Washington may expand partnerships
February 2, 2009
By J.B. Wogan
Dana Alixander (left) and Sage Alixander hold up their marriage certificate from California. Contributed
Legislature considers full marriage rights for gay couples
Dana and Sage Alixander were married in California in August 2008. In Washington, where same-sex marriage is not recognized, they are considered “domestic partners.” But, by this summer, they could have the same rights as other married couples in their Sammamish neighborhood.
Four bills have been introduced into the state legislature, calling for same-sex couples to have the same legal rights as married couples; they differ in that two bills go so far as to describe the contract between the couple a “marriage,” while the others describe the contract a “domestic partnership.”
A fifth bill was introduced Jan. 30, suggesting that the house pass legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, without other possible combinations.“Full domestic partnership rights are wonderful. Certainly, I would like to see full marriage rights,” Dana said.
“We’re not horrible activists,” Sage said. “The only agenda we have as a couple is just to make it through life as best we can and to hope for the basic comforts. We aren’t preaching anything.”
Dana and Sage said that the terminology matters. The broad rights involved in marriage are understood nationwide, while civil unions or domestic partnerships aren’t.
The Alixanders, who are registered as domestic partners, are members at Eastshore Unitarian Church in Bellevue, but Dana said the legalization of civil marriage isn’t a religious matter. She described regular language gymnastics she has to play each time she talks about Sage — who could be her “wife” or “spouse,” depending on the context of the conversation. For the sake of safety, Dana calls Sage her “spouse” in some situations, she said.
“The use of the term domestic partnerships stigmatizes gay and lesbian people as second class citizens,” said Josh Friedes, advocacy director of Equal Rights Washington.
Even if domestic partnerships were to enjoy the same rights as marriages at the state level, there would be exceptions at the federal level and, possibly, local level, Friedes said.
He estimated domestic partnerships, if the bill passed, would have about one-third of the rights that marriages enjoy.
Domestic partnerships in Washington already are privy to many of the same rights as marriages, such as the ability to visit a loved one in the hospital or make health care decisions for a spouse who is incompetent or incapacitated.
Rep. Larry Springer (D-45) co-sponsored bills endorsing gay marriage and endorsing expanded rights for domestic partnerships.
The domestic partnership bill has a better chance of passing because it’s an expansion of an existing bill, Springer said.
“To me, it’s simply a question of fairness and equality,” Springer said. “I see no reason why gay couples should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.”
Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45) co-sponsored the house bill for expanding the rights of domestic partners, but not the civil marriage bill.
“As far as the religious concept of marriage, I don’t think we should be fooling around with marriage itself. If certain denominations want to sanctify some types of marriages or others, that’s not for government to decide,” Goodman said.
He said domestic partners deserved equal legal rights to married couples.
Rep. Glenn Anderson (R-5) said it’s not the legislature’s place to pass a bill on gay marriage or domestic partnerships. Anderson voted against both the original domestic partnership bill in 2007 and its expansion in 2008. He said the legalization of gay marriage or domestic partnerships should be part of a statewide ballot measure.
“I think you send that to the people. I don’t think the legislature has the moral authority or the constitutional authority to redefine family. If the people want to redefine it, I’m good with that,” Anderson said.
Sen. Eric Oemig (D-45) co-sponsored the senate’s bill for the expansion of the domestic partnership rights.
Like Springer, Oemig said he believed the domestic partnership legislation had a better chance of becoming law, in part because domestic partnerships already exist in the state.
“I think people realized that the sky didn’t fall and it just made sense for people to have basic health care and human rights,” Oemig said.
Some people say legalizing same-sex partnerships sets a dangerous precedent.
“Their defense is that they’re being closed down for moral reasons, and to some degree, that’s true,” said Joseph Blackholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. The Lynwood-based advocacy group opposes civil marriages and the expansion of rights for domestic partnerships.
Blackholm said the difference lies between the terms “tolerance” and “acceptance.” The status quo in the state, according to Blackholm, is one of tolerance, but not acceptance. To enact legislation recognizing the legality of gay marriages would be an endorsement of gay marriages, violating personal value systems for millions of residents across the state, Blackholm argued.
“Acceptance is something that we cannot promise them and the legislature cannot promise them,” Blackholm said.
He also said that legalizing gay marriage would set a legal precedent for re-examining other partnerships traditionally considered taboo by mainstream society. For example, he said, polygamy and incest could deserve similar legal endorsement from the state, if gay marriage was legalized.
“I don’t think that’s true. It’s a really confusing thing to say,” said Julie Shapiro, an associate professor of law, with a specialty in family law, at Seattle University. While Shapiro granted that the legislature could legalize marriages between cousins or siblings in theory, she said the analogy doesn’t hold up in practice.
“I can’t fathom why they would ever do that. That’s not about to happen,” she said.
If a gay marriage bill passes against the public’s will, the public has the power to revert the legislature’s decision, Shapiro said.
“If the legislature gets things wrong, they get unelected. That’s the way democracy works,” Shapiro said.
Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com. To comment on this story, visit www.SammamishReview.com.
Comments
One Response to “Washington may expand partnerships”
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
Thanks to the Sammamish Review for helping to educate the public on the realities facing LGBT couples and to Dana and Sage telling us their story. We are talking about equal rights for all residents of Washington. It is unfortunate that some believe that the state should enforce their particular moral code by blocking equality. To say because LGBT equality ‘violates personal values’ it shouldn’t be granted is inappropriate because equal rights should never be subject to popular vote. If that was the case we would still be holding African American slaves in some parts of the country.
The legislature should act boldly and pass the equality legislation. The slipery slope argument is worn out as it has been demonstrated over time that none of these dire predictions have come true in the many places in the country where equality laws are on the books, including here in Washington.
It is time we set aside our own version of morality and recognize that every person has the inherent right to the same legal protections and support for their partner relationships regardless of gender preference.