You May Now Get Gay-Married in Washington State
Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law late Monday morning legislation that would enable same-sex couples to marry in the Evergreen State as advocates prepare for a possible fight over the measure at the ballot.
"I'm proud that our same-sex couples will no longer be treated as separate but equal," Gregoire said in her remarks. "They will be equal in the great state of Washington."
Gregoire signed the legislation surrounded by LGBT advocates, including gay State Rep. Jamie Pedersen and gay State Sen. Ed Murray, champions of the legislation who introduced the governor at the ceremony.
After signing the bill, Gregoire exclaimed, "It is signed!"
Murray said during his remarks, "My friends, welcome to the other side of the rainbow!" Prior to the signing the legislation, the audience at the signing ceremony chanted "Gre-goire! Gre-goire!" Later during the event, they chanted, "Thank-you! Thank-you!"
Gregoire asserted during her remarks that the legislation enables gay couples to obtain marriage licenses while allowing churches and religious organizations to opt out of recognizing these unions. Repeatedly throughout the remarks, Gregoire thanked the legislature for approving and conducting a civil, respectful debate on the issue.
Related: Salon's excellent and surprisingly even-handed profile of hetero paladin Maggie Gallagher.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good news for Episiarch and Warty.
Upset that they didn't include a polyandry provision?
Does Nutrasweet reside in the Great Northwest too? I understand that area is STEVE SMITHs natural hangout, so there could be hope for him yet.
SF's just kicking rocks because KY won't let him gay-marry his cousin.
Screw you. He's a wonderful young man.
I saved my heart for you, NutraSweet, but you tore it to shreds. Warty is my silver medal.
We will be together someday, my dear omnisexual bootlick.
Never! You had your chance!
KY has an entirely different meaning in this context.
Valentine's day is around the corner.why not to find a sexy babe to hook up?Bi-curious? =====Datebi.c/O'M===is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.
Epi's not the marrying type. You know this better than anyone, you heartbreaker.
Bad news actually. Theirs is a love that thrives off the feelings of guilt, shame, inadequacy and being othered. Their relationship cannot survive legitimisation.
Good news for John and MNG.
surrounded by LGBT advocates
I've seen the two men in tuxes wedding cake toppers, but what if it's a tranny and a regular-dressing gay dude getting married? Do they make those where the little figure is wearing a wedding dress, but still has a male face and no boobs?
They just draw a little beard on a bride figurine.
I'm sure they could build up the Adm's apple with a little frosting.
hey...I resemble that remark.
don't forget the man hands
I'm always a little confused about gay couples involving one transsexual. I mean, if you are gay you are into the same sex as what you are. Then why would you want to be with someone whose goal is to become the gender that you are not attracted to? To paraphrase Bubbles, I guess some people are just into whatever.
Same-sex "marriage" would allow straight couples to "marry" as well. Why would anyone do that? For legal and other advantages unavailable to singles.
(Social Security survivors benefits being the golden ring.)
Straight couples who live together, but don't want to get married, have the same legal rights as gay couples who AREN'T married.
Tony's fine with it, though, because the former are just filthy, child-producing, potential breeders.
I'm gay and I don't get it either.
I asked a gay friend of mine here at work this when we were out smoking a min. ago, and he didn't understand it, either. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
There's a lot you don't "get", Tony.
You May Now Get Gay-Married in Washington State
...and have it stamped by bureaucrats.
Because love is a notarized piece of paper in a filing cabinet.
Because love is an assortment of neatly organized notarized pieces of paper in a filing cabinet.
No no, love is a preferential tax status and a package of benefits and default legal relationships recognized by the State.
if it's going to be a govt thing - and I wish govt would leave ALL forms of marriage alone - better a legislative vote than either judicial fiat or the politically cowardly public referendum.
Running for office implies that you will make tough decisions. This is a contentious issue. Let your constituents decide at the next election if you made the right choice or not.
Well, they did it the right way (via legislative legislation) rather than via judicial legislation. I got no probs with that.
I know this must be upsetting for libertarians who only want rights for the rich and corporations, but not anyone else.
C-
Glad I could benefit from grade inflation.
Did someone say inflation?
Tim - you're supposed to say we don't have inflation (even though prices are rising).
Keep lying, Tony. Karma's toting it up on you.
Tony or Timmie?
Oh, Timmeh's got his karma card all punched out... now, to wait for the inevitable payback.
Won't be an IRS audit, though. Which is a damn crying shame, for an actual tax-cheating criminal fuckstain like Timmeh.
What payback? He resigns from his post and gets a professorship at an Ivy League school? People like him never get what they deserve.
Karma can take decades, unfortunately, but I'm confident something will happen to the SOB.
Fortunately, that can't be taken as a threat, because I'll have an alibi.
I hope so. Unfortunately, he'll do a lot more damage before he gets what he deserves.
Same goes for the current Oval Office hood ornament, ?.
Indeed. Let's hope it's one more year's worth of damage, not 5.
Calling our President a "hood ornament" is racist!
Let's face it: most presidents are figureheads. Reagan ? was a hood ornament.
You mean the ones that aren't libertarians?
I haven't seen them comment yet, but of course there aren't many Democrats that use the "libertarian" label to begin with, so that's hardly surprising.
Does that mean that before this law gays could be put in jail for going through a marriage ceremony or using a lawyer to create an equivalent contract?
You know what they mean. Stop with the cutesy fake ignorance act.
Actually, you can't get gay married in Washington State.
Oops.
You may now get Gay Divorced in Washington State.
I want Half! HALF!
We, the LGBT advocates, draw the line at polygamy, which is just wrong.
I want 1/16th! 1/16th!
"My friends, welcome to the other side of the rainbow!"
No thanks.
but what about polygamists? as long as the state is involved in marriage, there will always be some form of discrimination. true love doesn't need the blessing of the state.
Cynicism aside, state-sanctioned marriage isn't about true love. The purpose of marriage is to define divorce.
Marriage alerts the state that you and your partner (now even straight people call it that) have a contractual relationship established, and the state now knows how to deal with you if that contract goes into dissolution.
That's all a legal marriage is: If things don't work out, here's how we divide shit up.
If you're not married, you walk away either with what you brought into it, or you have to hire lawyers to fight it out in a more ill-defined arena.
There's also a collection of legal relationships that are assumed during a marriage, including power of attorney, hospital visitation, and next of kin.
But yeah, civil marriage is just a convenient shorthand for the various bureaucratic chair-moisteners one has to deal with throughout life.
and the marital privilege against incrimination as well
that's a pretty important privilege (much like lawyer-client) and one that gets glossed over
note also in WA that a married person can have sex with their partner WITHOUT consent- legally
(note: WITHOUT not AGAINST)... iow, it's presumed, but only if you are married
so, warty just has to wait for epi to pass out, then he's fair game, if married
But in a situation where all of those can be assigned, marriage is a redundant institution.
There's also a collection of legal relationships that are assumed during a marriage, including power of attorney, hospital visitation, and next of kin.
The hospital visitation thing has got to be some serious arcane bullshit that only the rural of the rural-est hopsitals still employ. I've spent way more time in hospitals over the last ten years of my life than I'd ever care to remember (or repeat) and not once have I ever been challenged on my relationship to the patient.
And how do they track that? During my brief whirlwind of a marriage, I didn't even share the same last name as my wife. Without providing a marriage certificate on the spot, how would I have proven I was married to her, or vice versa?
I got challenged once, during a hospital visit, but the patient in question was there anonymously as her ex-boyfriend had just beaten the shit out of her, and she didn't want him to know she was there.
Which is completely understandable, and I didn't raise a fuss.
But try *calling* on the phone about the status of a patient, and you'll get HIPAA boilerplate bullshit.
And polygamy actually ends up complicating things. Let's go with a simple case, one guy, two women. He's Schaivoed and has no living will, one says keep him alive and the other says don't. Who wins?
Murray said during his remarks, "My friends, welcome to the other side of the rainbow!"
Crude gay jokes aside... do gays really believe that there's going to be some kind of fantastical pot of gold at the end of the Gay Divorce battle?
I'm seriously beginning to think that gays never really much cared about gay marriage... it was the divorce lawyer racket that's been secretly astro-turfing this issue.
I think marriage is an antiquated and pointless institution for the most part; my interest is equality under the law.
I totally respect that. You may now form a contract which can be dissolved quickly and easily by the state the moment one half of that party does that hand-clap thingy vegas dealers do when they walk away from the table.
If that were true, Tony... why do you get pissed off when people suggest getting rid of marriage licensure?
Symbolism, FIFY.
And, as Carlin noted... symbols are for the symbol-minded.
You just hate gay people.
Then again, I hate straight people... but it's okay when I do it.
I dunno, looks like it's got teen-pregnancy written all over it.
Yo! Stevelman! You got turned down, huh?
Does anyone remember in the 80s when right wingers rallied behind the motto, "Equal Rights Yes, Special Privileges No!" when they opposed non-discrimination laws aimed to protect gays and lesbians in housing and employment? Funny but now they wouldn't dare use that motto because their hypocrisy would show they would have to support equal rights in marriage for gay and lesbian citizens.
Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina"
Nah, they'd just interpret it to mean everyone has an equal right to straight marriage.
That makes a whole lot of sense dude. WOw.
http://www.anon-stuff.tk
Section 7 of Washington state's SSM law provides that religious organizations (and presumably secular orgs too) which charge money to hold marriages on their premises must open up their premises to same-sex ceremonies:
http://1.usa.gov/wNwphr
?3,600 fine to English couple who didn't let gay guests share the same bed. Court: "the Appellants [do not] face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen."
http://bit.ly/z4Gw2T