Wash. Gov. Signs Domestic Partner Bill

Forbes ^

[Princip. Conservative]

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law Saturday a measure to create domestic partnerships, giving gay and lesbian couples some of the same rights that come with marriage.

The law creates a domestic partnership registry and provides enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.

"It offers the hope that one day, all lesbian and gay families will be treated truly equal under the law," said state Sen. Ed Murray, who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature.

To be registered, couples have to share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else and be at least 18.

Unmarried, heterosexual senior couples will also be eligible to register if one partner is at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision, similar to one in California law, was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry.

Gregoire received a standing ovation from about 200 people in the ornate reception room at the state Capitol.

"This is a very proud moment for me as governor, to make sure the rights of all of our citizens are equal," Gregoire said.

[jazusamo]

The results of that poll are surprising being the number of moonbats we have here in WA. It’s a good reflection on just how out of touch our lawmakers are with the people.

Thanks for the ping.

[TheDon]

Thanks for remembering the legislature. Even if the gov was not actually elected into office, surely she can only sign into law bills approved by the legislature.

Washington is getting what they voted for, just like us Californians. Of course, as my wife says, “I didn’t vote for it!” :^)

[Balke]

I think you missed my point. I think it’s a weak argument because it is based on semantics and a technical reading of the law. See my post #26 in this thread.

I just think that claiming, “Technically, every homosexual already has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex,” is an infantile cop-out of an argument. It’s a technical argument that has no actual meat behind it. I was just trying to point out that there are better and more valid arguments against same-sex marriage (like your procreation one). There is no need to argue that traditional marriage should prevail on technical and procedural grounds when we can argue in favor of its actual merits.

P.S. I know this thread is dead, but I haven’t been able to log on for a few days, and felt compelled to respond. I hope you see this. Cheers!

[beejaa]

The argument that a homosexual can marry a woman and a lesbian can marry a man may not appeal to some of you, but to claim otherwise would fundamentally deny one of the main purposes of traditional marriage: that of procreation. The argument is not just a technical argument. It pertains to the basic definition of marriage. Man + woman = baby (in the majority of cases). Man + man (or woman + woman) only = baby when heterosexuals are somehow involved. Left alone on a desert island, a non-heterosexual couple would produce no offspring. They are disconnected from the future and basically just focused on themselves.
Why would the government have any interest in getting involved in a purely adult relationship, whether it involve a civil union, gay marriage, two roommates, two bowling partners or anything else? The only reason why it gets involved in heterosexual marriage is because this will be the source of the future army, future government officials (for better or worse), future everything. This is why the claim that homosexuals can marry women is valid. Social conservatives want the traditional definition of marriage left as it is.

[Baladas]

Heh, I don’t think the WA legistlature has represented my views in decades.

If Seattle seceded from the rest of the state, it’d really improve the government here.