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)