MOBILE
Gregoire signs gay marriage bill
Historic bill likely to be challenged
February 13, 2012 12:47 p.m. - Updated: 1:38 p.m.
OLYMPIA — Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the Marriage Equality Act today that would allow same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies and with any religious group that allows such unions. The bill faces an expected ballot challenge, and may require the public to approve it before those marriages can take place.
In a sometimes tearful, sometimes raucous signing ceremony in the State Reception Room, Gregoire said Washington was “standing proudly for equality,” when its Legislature passed the bill over the last two weeks.
The bill provides “absolute” freedom for churches, religious organizations and religious-affiliated organizations to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, or to allow their facilities to be used for any ceremony consecrating or celebrating such a marriage, Gregoire said.
Opponents argue, however, that it doesn’t go far enough to protect the rights of businesses that would want to refuse to provide services, supplies or facilities to a wedding if the business owner has deeply held beliefs against same-sex marriage. They also sought, but did not get, stronger language allowing social service agencies with religious affiliations the right to refuse adoption and foster child placement in homes of same-sex couples.
Gregoire and the legislators who helped shepherd the bill through both chambers with healthy majorities received loud ovations in the room packed with supporters and journalists. As she began to put pen to paper and sign the bill, an opponent mixed in with the crowd twice shouted “do not betray Christ.”
He was escorted out by state troopers, who warned him for disturbing the peace but did not cite him, and he left, Lt. Mark Arras said.
Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill’s prime sponsor, thanked legislators of both parties who supported the bill “at great political risk to themselves.” He and others praised both legislators on both sides of the issue for conducting a civil debate in both chambers before the vote.
And while opponents have said they will gather signatures for a referendum, which would suspend the law until voters decide the issue in November, Murray said that’s an issue for the future.
“Nothing will take this moment in history away from us,” he said.
Rep. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds, said that if the referendum qualifies for the ballot, passing the Marriage Equality Act will be “issue No. 1” ahead of the presidential or governor’s race, or even his own re-election.
Later in the day, Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is scheduled to address the GOP caucuses in both the House and Senate. Santorum is an outspoken opponent of such legislation, contending marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
Santorum’s visit to Olympia on the day the gay-marriage bill is signed may be a coincidence, Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley, said.
“I hope so,” said Pflug, one of several Republicans who voted yes on the bill. She said she wouldn’t argue the point with Santorum. “It’s pretty clear we disagree. I don’t know that I’m going to convince him of anything.”
Murray said he thought Santorum’s presence would actually help supporters of the bill in the long run. “His position is pretty far right and this is a mainstream state.”
Among the crowd in marble-walled reception room were former City Councilman Dean Lynch and his partner, Michael Flannery. Although they made the trip across the state to witness the historic signing, Lynch said they have no plans to marry as soon as the bill becomes law.
The two recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of their commitment ceremony, and for now, that’s enough. “We’ll get married when it’s legal across the country,” Lynch said.
Washington would be the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage. Because the bill does not include an emergency clause, it can’t take effect until June 7. If opponents can gather about 121,000 valid signatures from Washington voters by June 6, the law would be put on hold until the November election. Then it will only become law if voters approve it by a simple majority.
Yay!
This is a great day for our state. Separate but equal should never be the rule of the day.
Yes!
Yippie!!!!
What took us so long????
“We ARE going to exercise our right to referendum and reject this law!” said the Family Policy Institute of Washington on its Web site, in an urgent appeal launched Sunday.
“Don’t forget to continue to pray that the citizens of Washington State will be fearless in their support and defense of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Send out requests across the state, nation and world for other faithful to join us in prayer to move hearts here in Washington to unify, organize a successful referendum campaign and to vote for traditional marriage.”
^ Yep. Have fun with that.
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”
If California can vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman, I’m sure it can happen in WA. Not that it will matter because 3 judges in San Francisco get to decide how it really is…
Yeah! It’s a great day for equality!
; )
It’s a civil right, not a votable issue. Any attempt to overturn it will be disallowed by the supreme court.
Pound sand haters. Let people be happy!
Huskerinwa- You are completely wrong if you look at the history of the US Constitution….just ask an African American.
A voter initiative may not survive the State supreme (little s) Court, I would guess that the Federal Supreme Court (big S) will have to look at the issue due to initiatives in multiple states. Nobody knows how that will end up.
@huskerinwa: Can you please show me where in the Constitution of either the US or WA State it says “marriage is a civil right?”
I won’t be holding my breath…
I just don’t know why people have to force their beliefs down other peoples throats……..no, I’m not talking about Christians I’m talking about you perverted marriage supporters. If I believe it is wrong, why should I be forced to do business in support?
Our lame-duck governor waited seven years before she would go along with this change. Even with a Democrat house and senate. Didn’t want to anger Washington state’s citizens - aka, voters. Color her lacking integrity and gutless.
She knew if she let it go to a statewide vote it would probably fail. Just like it has done in 31 of the 31 states that have allowed the voters to decide.
Democrat politicians adore these lame-duck games when they’re in the majority. It worked great for Obama in 2010 with Obamacare and DADT. Sneaky and disrespectful of the voters, but effective.
But that’s not why I’m agin’ this change. I’m opposed to it because of the hypocrisy of the gay and leftist proponents. When the idea of incorporating actual “adults should have the right to marry whomever they want” language so that I could marry the three women who would like to marry me…..freedom loving gay rights’ heads exploded… with really venomous and hateful name callingl They didn’t want equal rights for all of us, they did indeed want special rights….just for them.
Pathetic.
Neither US Constitution nor the Bill of RIghts say anything about marriage as a civil or gay right.
It’s the libs who insist on it but when asked to produce anything of the sort, they remain silent. Why? Because the libs lie a lot…..and they’re pretty stupid too. It’s rare that they can back up anything they say…just fantasy opinions.
I bet many of these legislators will run when asked “what did you do with your time”??? come April when she calls them back to fix a budget… What a waste of time.
Geez people…..if they get married what harm is it to anyone??? I could care less what consensual adults do with each other. Christianity will not be destroyed of gays are allowed to be married. Believe what you believe, and do not persecute others………….in my eyes it’s not that big of an issue., there are a lots more “life and death” issue to spend energy on.
omg the world is going to end…
:-/
For everyone’s consideration:
Washington State Constitution
SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
It would be the job of our State Supreme Court to determine if laws granting marriage rights belong equally to all citizens.
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
Re-posting from earlier thread:
Although I don’t think too highly of marriage as an institution I am glad that Governor Gregoire signed this bill into law.
If two people want to be married who are any of us to say they cannot follow their hearts. As for sinfulness and such that is for God to decide rather than us mortals.
I am not a fan of Governor Gregoire though I am glad she did the right thing this morning,
Ed Byrnes
Valleyman, this is where mainstream conservatives disgust me with their constitutionalism. If they don’t like a right, they say that it doesn’t exist unless it’s spelled out in unambiguous language in the Constitution. I hear things like, “Where does the constitution say you have the right to burn a flag?”, “Where does the constitution say you have have the right to use heroin?”, “Where does the constitution say you have the right to criticize our president in time of war?”, “Where does the constitution say you have the right to put a statue of Jesus in a jar of urine?”, and “Where does the constitution say you have the right to marry someone of the same gender?”
Of course when the tables are turned, and a liberal says, “Where does the Constitution say you have a right to own a semiautomatic pistol?”, it’s a whole different story.
I have news for you. The Constitution does not even use the term “civil right”. If I put on my strict Constitutionalist cap, and maybe accessorize it with my Sovereign Citizen camo vest and Ron Paul pin, I see the Constitution as a document that grants specific limited powers to the federal government, reserves all else for the people and the states, and then, almost as an afterthought, lists a “bill of rights” with examples of the rights that we get to have and the government doesn’t get to take away. The constitution no more says that gay people have the right to get married than it says that bloggers have the right to criticize the government on the Internet. The intent wasn’t to spell out a limited number of rights, and then say we don’t get any others. The intent was to list fairly general things that any reasonable person could understand — expressing your opinion, associating with whomever you want, not having your property arbitrarily searched and seized without a good reason, and so on. It was left to subsequent generations to interpret the details according to those principles.
I would argue that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate marriage either way, which is in fact how still is — only the states issue marriage licenses. On the other hand, the Constitution acknowledges that everyone has the right to practice their religion as they like (or be unreligious) and associate with whomever they like, and USSC decisions have held that states cannot take away those rights from individuals any more than the federal government can. Those sorts of things are the basis for the civil right to marry whomever you want. Obviously anybody can think of extreme and ridiculous examples of religious practice and of marriage that we would not want to allow, so as always it comes down to judgment and public sentiment. The Constitution doesn’t spell out every last thing. If it did, we wouldn’t need any federal statutes and case law.
catfuzz, what kind of business are you in where you would be forced to “support” gay marriage? If you’re a minister, a rabbi, or a priest, there’s nothing in this law to force you to marry gay people. If you run a bakery or a tux rental shop, then yes you should probably band together with all the other bakers and tux renters in the state who don’t want to do business with gay people and challenge that part of the law in court. That’s the way it’s done. I suspect you would have such a small group that you’d have a hard time paying a competent lawyer, though.
catfuzz said: “If I believe it is wrong, why should I be forced to do business in support?”
Don’t have a gay marriage, go tell your kids, friends, and other relatives to forget it that they might see you there at their wedding when they want to marry the person they love. Seriously, no one is making you or your ilk “support” gay marriage. If it upsets you, don’t have one, if you aren’t at all involved with such things, what problem is it making for you if same sex couples want to get married and live their own lives?
Strangely enough, I would have to agree with gmorton when it comes to marriage. It’s a contract between those entering into it of clear mind and the government should not be in the marriage business at all, other than facilitating them at a Justice of the Peace.
If the religious wackos get this on the ballot and same sex marriage is over turned,c the courts will up hold same marrage just like they did with Californias same sex marriage when the moromos tried to over turn it in 2008. because the constiution prohibits discrimination and to deny same sex couples from marrage its unconstititional.
If you dont like it then g to law school.
Catfuzz you cannot discriminate now in the state of Washington because of sexual orientation. If you are a small business you better start learning the laws of the state.
This will be a fun election issue with all the local and national Christian wackos trying to convince the majority of Washingtonians to vote against gay marriage. Looking forward to it!
Don’t worry, catfuzz, you can still refuse to provide service to anyone you choose to discriminate against. Although gay money spends the same as straight money.
Just sayin’….
Oh, and YEAH; oh happy day! Another roadblock to equality for all has been knocked down.
Of course, the haters will be busy tryin’ to build that roadblock up again but for NOW I am celebrating this law intended to move us beyond Stonewall, beyond “domestic partnerships”, and closer to true equality for ALL!
Once upon a time…Irish and Italians were not supposed to marry. Once upon a time…Jews and Catholics were not supposed to marry. Once upon a time…blacks and whites were not supposed to marry. Once upon a time…people of the same gender were not supposed to marry.
Once upon a time…three people were not supposed to marry.
Once upon a time…four people were not supposed to marry.
“Once upon a time…three people were not supposed to marry.
Once upon a time…four people were not supposed to marry.”
And really, so what if they do? It’s not my business and frankly I don’t care.
Control freaks . . .
Now there went some valuable time in Olympia down the shoot. We already had language protecting domestic partners. This wasted time and energy could have gone along way twards balancing budgets and protecting all Washingtonians rights.
Actually once upon a time three or four people could marry!
It wasn’t until 1860 that Utah banned it so they could become a state. Why do you think Mitt’s granddad fled to Mexico.
Once upon a time, mental defectives were not supposed to marry. Once upon a time girls under the age of 12 and boys under the age of 13 were not supposed to marry.
I say get the government out of it entirely, including the Justice of the Peace, detroitdude (do you need a JP to issue you a driver’s license or a dog license?). The government should be concerned with one and only one thing regarding married couples, unmarried couples, impotent couples, kinky couples, married triples and quadruples, people married to their cousins or their sheep, and any other combination of consenting adults — are they paying their taxes. If they’re paying their taxes, why in hell should the government care how they give each other orgasms or not?
I could understand liberals being against gay marriage, because liberals tend to think the government should manage every detail of people’s lives including how they think (no hate) and what they eat (no snack food), and I would expect conservatives to be in favor of gay marriage because they claim that government is too big and intrusive. Instead, gay marriage inverts the usual liberal and conservative views of the role of government in our lives. It make no sense to me, but I don’t suppose I should expect it to, since sex is involved and that even made Mr. Spock illogical.
Once upon a time…….it was illegal to marry animals of another species.
Once upon a time…….people had a right to vote.
Once upon a time……. we didn’t have only 3 “justices” telling us how to live & what is right by their standards.
What happened to the majority making the laws? Oh, I forgot….executive orders now being taught by Mr. Obama.
Only the bigoted and ignorant have a problem with Marriage Equality.
Ted Olson, rock solid conservative, GWB lawyer, US Solicitor General. Their Federal case has WON and won on appeal.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
Remember: gay marriage is OPTIONAL.
Why does the Billy Idol song “White Wedding” keep goin’ round in my head?
; )
RedC says “gay marriage inverts the usual liberal and conservative views of the role of government in our lives… ”
No, conservatives only care about government control when it suits them. They’re fine with imposing their extremist religious abortion wishes on everyone. They don’t mind attacking Iraq for no reason and imposing government control on them, kicking in doors, wrecking people’s cars and killing their children. Somehow that’s OK.
It was discarded in any place more populous than a tribe because people found that simple majority rule is too easy to turn into mob rule and a mob mentality leads people to do things that they really shouldn’t, and that they often regret later. So, the more advanced governments added “friction” in the form of checks and balances, a constitution presumably written at a time when cool heads were prevailing and a constitutional court to apply it, and a representative system in which the mob (or mobs) would elect representatives who would ideally be wiser than the average person and at least would have to operate under some sort of parliamentary procedure that would discourage hasty decisions.
I don’t know what you mean by “taught”. I don’t think “taught” is a synonym for “issued”. I also don’t know what Mr. Obama could possibly have to do with Washington’s gay marriage law. Those two minor objections aside, I agree that executive orders are a bad idea. Clinton really started the whole “stroke of the pen, law of the land” thing. Bush Junior took it up another notch and had his people invent an idea called “the unitary presidency”. The idealists thought Mr. Obama would roll back this dangerous power grab, but I never believed for a moment that he would. People who make it to US president are, at a minimum, very interested in power. Such men would never willing give up an part of their power.
Rule by decree is here to stay unless a future USSC grows a pair and and rules the whole concept completely unconstitutional.
The choice for 2 males or 2 females to marry each other should be their own decision. I have been heterosexually-married for 30 some odd years and that makes me happy. Allow them the same chance at happiness. What I find interesting on this is how the votes went.
http://www.fpiw.org/marriage/redefining-marriage-how-they-voted.html
I am amazed more and more everyday that the parties are so divided. Do these men and women not know how to vote their own conscious?
Or will it always boil down to the hunger of either “Power” or “Money?”
I claim neither party, nor any other affiliation for that matter.
It is apparent to me that Democrats and Republicans alike are a part of the “Divide and Conquer” mentality.
I don’t understand the fear people have of gay marriages.
RedCedar: If you cannot point to the Constitution for the divining of powers to grant rights, then you must point to natural law, and if we’re going back down the natural law path, I will again point out natural law doesn’t support the coupling of those that are biologically the same, thus incapable of reproducing…
So which is it going to be?
It’s right in front of your face:
Sorry, I’ll take the very successful lawyer and conservative Ted Olson’s opinion on the matter over any commenter here.
valleyman, it’s “natural law” that gives us Blackstone’s “infamous crime against nature”. If that’s what you want, go for it. Of course our Declaration of Independence also appeals to “natural law” granting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which can sound like sex if you choose.
I would argue that “natural law” and “constitutional law” are deliberately separate things. True natural law exists unchanging regardless of anyone’s opinion about it or legislation. Dropped objects fall down, heat flows from hot things to cold ones, and the sun emits light as a result of nuclear reactions. That’s true “natural law” and it doesn’t need government to enforce it. Constitutional law addresses a completely different subject — how to best enable a large number of people to live somewhat cooperatively in a crowded world.
To that end, the people grant an institution called “government” a monopoly on the use of force. That, in a nutshell, is the definition of government. Government is a creation of the people, who can choose to create it however they want and give it whatever powers they want. There is nothing “natural” about it. There is nothing more “natural” about a government regulating marriage choices than there is about a government regulating clothing styles. It’s purely about social consensus and power. It would be just as natural for a government to mandate that everyone wear Mao suits as to mandate that men may only marry women. Natural law requires no enforcement because it not only cannot be enforced but it cannot be violated. Invoking “natural law” for things that are merely a human choice is a spluttering attempt to salvage a baseless argument.
Very, very well said, RedCedar.
When the Constitution can be read to support the agenda it’s, ‘We must follow the Constitution!’ But when the Constitution resists efforts to make it read as required then suddenly it’s, ‘We must search for a higher ‘natural law’.’
@RedCedar: I can’t disagree with you more. If our Constitution is based, as you say, in natural law, and if natural law stipulates that in order to produce offspring, a male and a female are needed, then how can a government created from an understanding of natural law promote something that goes against the natural law?
Granted, we have used government for ensuring our basic needs are met within a collective sense, but this does not extend to male and male or female and female coupling.
Your Ron Paulian sense of a libertarian society completely ignores the reality of OUR government as it was created and seeks a more Utopian live and let live notion, which, might appeal to a natural law argument exclusively but fails to acknowledge the grant of power to a “government” by the people.