BREAKING: Washington legislature passes marriage equality

February 8, 2012

By Jacob Combs

As anticipated, a proposed marriage equality bill passed the Washington House tonight, with a final vote tally of 55-43. The bill passed the state Senate last week, and now moves to Governor Chris Gregoire, who has pledged to sign it into law. Because there is no emergency clause in the bill, the law will take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, meaning gays and lesbians would be able to marry on June 7, unless opponents of marriage equality collect enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot in November, in which case the law would be suspended until the referendum was complete.

In his speech this afternoon on the House floor in support of the bill, openly gay Rep. Jamie Pedersen read from Judge Reinhardt’s 9th Circuit opinion yesterday striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, sharing the following words from the decision:

“We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word ‘marriage’ in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significant…. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.”

Congratulations, Washington!

Top 10 questions on next steps in the Prop 8 trial Join P8TT and other LGBT blogs in thanking Gov....

1467660 Comments2012-02-08+23%3A36%3A14Jacob+Combs Leave a Comment

1. MJFargo | February 8, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Wonderful news!
2. Tyler in Kansas | February 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm

NOM has already made plans for a referendum. I wonder if it would actually pass in a progressive state like Washington. I've also heard of efforts for a referendum to repeal Proposition 8 in California. Maybe there's finally enough support from the general public.
3. Dizzy | February 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm

Congrats WA!!
4. Christian | February 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm

The governor has five (business?) days to sign the bill into law. How many days away is Valentine's Day? ;D
5. bndkllr2 | February 8, 2012 at 3:47 pm

We need to get the "Decline to Sign" campaign in full gear in Washington. Not only will it possibly prevent the vote, but even if the vote goes forward, it will help educate voters. LET'S DO IT.
6. Ann S. | February 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Congrats, Washington!!!
7. Lymis | February 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

I wonder if the Prop 8 repeal decision would apply to this. It's almost exactly the same situation – the rights are in place and won't be affected, since they are already granted by civil union, which isn't up for repeal, other than the use of the word "marriage"

CAN they now, under the federal constitution, even have such a referendum? Even if there's a circuit court question, Washington is in the 9th as well, isn't it?
8. Mark M. (Seattle) | February 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Very emotional day for sure.
9. Rich | February 8, 2012 at 4:04 pm

I don't know if I can take any more excitement this week. Such fabulous news! Go Washington! Go California! Go the United States of America! We are all one, we are equal and we know that love knows no boundaries. Woop! Woop!
10. Prop 8 Trial Tracker » B&hellip | February 8, 2012 at 4:15 pm

[...] Prop 8 Trial Tracker » BREAKING: Washington legislature passes marriage equality. Others breaking [...]
11. José Merentes | February 8, 2012 at 4:25 pm

The possibility of a referendum in WA creeps me out.
12. Alyson | February 8, 2012 at 4:36 pm

If you want an extra boost read some of the comments on the comment section of the seattle times article that this post leads too. I don't often read general paper comment sections any more as they are so vitriolic but there are some intelligent, heart felt emotions coming from the locals about what NOW may try to do in their state. The couple pages worth I read at about 942 comments posted were overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality. SF gate has way more trolls than that. Gives me quite a bit of hope for them although I really hope they don't get put through the prop 8 thing.
13. B Z | February 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Unfortunately, this decision doesn't apply to Washington, because if enough signatures are collected, the law won't take effect until after the referendum passes, so the rights aren't in place yet.
14. Gregory in SLC | February 8, 2012 at 4:41 pm

more ((HUGS)) to you and Robert! Hip, Hip HOOOORAAYYY!!!
15. Alyson | February 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm

I meant NOM – not NOW! I am assuming NOW would have our backs?
16. PhillyKarl | February 8, 2012 at 5:03 pm

NOW would probably want the fronts, too., but who wouldn't, really? Anyway, I share your hope, and want to see NOM go down in flames, and hard. I think Washingtonians are going to see through their lies and deceit pretty easily, having been exposed to four years of Prop 8 coverage.
17. billa | February 8, 2012 at 5:03 pm

last year (2010) the voters of Washington turned down a repeal of the domestic partner law. There is a very good chance (running a good campaign) we could WIN on a vote of the people. I'm hope'n
18. X-man | February 8, 2012 at 5:09 pm

There is a good chance it wouldn't pass but, if they concentrate their signiture gathering efforts in the more conservative eastern half of the state there is a good chance they will get enough valid signatures to get a referendum on the ballot which delys actual marriages from taking place until next year.
19. John_B_in_DC | February 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Damn those unelected, activist judges! Oh wait, wrong script, these were the duly elected representatives of the people…
20. Blue | February 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm

What will happen with marriage in Washington depends on the route opponents take.

If they go for the referendum route, they have until …July 6? I think to get the required signatures (can't remember the number off of the top of my head – if anyone has it, please chime in). Marriage equality will be placed on hold until the results of the vote. Kind of like the situation with Question 1 in Maine.

They could also go the initiative route, I believe. That would be a constitutional amendment like Prop 8 was. They would have only until June 6 to collect signatures, but would only need half the number. Regardless of what is going on with the signature process in that case, marriages would begin July 7. If it were to pass, it's unclear what would happen to those marriages, and I think we'd probably have a legal situation similar to what the 9th Circuit limited Perry to.
21. PhillyKarl | February 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm

I think you're right about NOMbies being able to get enough signatures to get a referendum on the ballot, but I'm confident their victory will end there. Washingtonians have been exposed to four years of Prop 8 media. There's also a public record of the lies and deceit of NOMBies in the court documents now. And for all intents and purposes, council for BLAG in Golinsky ( Conor Dugan) admitted to the judge at trial that gay marriages do not harm straight marriages. – a key fixture in every NOM ad. Washingtonians will benefit from this huge body of evidence. That's the problem with NOM's "win at any cost" strategy involving lies and deceit – it catches up with you over time. A lot of Californians were fooled in 2008. I don't think as many will be fooled this time.
22. Ed Cortes | February 8, 2012 at 6:08 pm

If the referendum (dimb) gets on the ballot, and IF it passes, the trial and appeals process would eventually go to the 9th Circuit, and they have already (at least as soon as it's upheld) ruled on taking away rights already granted.
23. Ed Cortes | February 8, 2012 at 6:09 pm

That's supposed to be "referendum (dumb)"
24. Matt | February 8, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Except in this case, the right will not have been granted. The legislation only takes effect after either the referendum fails to gather enough signatures by June, or voters approve the legislation in a referendum in November. No one can get married until then, unlike California, where people could get married for several months.
25. Blue | February 8, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Like I said, it depends on what they use. Referendum's most likely, simply because an initiative would be pretty much the same legal scenario as Prop 8. (If they go the initiative route, it won't halt the bill, and there will be marriages. Though granted, the right wouldn't have been recognized via a court previously.)
26. Dave in Maine | February 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm

The same thing happened here in Maine. Our governor (the first in the nation!) signed it into law and the opposition wasted no time in getting the required signatures to place the "people's veto" on the ballot.

However, that was way back in 2009 and a lot has happened since then. The chances are better that Washington won't suffer the same outcome we did.
27. MightyAcorn | February 8, 2012 at 7:30 pm

Go Huskies, Cougars, and George!!!
28. Max | February 8, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Illinois introduced a marriage equality bill today also! Pretty good past two days.
29. Seth from Maryland | February 8, 2012 at 9:19 pm

http://youtu.be/Sf_wQ49g9H4

AFER press calll
30. Mark M. (Seattle) | February 8, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Thanks Greg!
Hugs to you and your hubby too
31. Seth from Maryland | February 8, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Ted Olson was fired up
32. Straght4Equality | February 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm

OT: I just learned from NH Freedom to Marry Coalition that "The bill to repeal marriage equality in New Hampshire HB437 has been put on the House of Representatives calendar to be voted on next Wednesday the 15 of February." I hope the House delays it again. Or better yet, gives up trying.
33. Steve | February 8, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Good job Washington.
Will the prop 8 repeal be on the ballot if SCOTUS decides not to hear it?
34. guest | February 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm

It also depends on which referendum is successful. There are two anti equalityinitiatives being pursued right now. The first, being repeal, would put the legislation on hold. The second, would ask voters to define marriage as between members of the opposite sex, having no direct link to the bill. The latter would not place the legislation on hold, making the situation identical in consequence to california.
35. guest | February 8, 2012 at 11:43 pm

Isn't the governor a democrat? So they'd have to override a veto? Not sure what the numbers are, but overrides are never easy.
36. Bill S. | February 9, 2012 at 12:06 am

But would this referendum really do anything that the California referendum didn't? Prop 8 didn't repeal anybody's existing marriage. The fact that 18,000 same-sex couples were married before Prop 8 before it passed had no bearing on the court's conclusion because their marriages remained intact.

A right to marriage was granted and then it was taken away from prospective couples who wanted to marry. The same would happen here.
37. Bill S. | February 9, 2012 at 12:21 am

But Prop 8 didn't actually rescind anybody's existing marriage so this shouldn't make a difference. A right to marriage was granted, then taken away. Same here. Whether or not some same-sex couples could have gotten married before shouldn't make a difference.
38. Bryce from DC and KS | February 9, 2012 at 12:39 am

It would be awesome if it were signed on Valnetine's Day!!!
39. Tim in Sonoma | February 9, 2012 at 1:05 am

So happy for one state, so worried about another and another!
I hope and (yes pray) that some day all couples in every state are permitted to celebrate their love with respect and dignity, without the dark cloud of jugement hanging over their heads and the fear that NOM is lurking in the darkness waiting to pounce and take it all away!
People of Washington, it's time to stand up in solidarity, no matter if you are gay or straight and fight for the civil rights of ALL Americans!
The United States Of America is a free country, that said, the religious freedoms of all must be protected, yet their beliefs must not trump the fundelmental American civil rights declaired too us ALL by the constitution of the United States Of America!
40. Tim in Sonoma | February 9, 2012 at 1:09 am

"fundlemental" Spell check is on a mini vacation…..
41. guest | February 9, 2012 at 2:32 am

or maybe "fundamental" is even better…
42. Bob Barnes | February 9, 2012 at 2:32 am

Gov Lynch has promised to veto the bill.
43. web hosting geeks | February 9, 2012 at 4:37 am

It is not right to give the equality to lesbians and gays, to my mind. I don't understand it since such couples then adopt children and these children may further be stuck in their feeling of a wrong family. I don't think it is right to make this choice for the unborn children.
44. frisky1 | February 9, 2012 at 5:04 am

The initiative requires twice as many signatures, not half. It would take 240,000 signatures and marriages would start on June 7th even if there was an initiative on the ballot–so Washington would be in the same position as California if the initiative passed. The initiative needs to have its signatures by July 7th. The referendum only takes 120,000 signatures, and the marriages would be put on hold until the outcome was determined. The referendum needs the signatures by June 6th.

Some people were suggesting that Washington wait until March to do this so there would be less time to get the referendum on the ballot, since that appears to be the more likely route, but obviously they felt it was more important to just get it done.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/washingt…
45. David | February 9, 2012 at 5:15 am

Children don't have these feelings of being in the wrong family you imagine. That is you projecting your feelings onto their circumstances.

As for equality, every US citizen has the rightful expectation to be treated equally by the state. There are no tax breaks for being gay, so why should gay people accept less rights?
46. frisky1 | February 9, 2012 at 5:16 am

Here in the 21st century we know that gay people and gay couples are equally able to provide loving, supportive homes that make children safe, happy and productive.

Also, in case you don't know, the Earth revolves around the sun (its not the other way around).
47. Straight Dave | February 9, 2012 at 6:45 am

NH GOP has veto-proof super majorities in both houses. But in NH, there are a lot of libertarians that don't necessarily support repeal. Overriding a veto is not a sure bet despite the numbers. And the voters would have their heads in Nov if the veto was overridden. I'm pretty hopeful on NH surviving
48. grod | February 9, 2012 at 7:28 am

And Dave, given that marriage equality is the only ballot question possible this year – based on 85% more signatures than needed, given NOM has two black eyes with Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, given ‘We are Your Neighbours’ work that has been done by yourself and other Equality Maine advocates, as seen by a rise to 54% support for Marriage Equality, the chances are also better that Maine won't suffer the same outcome that you did in 2009 – despite what Richard Malone might say.
49. AnonyGrl | February 9, 2012 at 7:37 am

I think just getting it done was the correct course to take. While it does allow NOM more time to gather signatures, it also struck while the iron was hot, and I think that was important.
50. AnonyGrl | February 9, 2012 at 7:44 am

Then I would suggest that YOU do not make that choice.

However, some of the very best parents I know are a couple of men who have adopted FIVE special needs children, born with HIV, disabilities, drug addictions… and those children would NOT thank you at all for your attitude. They chose to open their hearts and home and provide a wonderful life for these children, and shame on YOU for thinking that their family is in any way wrong.
51. Straght4Equality | February 9, 2012 at 8:06 am

There is definitely hope, but I am still uneasy. I hope that the blowback over this, plus the other craziness they have been engaging in, will lead to throwing out those whose terms are coming up.
52. B Z | February 9, 2012 at 8:22 am

But in Washington, the right to marriage hasn't been granted yet. In states like Washington (and Maine and Maryland), the referendum is just part of the "how a bill becomes a law" process (if enough signatures are collected). Similarly (in a hypothetical world where New Jersey was part of the 9th Circuit), if the NJ legislature passes marriage equality and then Gov. Christie vetoes it, we wouldn't be able to claim that his veto took away an existing right.
53. Bikil | February 9, 2012 at 8:24 am

I am so happy about this vote!

I know I don't post here much (in fact, only have posted here once before), but I feel I would like to speak up about an issue that may seem small to some, but is big to me. I am bisexual and have been all my life (getting near 40 now). I am so appreciative of everyone who has started using the phrasing "marriage equality" or "same-sex marriage" to talk about this issue. It is hard when marriage is referred to as "gay marriage" or "gay and lesbian marriage" as it was in the original post because that makes me feel like I am being erased from an issue that definitely affects me.

Thank you to everyone for your enthusiasm and openness. I have found that the people on this board are wonderful to speak with. I just wanted to ask for a bit of awareness about an issue that can help unite us rather than erase or divide us.

Thank you!
54. _BK_ | February 9, 2012 at 8:34 am

Wasn't this bill introduced on Valentine's Day last year?
55. Owen | February 9, 2012 at 9:04 am

Actually, it was in 2009, which was an off year. In a year with lower voter turnout/higher conservative turnout (as a percentage of overall voters), Washington state still re-affirmed gay unions. Since then, the needle has moved a lot on marriage. Let's hope this means a win is coming.
56. fiona64 | February 9, 2012 at 10:22 am

Obvious troll is obvious.
57. aeon | February 9, 2012 at 10:38 am

do you have a direct link to more information? i looked everywhere, it's not on the NH Freedom to Marry Coalition website. the house of represetatives calendar also doesn't list the bill on it's agenda. in fact their calendar shows that they are not in session on the 15th. i'm hoping for a delay as well.
58. Str8_Supporter | February 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

The first dirty trick of the campaign – and the bill hasn't even been signed!

Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney and candidate for state attorney general who opposes same-sex marriage, said he is moving ahead with the initiative to clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman, rather than between a male and a female — language in the existing law he considers more ambiguous.

Anne Levinson said gay-marriage opponents are clearly trying to confuse voters by pushing two measures that speak to the same issue.

"Having both together on the ballot would make it that much more difficult for voters to understand the impact of their decision," she said.

If you can't win fair, fight dirty, eh?
WA must be a "win at all costs" state for them.
59. Tim in Sonoma | February 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm

LOL Thanks ok, big vacation!
60. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 9, 2012 at 2:32 pm

[...] the Washington state legislature passed a marriage equality bill, which Gov. Chris Gregoire said she will sign before Valentine’s [...]

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments