View Full Version : Marriage Equality in Wa state - a very moving letter from a Senator.
Senate has votes needed to pass gay marriage legislation
Posted by Andrew Garber
Seattle Times
Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said she supports gay marriage legislation in the Senate -- giving proponents the 25 votes needed for passage.
The state House already has enough lawmakers in support of the measure to approve it. Gov. Chris Gregoire backs the bill, as well.
Haugen issued announced her support immediately after a two-hour legislative hearing in Olympia about the bill.
Here's Haugen's statement:
Haugen announces stance on marriage equality
OLYMPIA - Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen issued the following statement today following the Senate hearing on Senate Bill 6239 to allow same-sex marriage:
"For several weeks now, I have heard from the people of my district. They've shared what's in their hearts and minds.
"I have received many letters, emails, phone calls, very heartfelt, from both sides of the issue. I've also received a number of very negative comments from both sides.
"For some people, this is a simple issue. I envy them. It has not been simple or easy for me.
"To some degree, this is generational. Years ago I took exception to my parents' beliefs on certain social issues, and today my children take exception to some of mine. Times change, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I think we should all be uncomfortable sometime. None of us knows everything, and it's important to have our beliefs questioned. Only one being in this world is omniscient, and it's not me.
"I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It's not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.
"But this issue isn't about just what I believe. It's about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It's about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.
"For as long as I have been alive, living in my country has been about having the freedom to live according to our own personal and religious beliefs, and having people respect that freedom.
"Not everyone will agree with my position. I understand and respect that. I also trust that people will remember that we need to respect each other's beliefs. All of us enjoy the benefits of being Americans, but none of us holds a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Ours is truly a big tent, and while the tent may grow and shrink according to the political winds of the day, it should never shrink when it comes to our rights as individuals.
"Do I respect people who feel differently? Do I not feel they should have the right to do as they want? My beliefs dictate who I am and how I live, but I don't see where my believing marriage is between a man and a woman gives me the right to decide that for everyone else.
"I've weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church's view of its teachings. That's important, and it helped shape my decision.
"My preference would be to put this issue on the ballot and give all Washingtonians the opportunity to wrestle with this issue, to search their hearts as I have, and to make the choice for themselves. But I do not know that there are the votes to put it to a ballot measure. So, forced to make a choice, my choice is to allow all men and women in our state to enjoy the same privileges that are so important in my life. I will vote in favor of marriage equality.
"I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy.
"This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor."
I'm quite pleased that my Senator, Kevin Ranker, sponsored this bill as well.
It's about time.
I was concerned this morning when I heard they still had only 24 votes, so I'm pleased to see this. That an initiative is already cranking up to reverse this decision, I have no doubt.
Got a little teary here in Colorado. Thanks for sharing that, redfox.
loosechickens
1-23-12, 9:06pm
that is great news.....slowly, but surely, just as we did with interracial marriage, we will come out of the darkness into the light of acceptance.
Hers was a great statement, too.....because it really isn't ABOUT our own beliefs, but about our right to impose those beliefs on others. Somehow, all the arguments against gay marriage boil down to one or both of two things, "it's always been done MY way", or "my religion says it is wrong", neither of which seem adequate as arguments in a secular, multicultural, country of people of many religions and none.
Good news!
...
"I've weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church's view of its teachings. That's important, and it helped shape my decision...
I think that's important, too. It will be interesting to see how this plays out across the country as gay marriage takes hold.
There's been lots of publicity here about the State of Illinois dropping Catholic Charities as providers of foster and adoption care. Catholic Charities provided a significant percentage of care for children and family services. The State now has a mandate of non-discrimination for gender preferences, and the Church's refusal to sanction same sex parents causes the Church to act illegally.
This is a case where respect doesn't go both ways, and I'm sure there will be others.
Good for WA. If a church does not believe in personal freedom, than let them be out in the cold alone. Tonight on the News Hour they had a story on over population in the Philippians. The Philippians imports 80% of its rice much of it is subsidized by the US. Fish is the primary source of protein and the waters are so over fished to provide food for the population the fish population is dieing out. The government is trying to provide birth control and the Catholic church is fighting them. A high up in the Catholic church was interviewed. His response was basically grow more food baby's being born at excessive rates of 10 and 11 to a family is not the problem. I hope our government does not listen to such outrages talk from the church.
I think that's important, too. It will be interesting to see how this plays out across the country as gay marriage takes hold.
There's been lots of publicity here about the State of Illinois dropping Catholic Charities as providers of foster and adoption care. Catholic Charities provided a significant percentage of care for children and family services. The State now has a mandate of non-discrimination for gender preferences, and the Church's refusal to sanction same sex parents causes the Church to act illegally.
This is a case where respect doesn't go both ways, and I'm sure there will be others.
Luckily for the service recipients, there are other providers besides the church. For same gender couples, there are no other legal entities which provide the legal rights & recognitions of marriage.
That is an excellent letter! Good work un-conflating the institutions of civil marriage and church sacrament, in particular. I do disagree with the idea of putting minorities' civil rights up for popular vote, as such. Maybe a vote on whether the state recognizes the institution of marriage, full-stop?
I think that's important, too. It will be interesting to see how this plays out across the country as gay marriage takes hold.
There's been lots of publicity here about the State of Illinois dropping Catholic Charities as providers of foster and adoption care. Catholic Charities provided a significant percentage of care for children and family services. The State now has a mandate of non-discrimination for gender preferences, and the Church's refusal to sanction same sex parents causes the Church to act illegally.
This is a case where respect doesn't go both ways, and I'm sure there will be others.
Good for the State. I don't see the charities as doing something illegal, just against state policy, as institutionalized discrimination should be. They choose to discriminate, and the state chooses to not do business with them. Everyone has a choice.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-a5Z06V5yOQY/TyCLObTkpaI/AAAAAAAAEms/D8nof0wFjkc/s720/IMG_0451.JPG
Personally I found it disappointing that Catholic Charities' choice would be to completely stop providing adoption and foster services in the state rather than include gay parents. Is that really the best choice for the children they purportedly seek to serve?
iris lily
1-27-12, 12:30am
Personally I found it disappointing that Catholic Charities' choice would be to completely stop providing adoption and foster services in the state rather than include gay parents. Is that really the best choice for the children they purportedly seek to serve?
No, apparently they don't think so. Is it ok to have a differing point of view about what is the "best choice" for children that differs from state mandated correct-think?
No, apparently they don't think so. Is it ok to have a differing point of view about what is the "best choice" for children that differs from state mandated correct-think?
Neither viewpoint is "correct-think" in my perspective, they are both, well, opinions! The state holds the stance that deying services based upon a particular status is not going to be paid for by the state. The church has decided that it has a stance of not serving Queer families.
The church is free to find other clients who will pay them, and I am presuming that other social service agencies which adhere to the non-discrimination policies of the state are comfortable serving Queer families.
We live in a pluralistic society, and thank goodness it's possible to disagree civilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Z7tl7Vy8U Corey Booker, mayor of Newark NJ talking about the same topic.
He's been a remarkable ray of sunshine for that city (and hopefully for the whole state eventually) for a long time. For him to take the time to come out in support of gay marriage as clearly as this, in a city with much bigger problems to face, obviously indicates the importance he places on the civil rights of all people.
Passed the Senate by 28 votes! Three more than needed. The House has the votes, the Gov. will sign! Woo hoo!
This law would have changed my life if it had been in effect 25 years ago. I could not co-parent my oldest child with my ex, because I had no legal standing, and she refused to mediate with me. I still grieve that loss. This is movement is for our children and their children.
Passed the Senate by 28 votes! Three more than needed. The House has the votes, the Gov. will sign! Woo hoo!
This law would have changed my life if it had been in effect 25 years ago. I could not co-parent my oldest child with my ex, because I had no legal standing, and she refused to mediate with me. I still grieve that loss. This is movement is for our children and their children.
Yay!! Now if we can just get the Feds on board by repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which defines marriage only as between a man and a woman. Too many federal benefits allowed for straight married couples that are currently denied to gay married couples now. That's gotta change IMHO.
Yay!! Now if we can just get the Feds on board by repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which defines marriage only as between a man and a woman. Too many federal benefits allowed for straight married couples that are currently denied to gay married couples now. That's gotta change IMHO.
It will... Time marches on, and civil rights win.
It will... Time marches on, and civil rights win.
If marriage is a civil right, can there be restrictions placed upon it?
If marriage is a civil right, can there be restrictions placed upon it?
Sure. You can make it illegal for whites to marry negroes, for Catholics to marry Jews, and all sorts of fun stuff.
Knock yourself out.
Sure. You can make it illegal for whites to marry negroes, for Catholics to marry Jews, and all sorts of fun stuff.
Knock yourself out.
See, that's what I'm thinking about the semantics of the issue. Since everyone enjoys the same "right" to marriage within proscribed boundaries such as no close relatives, no polygamy, no underage partners, etc., I'm not sure that any individual group's "civil rights" are being denied.
Tell my friend Chris -- whose partner of 20 years died alone in his hospital bed because he wasn't allowed to visit him -- that it's about "semantics," alan.
Redfox, celebrating here with you. One of my friends' daughters testified this week - we were so proud of her. Slowly we will become a civilized society.
See, that's what I'm thinking about the semantics of the issue. Since everyone enjoys the same "right" to marriage within proscribed boundaries such as no close relatives, no polygamy, no underage partners, etc., I'm not sure that any individual group's "civil rights" are being denied.
Honey, queer folks cannot yet legally marry the one they love. I know you know this; what's with the feigned ignorance? You're smarter than that.
Honey, queer folks cannot yet legally marry the one they love. I know you know this; what's with the feigned ignorance? You're smarter than that.
But is it a "civil rights" issue? Are there other examples of people not being able to legally marry the one they love?
But is it a "civil rights" issue? Are there other examples of people not being able to legally marry the one they love?
Under your logic it sounds like as long as any ban is uniformly applied to everyone, no ones "civil rights" are ever impinged.
But is it a "civil rights" issue? Are there other examples of people not being able to legally marry the one they love?
It is a civil rights issue; in your opinion, does there need to be more than one class of people who are unable to legally marry the one they love for this to be considered a civil rights issue?
No, I'm just thinking that if I want to marry someone, and they don't want to marry me or they're already married or there is some other marriage restriction which denies me my wishes, it's not necessarily a civil rights issue.
Under your logic it sounds like as long as any ban is uniformly applied to everyone, no ones "civil rights" are ever impinged.
No, under my logic if everyone operates under the same rules, there is no change in the status of their civil rights. Now, I may want a variation to apply to me, but that's simply my want, not a violation of my rights.
loosechickens
2-4-12, 12:50am
my sweetie recently applied for his Social Security......as I'm eight years older than him, I applied when eligible on my own account, but found out recently from Social Security that now that he has applied for his benefits, I can change to a "spousal benefit", which increases my SS check by about $125, which was nice.
this week, we were visiting with friends, a lesbian couple, who have been together for over thirty years, as my sweetie and I have been, and who married during the brief period when marriage equality was legal in CA, before the Mormons and fundamentalist Christians poured several dozen millions of dollars into the Proposition 8 fight in CA, and ended that (at least temporarily, for other gay couples in the state).
SO.....our friends are legally married. One was a doctor, the other a teacher, who left the profession early to raise several children from a previous marriage). I mentioned my nice increase in SS benefits, and they pointed out that the spouse of the doctor would get a check about $500 per month greater, if she could apply for "spousal benefits" with Social Security, as I did.
Now, both of us are legally married, both had spouses who earned quite a bit more than we earned on our own. But I am entitled to a spousal benefit on my sweetie's account, yet our friend is not entitled to spousal SS benefits on HER spouse's account.
What is fair about that? The laws need to change. Equality under the law is really an issue here, as is fundamental fairness.
Of course marriage equality is a civil right, just as interracial marriage was a civil right, and many of the same people who came all over with vapors at the idea of black/white marriage are just as vaporous over gay marriage. They will have to get over it, because in a secular country, "my religion doesn't agree with it" or "we've always done it this way" just doesn't cut it. If it did, black people would still be slaves "we've always done it this way", women could be considered chattel (plenty of religious background for THAT.....etc.
Nope, it's time has come, and more power to the state of Washington as it becomes the seventh of our states to legalize gay marriage. May there be plenty more, and may the DOMA be overturned, and all be equal under the law to marry any consenting adult they please. YAY Washington......
No, I'm just thinking that if I want to marry someone, and they don't want to marry me or they're already married or there is some other marriage restriction which denies me my wishes, it's not necessarily a civil rights issue.
Well, yes, I think consent is a fairly basic part of the equation, as is age, obviating the marry your dog comparisons.
In the case of same-gender couples, the difference from heterosexual couples is simply genitalia. A few ounces of flesh allocated in different places, and some hormonal differences. Seriously, THAT is the barrier? Sheesh.
...What is fair about that? The laws need to change. Equality under the law is really an issue here, as is fundamental fairness. ..
Thank you for bringing up a main point against gay marriage which is spousal benefits will cost someone more money. But with Social Security I guess it doesn't matter because the U.S. is rolling in the dough and SS is fully funded for the next zillion years and tra la tra la it's all good. For that matter any company is rolling in the dough and is just anxious to give more non-workers (family and spouses.)
loosechickens
2-4-12, 1:32am
Well, geez, Iris Lily, if we're going to make law based on whether something would cost us money, don't even want to think about going down that road......because that could and would lead to things like, "heck, why spend all this money trying to save soldiers on the battlefield, who would have died in previous wars?....it's going to cost a fortune to care for them when we get them home". Absolutely NO point in caring for someone with a terminal illness, "heck, they are just going to die anyway", allowing developmentally challenged children to go to school, "heck, they're not ever going to grow up and hold down a job and pay taxes, why spend any education dollars on them?"........ If you're going to look at civil rights, fairness under the law, and everything else with cost being the major factor....My God.
ARGH.....I'm getting off and going to bed...my head hurts just thinking about it.
Thank you for bringing up a main point against gay marriage which is spousal benefits will cost someone more money.
I expect it was pretty expensive when we freed the slaves too. And counting all those extra votes when women got the vote, that had to be a bit pricey.
And think how much money we could save in the criminal justice system without those pesky search-and-seizure rules...
46% of Mississippi Republicans still think interracial marriage should be illegal, according to various Internet sources. I saw some rural Washingtonian on the local news opining that allowing gays to marry would be like legalizing marriage for sheep and goats. Clearly, he needs to get out of his barnyard occasionally and talk to the real human beings affected by current laws.
The Washington Senate passed the bill 28-21 last week, the House today passed it 55-43, and the Governor says she will sign.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/washington-same-sex-marriage/index.html
And the 9th District Court threw out California's anti-marriage-equality initiative as unconstitutional just the other day.
Go team.
From one of our esteemed R representative, from Walla Walla, WA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338
From one of our esteemed R representative, from Walla Walla, WA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338
Class act. Between her and Mary Margaret Haugen, well done.
I wanted to hug Representative Walsh, and I'm not a hugger.
Is there something in the water in Washington? Is it the Artesians, back again? Where do I get some for our state? :)
Is there something in the water in Washington? Is it the Artesians, back again? Where do I get some for our state? :)
Beer. It's the microbreweries. Blame the hippies. :)
Now the legislature is working on marijuana reform. I have no hope for that one, seeing as how we're still connected to Eastern Washington. I've long thought we'd all be better off if they had divided Oregon and Washington vertically, rather than horizontally...
On Tuesday, here in Calif, the court just overturned prop. 8 (which bans gay marriage) as unconstitutional (YAY!). Unfortunately they will not allow same sex marriages to happen yet (again) pending fuure appeals. Gay marriage WAS legalized in Calif a few years ago but then Prop. 8 went before the voters who passed it - there by banning gay marriage. The couples who had married prior to prop. 8 are still considered legally married by Calif law, but no new marriages can happen until further appeals are taken care of.
from Wikipedia: Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians. "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.
It's so interesting, watching the march of human rights on our time. I often wonder what my adult kids will experience when they are my age... What issues will predominate? What governmental and judicial processes will deal with them?
What do you think?
I just heard some religious spokesperson on the local news talk about how opposed churchgoing people were to the new law, and how they were going to fight it, "and it turns out that's 72% of the state." That didn't sound right to me, as I know church attendance on the West coast is much lower than that.I hope this guy is wildly overestimating his flock.
(Oregon was deemed to have among the lowest number of churchgoers --(at 32%, similar to Washington--as well as the highest percentage of non-believers, atheists, and agnostics, parenthetically.)
Jane, it sounds like some magical thinking. There wre many, many religous people who support marriage equality. Lies, statistics, and dammnn lies!
Whistling in the wind, I'd say. They didn't manage to overturn domestic partnerships in 2009, and I think sentiment is largely against them. Even if they win a battle, they'll lose the war.
And it has been signed into law! A great day in WA. Effective in 90 days. There's a referendum to overturn it; we shall see how far they get. In the meantime, Santorum is in the state, holding a rally urging a return to the 14th century.
Quick update:
A referendum, 73, has been filed to put this to a vote. Here is what I read at a news outlet:
"The referendum simply takes the exact language of the bill that the Legislature passed and Gregoire signed, and places it on the ballot. *The voter's *choice will be to affirm the law or to reject it - so essentially the sponsors who are bringing the referendum forward will be asking for a "reject" vote on their own measure. *Supporters of gay marriage will be asking for a vote to affirm the law."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.