It may be unfair to single out any one person, but state Sen. Ed Murray deserves a ton of a credit for the successful strategy by which Washington’s legislature has gradually expanded gay and lesbian rights over the past five years.
Rather than going for the big prize — marriage equality — and much to the disappointment of some activists, Murray has promoted a more patient and pragmatic political approach. In 2006, after 30 years of prior failure, Murray led the charge in finally adding sexual orientation to Washington’s anti-discrimination laws, only to follow up a year later by helping to pass our state’s historic domestic partnership bill. In 2008 the Legislature vastly expanded domestic partnerships, and in 2009 Murray helped passed what he dubbed the “Everything But Marriage Act,” granting to domestic partners all of the state rights, responsibilities and protections legally associated with marriage.
Is “Everything But Marriage” really everything but marriage? Symbolically, no, but in a state where just five years ago one could be legally denied a job, a loan or a lease just on the suspicion of being a little faggy, it’s a huge step toward that goal. And, as Murray has pointed out on numerous occasions, calling domestic partnerships “marriage” still wouldn’t afford same-sex partners the many rights and benefits that are denied them under our federal Defense Of Marriage Act.
Until, maybe, today.
In a decision that seemed to take a lot of observers by surprise, a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in that it interferes with states’ rights to define marriage. And while no doubt litigation will continue for months if not years before the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately settles the question, even the possibility of dismantling DOMA’s restrictions either in Congress or in the courts, is sure to spark demand for full marriage equality here in Washington state.
Is there the political will to take that final step? For the moment, I kinda doubt it. But should the federal DOMA’s demise come sooner than expected, it’s hard to imagine how marriage equality won’t become a dominant issue in future legislative sessions, whatever the political cost.
The real beauty of this decision is that it seems to be framed as a states rights opinion, denying the reach of federal power. Which is exactly what the TeaTards are so exercised about. Be interesting to see if their principles extend to an exercise of those principles that they disagree with.
Interesting crosstabs in this SUSA poll at Q11.
What is interesting Ron?
Neither the state nor the federal government has any business in the marriage issue to begin with. It is no one’s business who you live with. Butt out.
As a stud rabbit, I don’t have any problem with fine legal distinctions. I just fuck every cute fluffy female rabbit in sight! It’s what nature designed me to do. The idea is to make as many new rabbits as possible, to replace the ones that get run over by cars or caught in Parks Department traps and sent to Bunny Meadows.
Marriage, in my humble opinion, should be a purely religious concept that accords no legal rights to anyone. Civil unions should be the only partnership that the state and feds recognize, and so long as minimum ages are met in such partnerships, it really should not matter who unites with whom.
@6
so long as minimum ages are met in such partnerships, it really should not matter who unites with whom.
so you are OK with brother and sister marriages and the like?
wow.
So are you okay with being a Retardican and the like?
Wow.
You’re conflating two laws here:
“Is “Everything But Marriage” really everything but marriage? Symbolically, no, but in a state where just five years ago one could be legally denied a job, a loan or a lease just on the suspicion of being a little faggy, it’s a huge step toward that goal.”
The domestic partnership law cannot protect anyone from being fired or denied housing because they’re LGBT. Only the anti-discrimination law does that. Conversely, the anti-discrimination law doesn’t give my partner access to my state pension when I die – the DP law does that.
I point this out because our arch enemies such as Sen. Val Stevens LOVE to try to scare the voters by telling them that if we have marriage equality in this state, you won’t be able to fire gays anymore. But Goldy & Val, the two issues are legally unrelated.
There is more than a symbolic difference between marriages and DPs. First and foremost, DPs fail to ask the federal government for a fair shake under federal law for same-sex couples. You know – income tax, Social Security, immigration – those little things. Second, my pastor is not allowed to solumnize my DP like she can solumnize your marriage. To all of you who chose to get legally married in a church and not just get your forms notarized at the bank (how romantic!), you know how important a difference this is.
Lurleen @9,
Perhaps I was too subtle, but I didn’t mean to conflate the two. I showed the political progression from the hard fought anti-discrimination law, to “Everything But Marriage” just a few years later, suggesting that this is an awful lot of progress on gay and lesbian rights in such a short amount of time.
And again, maybe too subtle, but I thought the entire thesis of my post was that Everything But Marriage doesn’t ask for these federal rights, which is exactly why the DOMA decision might spark a renewed push for full equality.
I guess states will be allowed to define when life starts too, overturning Roe v Wade
@11. Exactly Calvin, you should fight FOR this change, cause if we can get marriage defined as a states rights issue, then you have more leverage for your pet cause of defining when life starts.
Allthough I think your opinion would carry more weight, if you could get pregnant.
Ed Murray is a joke for his community…. He is
a self serving consultant on Transportation…
He was why we had a divided Ref 71 on the Ballot