Gay Marriage | Jamie Pedersen | News | Washington

Washington Legislature Votes to Expand Domestic Partner Rights

A bill proposed by openly gay Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, extending 170 new rights to domestic partners in Washington State, passed the state senate by a vote of 29-20 Tuesday:

Justregistered"The bill grants same-sex couples additional rights -- including the ability to share bank accounts, the right to hold common property and immunity from testifying against one's partner in court. Divorce rights -- including child-custody provisions -- were also granted. The measure now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law. Republicans decried the bill for whittling away at the institution of marriage, saying the deterioration of marriage between a man and a woman would lead to a rise in crime, juvenile delinquency and parents working long hours."

The expansion of rights is seen as a step toward full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Gay couples win new rights in bill [seattle post intelligencer]

Previously
Washington State Domestic Partner Law Takes Effect [tr]
Somehow, "Just Registered" Doesn't Have the Same Ring To It [tr]
Gay Rights Champ Pedersen Wins Key Seattle House Race [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I applaud this next incremental step but isn't it absolutely ridiculous that in 2008 they have to pass a NEW law to give gay couples the right to share a bank account and to own common property together. Aren't ANY two people allowed to do that anyway? If not they should be.

    Just like in California, gay couples will be granted the responsibilities and burdens of coupledom (those things that make them financially responsible to each other and to their children, relieving the state of having to dole out) LONG before they are given the rights, priviledges and benefits. That actually leaves gay couples even MORE vulnerable than they were before because they then have additional responsibilities without the benefits that married couples have to offset the responsibilities.

    Another example of this will come at the Federal level. Gays will be "allowed" to serve in the military, and be eligible to be drafted (men), to fight for rights and benefits that they are denied, long before we are given the rights and priviledges of citizenship that we will be expected to fight and die for. 80%+ of Americans believe we should be allowed to serve in the military but less than 40% believe we should get equal marriage rights. What message should we be receiving from that?

    It is so damned infuriating.

    Posted by: Zeke | Mar 5, 2008 10:21:09 AM


  2. "Republicans decried the bill for whittling away at the institution of marriage, saying the deterioration of marriage between a man and a woman would lead to a rise in crime, juvenile delinquency and parents working long hours."

    Rather than just spouting off, those who make these ridiculous claims should be compelled to explain in detail how granting marriage rights to gays is suddenly going to make heterosexuals no longer want to get married, or how any of this even relates to crime, juvenile delinquency and parents working long hours.

    Posted by: RJ | Mar 5, 2008 12:49:14 PM


  3. Wow, this legislation really flew under the radar.

    The Democrats must have attached it to the agenda at the midnight hour.

    In any case, I applaud Washington lawmakers and Gov. Gregoire for expanding WA domestic partnerships to become more in line with the comprehensive programs in Oregon and California. I certainly regard any progress as better than all-or-nothing.

    And I'm glad to see that West Coast politicians are still pragmatic enough to make meaningful compromises. Until the public's ready to embrace same-sex marriage completely (and that seems to be the trajectory out West), this is fine as a stop-gap measure.

    Posted by: John | Mar 6, 2008 2:27:24 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Mario Lopez Hopes to be a Singular Sensation in A Chorus Line« «