became the first sitting governor to address the group in its 21-year history when she spoke friday.

Gregoire said she believes in equality for everyone, but she deferred to the courts when asked whether equality was tantamount to marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

"I hope the court rules soon," Gregoire said. "I'll let the courts make the ruling; as a former lawyer, I'm going to respect the court's timeliness, and I'm going to respect the decision that they reach. ... We need to ensure that everyone in the state of Washington is treated with respect and gets equality."
...
On the civil rights bill, Gregoire vowed unequivocal support.

"We still have a need to move forward," Gregoire said. "It's beyond me that we have fought for 30 years for an anti-discrimination bill and have failed. But at least in this last legislative session, as trite as this may seem, we got a vote. The fact that we got a vote and people had to stand up and take a vote was a significant point of progress in this state."

Governor urges group "Don't ever give up"

"I come to you today to say, 'don't you ever give up,' " Gov. Gregoire told the group.

"The governor carries a lot of weight when she stands up there and says, 'I believe in what you're doing. I believe in you as public officials and I can't imagine that you don't have equality in your jurisdiction, or throughout the country or in the State of Washington,' " said Chuck Wolfe, President of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute.

The governor says she never hesitated to speak here.

"How could anyone not go before these public servants who've decided to dedicate their lives to public service to say thank you for what they are doing and to say this country, my family embraces the same principals you do and that is and that is equality," said Governor Gregoire.

Paynter: Gregoire is wise to address leadership group

By being there with [gay and lesbian officials], Gregoire is saying that she recognizes the importance of those officials and the other leaders, Congress members, state administrators, mayors and city council members from every state and Canada at the conference. They're also here from Germany, Sri Lanka, England and New Zealand.

But the governor's presence also acknowledges the importance of the broad struggle for equal rights. And, even as Gregoire speaks this morning, a key part of that struggle rests in the hands of the Washington Supreme Court. Any Thursday now, the court will decide for or against same-sex marriage. And that's one issue Gregoire did not stand up for when she ran for office.

Conference offers a "coming-out toolkit"

A package of materials will be available to the 200 or so officials and executives attending the conference which will probably be most useful to friends and associates who couldn't bring themselves to attend the event.

It's a video guide with testimonials from gay elected officials -- part of an effort by supporters to encourage closeted gay officials to be candid about their sexuality.

Organizers say that's important because the present numbers don't reflect reality. Thirty years after the first openly gay person was elected to office in Massachusetts, only 305 are helping to shape policy at local, state and national levels. That's a fraction of the more than 511,000 people elected and appointed to public office at those levels nationwide, organizers say.

View a trailer of the video here.

Technorati tags: Gay Gay politics Seattle Gay Events Seattle

Labels: marriage equality

SEAMEC has announced six endorsements of candidates in the September 20 primary election along with another 11 candidates candidates who received top ratings from the group.

After a series of interviews, SEAMEC (Seattle Municipal Elections Committee) gives top ratings to challengers and incumbents in an election who bring outstanding records of advocacy for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and/or who demonstrate an impressive depth of knowledge and commitment to LGBT issues in their interview. Endorsements are given in a handful of strategic races.

These top rated candidates are listed below with endorsed candidates listed in blue.:

• Ron Sims, King County Executive, for his sterling advocacy of marriage equality for same-sex couples and leadership on Equal Benefit Ordinances promoting domestic-partner benefits. (5, AAAAA)


• Dow Constantine and Larry Gossett, King County Council members, for their strong support of the county's policy to promote domestic-partner benefits among the county's major contractors. They also co-sponsored non-discrimination legislation for transgender residents in unincorporated King County. (Constantine and Gossett: both 5, AAAAA).


• Lloyd Hara, Port of Seattle candidate, who has a long detailed history of outstanding support for our communities issues going back well over 25 years, including the original gay marriage case (Singer v. Hara) from the 1970s. (5, AAAAA).


• Greg Schmidt, King County Sheriff Candidate, for his knowledge of and commitment to LGBT issues (4, AAAAA).


• Lawrence Molloy, Port of Seattle commissioner, who championed an Equal Benefits Ordinance for domestic-partner benefits, gave an inaugurations speech emphasizing LGBT rights, and who helped create Port Pride organization. (5, BBBBB).


• Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council member, for his knowledge of and commitment to LGBT issues (4, AAAAA).


• Linda Averill, Seattle City Council candidate, for her advocacy of LGBT co-workers and at the King County Labor Council (5, BABAA).


• Cindi Laws, Seattle Monorail board member, for her advocacy of LGBT non-discrimination and domestic-partner benefits at the monorail and its contractors (5, AAABA).


• Geni Hawkins, King County Council candidate, for her knowledge of and commitment to LGBT issues (4, AAAAA). She is challenging incumbent Peter Von Reichbauer, who was rated resistant (1) on LGBT issues.


• Terry Jurado, Renton Municipal Court judge, for his outstanding knowledge and commitment to LGBT issues.

Although they did not receive top ratings, SEAMEC also endorsed King County council member Jane Hague and Seattle School Board candidate Cheryl Chow.

Hague was the sole Republican on the King County Council to vote in favor of the Equal Benefits Ordinance in support of domestic-partner benefits.

Chow demonstrated strong support for LGBT issues when she served on the Seattle City Council, and has been a champion for LGBT issues in her positions of leadership as an employee of the Seattle School District.

Downgrades

On the other hand, Port Commissioner Pat Davis and several Republican members of the King County Council were downgraded to a "2" (needs improvement) for having voted against the Equal Benefits Ordinance during their most recent term in office.

Interview process

Over the last two months, dozens of SEAMEC community volunteers conducted face-to-face interviews of nearly an hour each with over 50 primary election candidates. SEAMEC interviewed school board, city council (Seattle, Burien, and Kent), mayoral, monorail, King County council, county executive, sheriff, and port candidates, as well as one judge.

Interviewers ask 25 questions divided into five categories: equality and governance; youth and elder issues; LGBT families; health and safety; and awareness. For a complete listing of letter grades, numerical ratings, and endorsements, go to http://www.seamec.org/. Comments may be sent to seamec@seamec.org.

Overview

SEAMEC noted that "The summer interviews yielded some particularly interesting results.

"Several candidates said that if their spouse underwent sexual-reassignment surgery, they would likely stay together in a same-sex marriage.

"There are no openly gay, lesbian or transgender candidates on the primary ballot," SEAMEC noted. "One candidate publicly identifies as bisexual. A number of candidates indicated they have family members who are gay or lesbian."

SEAMEC does not give "affirmative action" credit to openly LGBT candidates or those with LGBT family members.

SEAMEC's interviewers noted that an overwhelming majority of those interviewed support marriage equality for same-sex couples over a lesser "civil unions" scheme.

SEAMEC's endorsement summary notes "The Washington State Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on marriage equality within the next few months. The state of Massachusetts, along with four countries, currently allows both same-sex and mixed-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

"Vermont and Connecticut offer inferior 'civil unions' to same-sex couples only,which do not offer federal benefits such as tax relief or Social Security survivor benefits."

Over 90% of incumbents and candidates indicated that transgender youth should be able to use the public bathrooms of the gender they most closely identify with, SEAMEC stated.

For more information go to http://www.seamec.org/.

Technorati tags: Seattle King County Seattle election election ratings SEAMEC

Labels: marriage equality