The House is currently debating the domestic partnerships bill, SB 5336.
Watch live on TVW.
UPDATE: The bill passed on a nearly party-line 63-35.
As I've said before, the artful compromise would be to make domestic partnerships available to any two adults who aren't otherwise married and want to form a durable household, and without explicit recognition that such partnerships might be sexual. That probably could have passed quietly and easily and ensured that everybody got the economic rights they said they wanted. Instead, the bill was designed to be about extending government's blessings to loving couples, which is neither necessary, nor something that most people are ready for, yet will ensure that this issue remains a political football over which reasonable discussions of other issues will be held hostage for years to come.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 10, 2007 04:55 PM | Email ThisSo if I read this bill correctly, all I have to do is to get a same sex partner, file with the SecState and bingo...all the rights. And if I want to disolve...again, file a paper and bingo.
But if I have a opposite sex partner and want to marry, I need a marriage license before I can do things, and to disolve I need a legal proceeding called divorce. Hmmm, where's the fairness in that and where do the lawyers make money :-)
Might make the option of marriage unthinkable for the senior set.
Posted by: Old Faithful on April 10, 2007 05:56 PMJust because this Bill passes, doesn't mean they are not sexual deviants.
Posted by: aaargh on April 10, 2007 06:33 PMFrankly, the whole matter is flippant. Marriage is a lot of hard work. And it is far more about shared values and an eye on the long term goal of commitment and a good structure for children than anything else. Even many heterosexual couples get this way wrong.
WOW that will help the already broke State Pension Plan.
Posted by: GS on April 10, 2007 07:51 PMTrial lawyers and ACLU rule this session, have you not heard? There will be no law banning frivolous lawsuits either. By time this Legislature gets done all sense of morals will be gone. Anyone voting another democrat into state office is either a socialist or a communist. Even moral democrats are astounded at what is going on!
There are things to be said about a tied (grid-locked) House and Senate in Washington State!
Posted by: Old Sgt on April 10, 2007 07:57 PMDP's don't get any federal rights, like SS, VA, etc. What is included in the new arrangement are things like hospital visitation, medical decision making, inheritance, etc. Private companies could choose to recognize them though it is not required.
What would be the easiest though would be to just allow gay marriage.
Posted by: Giffy on April 10, 2007 08:31 PMJust commenting on the statement, sparked by the gay/lesbian marriage issue: "anyone voting another democrat into office. .. is either a socialist or a communist."
I'd like to point out that communists particularly tend to be virulently anti-gay. Castro puts gays away in prison. I believe that gays (specifically) went to prison in Communist China. You cannot today get into the Revolutionary Communist Party if you are an out gay. The Communist Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party banned gays into the mid 70s.
My position as a conservative is if the state gives one couple--male and female, a subsidy that will help it over the course of its lifetime in many wonderful ways, it should also give the other couple, male and male or female and female, the same exact subsidy.
Cheers, NLC#1
Ha! :-)
Posted by: Timothy on April 10, 2007 11:04 PMIt will not survive a referendum which is surely coming down the pike.
No amount of gay money or political organizing will save this turkey.
And it could cost Gregoire her re-election bid in 2008.
Sorry Dems., you just stepped in shit, bad law as it is very unbalanced/unfair, and society is a generation away from dealing squarely with gay marriage. Some changes in society are slow and slower.....as in the case of moving to allow gay marriage.
Posted by: jason the infrequent poster on April 11, 2007 12:04 AMAnd Jason, kid of like the civil rights bill last year right. A majority of Americans support Civil Unions and Washington is a bit more socially liberal then the rest of the Country. Not even mentioning that this bill is far from civil unions. Should it have included younger hetros, sure, but there were reasons not too at the time.
Posted by: Giffy on April 11, 2007 06:49 AMThen look for the state to claim that insurance costs are out of sight and need to be regulated by the state, which will then lead to a single-payer system by the state.
The OIC has been trying to implement plans for single-payer systems for several years starting with Deborah Senn and continuing with Mike Kreidler. If anyone pays attention to his speeches, you will see he is nothing more than a socialist bent on government control of everything.
Posted by: Ken on April 11, 2007 08:12 AMdoes your cat have papers. LOL
Another dumb idea from the libs.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 11, 2007 09:27 AMThanks for the clarification on multiple marriages to multiple partners of multiple sexes.
I am sure that is what the Bill sponsor's and the Governor intended.
The multiple species amendment will have to be Oemig's top priority for the next session.
Posted by: Huh? on April 11, 2007 10:35 AM