WA State gets Domestic Partnerships with all the rights of marriage but the name

[FreeState]

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/kir/news/43072067.html

Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill passes; Governor expected to sign

Expanding domestic partner rights first granted in 2007, the Washington State House of Representatives voted April 15 to pass into law additional rights for domestic partnerships.

The bill, which adds hundreds of rights and responsibilities to current law, passed the house on a 62-35 vote. The vote follows a 30-18 in the state Senate several weeks ago. Local representatives Deb Eddy, Ross Hunter, Larry Springer and Roger Goodman all supported the measure. The bill now heads to Governor Christine Gregoire's desk for a signature.

One of the chief sponsors of the bill, Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle), is the highest-ranking openly gay elected official in the state. Arguing in favor of the bill last month, he urged legislators to extend the rights of heterosexual married couples to domestic partnerships, which are not defined by sexual orientation.

"Though our passions may be strained, they must not break the bonds of affections," he said, quoting US President Abraham Lincoln. "He hoped that chord would appeal to the better angels of our nature."

----

Yeah for my home state!

Now its time to get the same rights under the same laws!

[Athelwulf]

1. Great! Now, are there enough votes for MARRIAGE?

Those are impressive majorities. 63.92% of votes in the House and 62.5% in the Senate were for the bill. Surely this means a repeal of the statutory ban on same-sex marriage is very doable. But I don't know Washington very well. Could someone fill me in on the realities on the ground?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Of course not

Our state legislature is dominated by Democrats, ie people who want to curry both the gay vote ("See? We support your rights!") and the bigots ("Segregated non-marriage now, segregated non-marriage forever!")

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. STATUTORY rights, not ALL rights. There is a fundamental difference

This law will do nothing about common law, ie the body of court precedent and judicial rulings. Those cannot be touched or altered by legislation; only the courts can alter this. By the nature of the US system of common law, it will take many years even in ideal circumstances for this to change, and even then it will be piecemeal. Further, because this is a Jim Crow "not-marriage," it will have no standing whatsoever outside of the state nor at the federal level, even if the federal "Defense" of Marriage Act were fully repealed tomorrow.

At best, this is a hollow, merely symbolic victory.

[tbyg52]

4. Sorry to hear that. Equal rights are equal rights, period. nt

[Toasterlad]

5. Proving Once Again That Separate But Equal is NOT Equality.

Everytime I hear someone, like, say, the President of the United States say, "gay people deserve all the rights of straight people. That's why there should be civil unions", it completely blows my mind. You can call it domestic partnership, civil unions, fuck-buddy legislation, whatever: it all boils down to the same thing: Separate but Equal. It's complete horseshit.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

6. Yeah, well....

he has to pander to all those fundies who elected him:sarcasm: