Two WA Gay Legislators Introduce Full-Scale Domestic Partnership Rights Bill

Two gay legislators in Washington state – Ed Murray and Jamie Pederson – have introduced legislation that would grant full scale legal and economic rights to that state’s LGBT domestic partnerships, making WA’s LGBT domestic partnerships one hundred percent equivalent with marriage.  Just without the word “marriage”.

In the ongoing battle for LGBT equality generally, and the fight for marriage/relationship equality specifically, states are taking different tacks towards the future.  As marriage – and domestic partnership – are states’ rights issues, this seems not only appropriate, but mirrors the history of civil rights legislative reforms around marriage and relationships.

Moreover, a move to make domestic partnerships legally and economically equivalent to marriage – in all but name – reflects the policies of Great Britain, and fits with the repeatedly stated objectives of President Obama on this issue.  A few weeks ago, I wrote a post here on Gay.com about a “gotcha” interview that Chicago’s Windy City Times published from 2004 with then Senate candidate Barack Obama.  The interview focused on many things, and when the issue of same-sex marriage came up, Obama stated he was against expanding marriage for the LGBT community, but was wholly in favor of expanding the rights and privileges of domestic partnerships, at the state level, to be completely equivalent to the rights and privileges of marriage.   Just no use of the word “marriage”.  The interviewer interrupted him to point out that domestic partnerships don’t carry the same legal rights as marriage, and Obama re-iterated that he knows that and that he wants to see that domestic partnerships indeed become equivalent – fully – with marriage.

The Times seemed to feel that this was some sort of a “gotcha’ on Obama – that somehow, Obama was against equality for LGBT relationships under the law.   As he stated then and since, as Britain has concluded, and as this new legislation in Washington state points out, equality – full equality – for LGBT relationships can be attached to LGBT domestic partnerships without ever having to use the word “marriage”.

It seems to me that many who insist on marriage and marriage alone in order to gain LGBT equality see government as having to play a lead role in bestowing upon gay people an “equality of community respect” with straight people.  That is not the role of government.  Government does not exist to make all Americans love and respect all other Americans.  Government exists to protect the equality of rights of all Americans, under the law.  

So, I guess it comes down to this:  if we as a community can successfully get full and equal rights under the law for our love and our relationships – and our families – yet cannot get the word “marriage” attached to these rights – is that enough? 

I think so, for sure, as I am concerned with substantive rights under the law, not the vocabulary of the American culture.

(Image courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[Wyatt1969again]

I agree…for the most part.

And I mean it when I say it.

Substantive laws, with regard to equal rights, are essential. Who gives a fuck about the word “Marriage”?

I do – and so do others; All for the same reason? Unlikely, but you know this.

But what you call the “Vocabulary of American culture” is kind of weak (please don’t take this personally – I know you are smart).

Consider this Mr. Cranky…

If these laws pass and all but a single word is left out – then can we bitch? I mean really?

Yes and No.

No – because we have our pension rights, our claims to this that and the other and so too we endure equally – life.

But make no mistake about it Joe – language is important. How it’s used and applied does matter.

For example – do you think I would rather call you my Husband or my Life Partner if we were married? I would rather call you my Husband because that’s what you would be if we were married. So why (aside from obvious reasons) can’t I call you my Husband?

I could. But then who is to say just exactly why and where it stops?

Theoretically – we might live together for tons of years – grow old together (I know this is killing you LOL) – even have Grandkids.

So let’s say one day when I am 79 and you are 84. I am at the hospital because I had a heart attack and you must make the call – because I am unconscious. Fix him – or let Mr. “I’m sorry for acting like an ass”- rot – perish – fold at the fingers and dry up?

Someone says, “No” to you – you can’t make the call – you’re not even related! But you say yes I am – that’s my Husband.

You know you are going to hear it….

He isn’t your Husband – you aren’t married.

So then what? Well if science delivered us children just like me – then your daughter or son would step up and punch whoever it was who said it – right in the fucking chops.
Lets say science delivered us children just like you – well lets not – you’re too complicated.

Knowing what little I know about you – you would say exactly what you thought and then detail, verse and chapter, every right entitled to you. You’d probably even get mad and CAPITALIZE your invectives – however conservative your economy in using them is.

But wouldn’t you prefer, at a moment like that, not to have to throw your brain at someone and instead just say, “He’s my Husband” – and then make the call?

I really think you would.

I am a citizen of these United States of America. I am entitled to use the word marriage, endure marriage, enjoy marriage, and if so desired – end my own marriage.

The spirit of the law is no small thing and its interpretation is often applied to the meaning of mere words without which there would be no justice.

This fluid appending of the will of the people is not written in any book but it is time and time again challenged and upheld through appeal.

So I assert that the fact that legislation does exist, specifically with the intent to afford equality to those not entitled to enjoy a legally recognized word (marriage) – pay close attention here – are actually enjoying the same rights of married people and so are in fact married as defined by, not the constitution, but by the law – under which we endure life liberty and freedom.

Put another way – the constitution is allowing the state to prove the constitution is in error.

Moreover, the constitution is paving the way to amend itself by proxy.

Curious.

Do not minimize the use of a word by attributing to it some degree of American cultural affect when in fact people all over the world struggle with its definition.

Only when we are married by a court of law will we be truly equal.

There is no merit to your comparing American Law to commonwealth policy with regard to Great Britain. These are oranges and apples. We left that country to be free – not lean back on their compromise in resolving an abridgment of anyone’s rights.

I’m surprised to find you somehow compromising. Perhaps if we were married - I’d know better.

[Gregory]

Separate but equal is inherantly unequal. Has anyone heard of Brown v. B.O.E.?

[Meehd]

It is stupid that we have to play wordplay games to get equal rights.

In order for us to have real equality it will have to been done on a national basis so that all states will have to recognize marriage and marriage rights for everyone.

President Obama is the one who played the race card. He is by the way half white and was raised by his white grandmother but proclaims to be black and wants to celebrate all the accomplishments of black people. With this being said, he of all people, should understand the importance of equal rights for everyone including gay people.

It would not be right to play word games with black people and their rights and it is not right to do it for gay people. Period!