Voters Expand Same-Sex Rights

Seattle Times ^ | 6 November 2009 | Janet Tu

[Publius]

Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, ending months of contentious battles over a state law that expands benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.

That means the law could be enacted in about a month, once the election is certified. Along with other marriagelike state benefits, it will allow registered couples to use sick leave to care for one another or to claim one another's death benefits.

The tally late Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve Referendum 71 leading about 52 percent to 48 percent.

That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.

[Publius]

Please ping the chapter.

[a fool in paradise]

expands benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.

Since a "senior domestic partner" is NOT the same thing as a "same-sex partner" (AND), does this mean that single people can declare a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle/friend on their benefits?

[Valpal1]

Voters are so stupid. They see this as some sort of personal rights issue and are clueless as to the negative effect it has on property rights.

This is going to be another expense added onto the backs of businesses as they must now cover the cost of these expanded personal rights and of course taxpayers will also have to cover the additional costs to government in increased costs of additional benefits to the partners of public employees.

These non-marital unions produce no benefit to society as a whole, unlike hetero-sexual marriage which produces the next generation in the most cost effecient way with the least amount of social dysfunction. (and has a track record of doing so millenia long).

I am so tired of the whinging personal rights movement.

[houston1]

they must now cover the cost of these expanded personal rights

most health insurance plans already offer domestic partner benefits so there probably won't be any increase in cost to most employers

[Parmy]

For all those not familiar with WA State politics and demographics, understand that King County contains nearly 30% of the State's voting population. They are extremely liberal and the King County political system is very corrupt, crooked and have and will do anything to win elections.

That is how the present Governor won the office. They make Cook County, Ill. look like kindergarteners.

[antiRepublicrat]

It’s only for “same-sex and senior domestic partners.” IOW, following the way they think about hetero-only marriage violating equal protection, this does too since heterosexual couples must get fully married instead of being able just get domestic partnership status.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Just one of a million reasons I moved out of that socialist crap state after putting up with it for 45 years.

[Valpal1]

most health insurance plans already offer domestic partner benefits so there probably won't be any increase in cost to most employers

I'm going to guess that you are an employee and not a business owner/employer. You are quite wrong in your guess.

[sionnsar]

Thanks to Publius for the ping.

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

Quick link: WA State Board

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[Grunthor]

“Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, ending months of contentious battles over a state law that expands benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners”

So it is not just for the queers? “Senior Domestic partners?”

[word_warrior_bob]

In tough economic times you can bet plenty of roommates will be applying for benefits. Will there be some kind of test? 30 seconds of french kissing for the social worker?

[NurdlyPeon]

Will there be some kind of test? 30 seconds of french kissing for the social worker?

And there-in lies the big question.

[Spunky]

"IOW, following the way they think about hetero-only marriage violating equal protection, this does too since heterosexual couples must get fully married instead of being able just get domestic partnership status."

You are correct. They should file a discrimination suit against them.