OLYMPIA, Wash. – New results released Wednesday afternoon show that Washington state's new "everything but marriage" law was passing by a wider margin than on election night.
Referendum 71 asked voters to approve or reject the final expansion to the state's domestic partnership law, which grants registered domestic partners additional state-granted rights currently given only to married couples.
The latest results show about 52 percent of voters approving the measure.
Sen. Ed Murray, a Democrat from Seattle who spearheaded the domestic partnership law, said he was pleased R-71 was leading, but the closeness of the race showed that "we still have a lot of work to do in having a conversation with the citizens of the state about the reality of gay and lesbian families."
The measure was failing in most of the state's 39 counties, except for 10 counties in the traditionally more liberal Puget Sound area, including King County, which includes Seattle and holds about a third of the state's voters.
Opponents of the law pointed to that division as proof that King County, which holds about a third of the state's voters, disproportionately affects election results in the state.
"There's two sets of values in Washington. There's values in Seattle, and there's the rest of us," said Larry Stickney of Protect Marriage Washington, which pushed to get the referendum on the ballot. "The vast majority of Washington counties are uncomfortable with the radical social agenda coming out of Seattle."
The expanded law would add benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.
The law was supposed to take effect July 26, but now will go on the books only if approved by voters. If rejected, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships with fewer benefits to gay couples would remain in place.
The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. Under state law, senior couples can register as domestic partnerships as well.
Last year, lawmakers expanded that law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.
More than 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners.
tacwilster said on November 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
It never really seems to matter what the rest of the state wants as long as King County gets there way.
tacwilster said on November 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Doesn't matter what the rest of the state wants, as long King county wants something they get it.
citydude said on November 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM
How dare anyone vote against rights for someone when they have those same rights themselves. GLBT people deserve all the rights heteros have, and that includes calling it marriage. If the state gives heteros the right to call it marriage then you have to give that right to GLBT people too, that is what equality under the law is. That is what makes the USA so moral, so great. since the civil war we have been making progress toward the great human principle of equality under law, it is a bad sign when America doesn't understand the importance of this principle and votes against it. Marriage isn't a religious insitution: It is a human institution. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. Humans have been coupling long before religion was invented by humans. And if 3 people or more want to get married: let them. And of course a dog can't get married or a minor because they can't give consent.
ciicfi said on November 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Seattle & King County are full of weird people. Move them all back to Calif where they came from or to the Bay Area.
mudhelmet said on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I voted no because this law does not take into account hetro people who don't want to marry but still want the rights that homosexuals would get with the passing of ref. 71.
dogshowfanatic said on November 4, 2009 at 5:17 PM
That would be because King County holds the majority of the population. If you think that supporters of R-71 are weird, I would suggest moving eastern WA or moving to the south east. The NW is progressive, and is becoming more so each day.
ithurts said on November 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM
tacwilster - You are free to be upset, but the pesky thing about voting is that the majority decides, regardless of where they live in the state.
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 5:33 PM
mudhelmet, Yes, Ref 71 does take that into account. It will facilitate any two consenting adults who doesn't want to (or can't) be married in a conventional marriage arrangement. King County wasn't the only county where the majority of residents voted for the referendum. So did Snohomish, Kitsap, Jefferson and others. The majority of the residents have voted and spoken. Live with it or move to another state.
bac148 said on November 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Personally, I think looking at it as a "gay and lesbian right vs. hetero rights" misses the big picture. They are all people. Ciicfi, the bay area is in california. I know which way you voted
daunte said on November 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Im being discriminated against. Im straight and I live with my girlfriend and I dont get these rights. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Booooooooooooo. We need a law to fix this injustice! No fair im takeing my ball and going home!
lindengroves said on November 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Duante, you are not being discriminated against because you can get married. Gays can't marry in Washington. And Tacwilster, there are 39 counties, none of which can vote. People can vote. Cows can't vote, and acreage can't vote. Large swaths of red on maps can't vote. The Puget Sound area has most of the people. Therefore what the majority wants it can usually get as long as the Constitutional rights of the minority are respected. People with your viewpoint never seem to mind when the red counties vote overwhelmingly for Tim Eyman initiatives and force his short-sighted views on those of us in King County, thankfully only temporarily in most cases.
factoid said on November 4, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Washington has created a slippery slope. You wait, once we flush morals down the toilet and let this 'anything goes' behavior take root, in 10 to 20 years we will be voting on giving folks the right to marry their pets, farm animals etc. Think it will never happen? 20 years ago, they said the same thing about Steve and Steve or Jane and Jane.
daunte said on November 4, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Untrue, I CHOOSE not to get married so yes I am being discriminated against!
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 8:10 PM
factoid, There were people 60 years ago who said precisely what you're saying when whites and blacks wished to be married and people, thinking like yourself, were afraid of it. Lighten up. No one is going to crash in your front door and put up a gay rights poster in your living room. You need to mind your own business and attend to your family.
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Besides, the Referendum, may God bless Larry Stickney for putting it on the ballot, is passing! Way to go, Larry! God is smiling upon you.
west_seattle said on November 4, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Daunte, your logic is off. You have the option to get married and thus enjoy the benefits thereof. Gay couples can't get married and thus ARE being discriminated against.
eisel98 said on November 4, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Frankly, there is too many conservatives in this state, and nationwide for that matter. I'm married and I voted for this referendum. I don't think it's anybody's right to try and instill their beliefs, opinions, or values onto anybody else. Your entitled to your whatever you may think. Who are we to define what a marriage is? Why does it always have to be between a man and a woman? Gays and lesbians have existed for centuries, and they are who they are, so why not let them have the same rights as married couples. I see this referendum as progress towards equality that should have always been.
kspencer said on November 4, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Daunte, you have the CHOICE to get married if you wish. AND if you don't want to get married, but do want the benefits of marriage, Ref. 71 would allow you to apply for a domestic partnership, so you are NOT being discriminated against. Factoid, bigotry is no longer America's past time so you should probably get with the program and learn to stop fearing things you don't understand. You stick with your morals, everyone else will stick with theirs.
factoid said on November 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I do not consider whites and blacks getting married the same thing. One does not have the choice to be black or white. I happen to believe, if you are attracted to little kids, there is something wrong, if you are attracted to farm animals, there is something wrong, if you are attracted to the same sex, there is something wrong. The only reason they don't put a sign in my living room is because it is against the law, I am sure if they could they would, anything goes right? You are partially correct, it is none of by business what you do behind closed doors, but when you have parades and try to teach my children that your chosen lifestyle, is normal, it becomes my business. I have attended to my family just fine, thank you.
kspencer said on November 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM
I am fairly sure that tesseract was not trying to say you disagree with interracial marriage, they were simply stating that many people 60 years ago would have said "If you are attracted to blacks, there is something wrong". I am not trying to change your ideals, I just don't think it's right that you are dictating the meaning of the word "morals".
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 9:07 PM
factoid, one question: when did you decide to be heterosexual?
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Just glad that the new incoming ballots support Referendum 71. Thank you, Larry Stickney!! May God bless him for putting it on the ballot.
tesseract said on November 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM
factoid, I happen to believe that if a person actively supports denying basic human rights to another human being, something is wrong. It's called discrimination, and you know it, bud. Have a great day.
macisbest said on November 4, 2009 at 9:39 PM
I don't normally post to things, but I felt that I had to in this case. I am a gay man, it took many years to be proud of that because of society. I grew up when you could not be open. There even times that I still must remain "closeted" due to circumstances. What has really bothered me with this initative is that it has continually been labeled the "Gay Initative". I am forcably retired due to health reasons. I am also in my early 60's, so tried to see the bigger picture. There are thousands of older heterosexual couples that cannot get married due to their incomes. If they marry, they will loose benefits. They are left out when it comes to health, death and all of the other things involved. This initative was also for them. They now have rights that they didn't have. Am I glad, as a gay man that it passed - YES. Am I glad that many hetrosexual couples will be able to live happier lives - YES.
sp2009 said on November 4, 2009 at 10:39 PM
BLAA BLAAA BLAAA. Who cares. In time Obama will have his way and we will be a socialist country. Don’t worry comrade we will all be taken care of.
emptynestr said on November 4, 2009 at 10:39 PM
It isn't just the homosexual agenda that is the problem in this country but the entire socialist liberal mindset is way off kilter. We ARE on a slippery slope to hell in a handbasket folks and mark my words...we will ALL pay the ultimate price for that sort of thinking. one of these days. Personally I HATE SIN. It is UGLY. And noone benefits by it.
alivia said on November 4, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I voted No to R-71 and so my family did. The reason I voted No just to protect my children. Children are happy with mother and father - That's the real family. Also I belive that the real man will need a woman to fulfil all of the emotional and phisical need. Same for the woman she need a man to fulfil her emotional and phisical needs. We need a helthy suciety for our famalies and children.
jesuswept said on November 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM
There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. a quick google for "studies proving homosexual people have high hiv rates and suicide rates" as well being harmful to raising children. http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690 http://www.rightremedy.org/booklets/54 http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D157420%2526M%253D150019,00.html http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/attempted-suicide-gay-lesbian-all-studies.htm http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/facts.html http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691 http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2002_06_01_RB_ChildsViewMarriage.pdf http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1034938/posts http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/01/sexually-transmitted-disease-rates-as-high-as-our
drmike said on November 5, 2009 at 12:04 AM
jesuswept needs to learn the difference between cause and effect. When gay youth grow up in families and a society that does not accept them they have a higher rate of depression and suicide. When gay relationships are not accepted by society you should not be surprised to see a a higher rate of promiscuity and STDs. Yes, there are higher rates of HIV and suicide in gays -- how can you possibly believe that marginalizing them will help this situation? There have been a lot of studies on the effects on children of growing up with homosexual parents. There has not been a consistant finding of harm. Your links point to sites with a bias on this issue.
jesuswept said on November 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Yes, after reading these studies the gay community likes to place the blame on society for their poor decisions and tragic statics. it's never their fault...society caused them to do it because of 'non-acceptance'. the same argument could be made by every person in prison as well ...they never got a fair deal in the world so they had to make poor decisions. with all respect, i disagree putting blame on someone else rather than yourself. the 'poor me victim ideology' is what is making this country weak and most seeking assistance/handouts/welfare/hand-holding from our government...and anything else they can get from anyone else at whatever cost and under whatever rationale. When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions instead of always trying to blame someone else for their situation?
alivia said on November 5, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I am just thinking for what will we vote in 15 years? Can I marry my dog or my cat? As long as it's love let's call it marriage? 15 years ago no one talked about gays and lesbians and voting for them, but now we are voting and accepting them because they are under depression and we are as a society causing it by not accepting them. If we allow this to happen now our youth will lose the real values of marriage and marring anything will be ok, as long as it's love. As a mother I want to have grandchildren some day, how are we going to continue our generation???
casetermon said on November 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM
The people have spoken, and democracy has been served. Its over.
vickdichselbst said on November 5, 2009 at 4:37 PM
"If we allow this to happen now our youth will lose the real values of marriage and marring (sic) anything will be ok" Talk about being paranoid. Get a reality. No one is talking about marrying animals, robots or pizzas here. I'm not gay, I don't have any gay friends, I barely even know anyone who is gay. I don't care about their lifestyle, I don't care about their morals. It doesn't concern me. But I do think they should have the same rights, freedoms, privileges and responsibilities as any other citizen of this country. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
h_potter said on November 5, 2009 at 8:08 PM
aliva, let's explore your slippery slope argument a little bit more. If it were OK to stop gay people from forming unions today, how are we going to guarantee that in 15 years time, you won't fight to deny legal rights to inter-racial couples, people having a different religion from yours, or for whatever reason disgust YOU?
macisbest said on November 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM
sp2009: Sorry, socialism and "comrade" Marxism are two different things. Unfortunately, our history with CCCP just kind of put the two together into one bad thing. Britian and Canada (and other countries) are free countries with socialized medicine and such, there are still free countries. Obama does not spark of Marxism.
billiameveryman said on November 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I thought about the children when I cast my vote... So I voted to approve Ref. 71 so I wouldn't have to try to explain to them why I voted to take away a certain group of people's civil rights... And another thing, I will raise my children without religion, and they will be every bit as happy, healthy, and moral as any others, because I will teach them to love their fellow men and women and not to hate or discriminate...
andiamotodd said on November 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Let's quit pretending that R-71 is anything but an attempt at removing rights granted by the legislature. This debate is clear evidence why combining legal rights and religion is such a bad idea. Call it marraige, civil unions, or captain happy's funtime roller coaster, the rights and responsibilities should be available to any loving couple. Anything less would be no different than any other form of discrimination!
billiameveryman said on November 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Oooooh, can we call it Captain Happy's Funtime Roller Coaster???
tesseract said on November 7, 2009 at 2:02 AM
The votes have been made and it's over. Live with it, people. Go back to your Wiis and X-boxes, have a Subway sandwich, watch NCIS and get over it.
snowbear said on November 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM
As a christian, I personally have been taught to love my neighbor not judge my neighbor. I believe we were asked to leave the judgment part to God. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we all have to agree. It just seems that if these differences do not present a direct danger then we should live and let live. I don't believe it should be Society who teaches our children. I believe that should be up to each parent to give their child a strong loving example to live by. What ever that life style is. I would like to make one comment in agreement with those who find the gay rights parade distasteful. I would not intentionally take my child to a burlesque show and do not understand why it has been deemed appropriate to dress so scantily in a public forum for all ages to see, be it man or woman. I have seen some great "rights" parades that sent powerful messages. This parade does not portray pride in my mind but more of a joke. Is this the message you would like to leave?