Written by I am happy to see that the state legislature is close to adopting a domestic partnership law. The law will recognize same-sex domestic partners in committed relationships, and give domestic partners a wide range of rights, privileges, and responsibilities previously associated only with marriage.
I’m in favor of this, because I feel everyone deserves to have a partner that will share in their successes, and care for and protect them in times of crisis. No one should have to go through this life alone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Many of the provisions of the law are rights that most of us take for granted, such as having the person closest to us able to stay by our side in the hospital. Without this law, same-sex partners have found themselves limited to short visits, and treated like non-family members.
Additionally, the new law will allow the recognized domestic partner to give medical consent if their partner is unable. Today, hospitals with an unmarried and unconscious adult patient will try to locate next-of-kin, tracking down a patient’s siblings or children, then sort through complicated familial relationships, to obtain approvals. If the patient’s committed life partner is sitting out in the waiting room, this makes no sense. And it puts the life-partner in a cruel and fearful position; even though they may have the most intimate understanding of their partner’s life and wishes, and the most to lose in a medical emergency, they are unrecognized as an advocate, and treated as less important than far-away blood relatives.
The new law will also remedy problems and confusion in inheritance procedures when there is no will. Today, domestic partners that have set up a home together can lose all or part of it to their partner’s relatives if their partner dies. This can create fear and uncertainty during times of crisis, which is very difficult for loved ones and is contrary to the state’s desire to keep the peace. With the new domestic partnership law, same-sex partners will make an official public commitment, at a time when they are of sound mind, regarding who they chose to care for them and their estate. At the time of committing to the partnership, and not in a hospital crisis, they can resolve financial questions with siblings and children.
I’ve personally known wonderful people that have been caught up in all of these predicaments, and none of them deserved the way life unfolded for them. I am very glad that Washington state is joining with a rapidly growing legion of other states and nations around the world to resolve these issues.
The world has many problems that can only be solved by everyone pulling together. And we need all our citizens to be at their most productive in order to meet these challenges. This new law is going to help.
Randy Corman
Local News: Friday, March 02, 2007
Domestic partnerships likely a done deal in state
By Andrew Garber and Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporters
OLYMPIA — A domestic-partnership bill for gay and lesbian couples appears headed for state law, but supporters say their ultimate goal — same-sex marriage — is likely years away.
The state Senate on Thursday passed the measure by a 28-19 vote after a heated debate that boiled over when a Republican senator made references to bestiality and necrophilia.
The bill is expected to easily pass the House, though it’s not clear when it will come up for a vote. Gov. Christine Gregoire has said she supports the measure.
The legislation would give gay and lesbian couples the right to visit a partner in the hospital, inherit the partner’s property without a will and make funeral arrangements, among other things. That right also would be extended to unmarried heterosexuals in which at least one partner is 62 or older.
Who could qualify
Partners must:
• Be part of a same-sex couple,
or if in a heterosexual partnership, one person must be at least 62.
• Share a residence.
• Be at least 18.
• Not be married to another person or in a domestic partnership with anyone else.
• Be capable of consenting.
• Not be blood relations.
Supporters say older heterosexuals were included because they face the possibility of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry.
Currently, three states, plus the District of Columbia, have domestic partnerships or similar provisions, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, a national gay- and lesbian-advocacy group. One state, Massachusetts, allows same-sex marriage; three others allow civil unions.
Advocates see the domestic-partnership bill as a step to gay marriage. However, the lead sponsor of Senate Bill 5336, Sen. Ed Murray, says that’s not likely to happen soon.
A coalition of gay lawmakers in the state House and Senate introduced legislation this session that would allow gay marriage, but it died in committee.
What the bill allows
The bill would allow partners to:
• Have the same hospital-visitation rights as a spouse.
• Give consent for health care if a partner isn’t competent.
• Inherit property when there is no will.
• Administer a partner’s estate when there is no will.
• Authorize organ and tissue donation.
• Make burial and other arrangements after a partner’s death.
Source: Washington state Legislature
“We’ll keep coming back, and keep telling the story and hope people go ‘Geez, let’s just get it over with, let’s pass marriage,’ ” Murray, D-Seattle, said after Thursday’s vote.
Josh Friedes, advocacy director for Equal Rights Washington, thinks extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples can happen within five years.
“It depends on whether the gay and lesbian community is able to keep up its momentum and continue to do the education work it’s doing,” he said. “It depends on who is in elected office in the Legislature and who is the governor.”
Conservative groups opposed to gay marriage and the domestic-partnership bill said they were disappointed by the Senate vote. But it’s not clear whether they’ll try to challenge the legislation at the ballot if it becomes law.
“I think the support is there, but I don’t know if we can translate it into signatures” to get a referendum on the ballot, said Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network.
A referendum last year to overturn a gay-rights law passed by the Legislature failed to attract enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
The bill that passed Thursday 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.
Hugh Spitzer, a Seattle attorney and gay-marriage advocate, has said a state Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld the ban on gay marriage also cleared the way for a domestic-partnership law that covers only gays and older heterosexuals.
In essence, Spitzer said, the justices said “the Legislature can do what it wants” when it comes to marriage and domestic partnerships.
During Thursday’s Senate debate, opponents said the bill threatened the sanctity of marriage.
“Call it what you want, but this bill is absolutely conferring rights that are reserved for married couples,” said Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver.
Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, said, “This bill is not about equal rights, it is about changing society in ways that will ultimately harm it.”
Stevens then launched into comments about last year’s bill that banned discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Murray jumped to his feet and objected when Stevens recalled that she tried to amend the gay-rights bill to exempt “societal-destroying practices” such as bestiality and necrophilia.
“Citizens of this state should not be described in those derogatory terms,” Murray said. “She’s not speaking to the bill.”
Murray spoke at length, quoting James Madison, the fourth U.S. president, and the Declaration of Independence.
He tried to get lawmakers to understand why he believes the law should be approved. “Imagine for a moment your spouse is in the hospital and dying, and you could not go into your spouse’s room and hold her hand,” he said. “This bill will do the work of justice and end that hurt.”
Murray noted that the state Legislature in 1998 passed a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, banning gay marriage. “You have prevented us from marrying,” he said. “Please do not prevent us from caring for each other.”
After an emotional hourlong debate, the measure passed easily.
Four conservative Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam; Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond; Marilyn Rasmussen, D-Eatonville; and Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch.
Rasmussen said the bill should provide domestic-partnership benefits to anyone who cares for others, including grandparents and siblings.
“Why can’t it be for everyone?” she asked.
One Republican, Dale Brandland, of Bellingham, voted for the bill.
The final vote was almost anticlimactic compared with last year’s gay-rights legislation, which took 29 years to get through the Legislature.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said it was easier to get the domestic-partnership bill passed for one reason: a much larger majority in the state Senate.
Democrats picked up six seats in November, giving the party a 32-to-17 majority. That allowed them to lose the four Democratic votes and still easily pass the bill. Two lawmakers didn’t vote on the measure.
Murray said he hopes, once the law is passed, that lawmakers will get used to the idea of gays and lesbians having these rights and move the debate toward extending the right to marry.
But that won’t be easy, he said.
“It’s very clear there are people willing to go much further than we went today, but are not willing to remove DOMA,” he said, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Associated Press contributed to this story. Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com
Recent Comments