OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington state's slow-but-steady approach to increasing rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples hit its first snag just as the three-year process appeared to be complete. After lawmakers passed the state's first domestic partnership bill in 2007, and then expanded it a year later, they completed the package with the so-called "everything but marriage" bill that was signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year. On Tuesday, voters get the final say on whether they think lawmakers overstepped their bounds. Referendum 71 asks 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. Under state law, heterosexual seniors also can register as domestic partners. Opponents of the law say R-71 is a vote on same-sex marriage. "It enshrines into law something we don't think should be there," said Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which pushed to get the referendum on the ballot. "It is a bridge to gay marriage." Supporters of gay rights say that the marriage debate is for another day, but that in the meantime, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights. Those opposed to R-71 are "asking people to take away the basic safety net that families need when there's a crisis because these social conservatives think it might somehow lead to marriage," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, the group fighting to keep the law on the books. The expanded law adds benefits including 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 take effect only if approved by voters. Recent polling has indicated support for the new law. In September, independent pollster Stuart Elway found the measure holding a 46-41 lead for approval among registered voters, with 13 percent undecided. This week, the Washington Poll, released through the University of Washington, found even stronger support, with a 56-46 lead, with 5 percent undecided. More than $2.1 million has been spent in the campaign, with a bulk of it spent by supporters of the domestic partnership law. The biggest single donation to the campaign in support of the law came from Microsoft Corp., which gave $100,000 to the effort. Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer and co-founder Bill Gates each gave $25,000. TV ads in support of the law started running statewide earlier this month, while those opposed have spent much of their money on radio ads. "We're not highly funded," Randall, of the reject campaign, said. "The focus is on the grass roots, the people who got this on this ballot in the first place." If the law is rejected at the polls, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships 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. Last year, lawmakers expanded that law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship. "We've done the right thing by choosing an incremental approach and doing this slowly and bringing people along with us," said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle Democrat who has been a main sponsor on the domestic partnership bills. More than 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners. Most of the couples are gay. Levinson said the reject R-71 campaign is "anti-gay," and she pointed to the rhetoric being used by opponents, including a recent letter written by Sen. Val Stevens, a Republican from Arlington, that was posted on the Protect Marriage Web site. "Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and familiesl?" the letter asked. Until recently, the focus of the public debate over R-71 was on the court battle over whether the names of those who pushed for the public vote should be disclosed. The U.S. Supreme Court recently stopped the release of the names of the more than 138,000 people who signed referendum petitions, as it decides whether to hear the case -- something that is not expected to happen until after the election. Another lawsuit was filed in federal court last week by a political action committee also seeking to overturn the new law. The Family PAC wanted the court to allow it to accept contributions of more than $5,000, and to be exempt from having to report donor's names. A federal judge ruled that the group must abide by state campaign finance laws while their suit moves ahead. Washington state, along with several other states, including California, Oregon and New Jersey, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. A referendum in Maine on Tuesday will determine the fate of a same-sex marriage bill passed by the Legislature in May.
vitaliyl said on October 31, 2009 at 1:59 PM
you think the people who wrote the constituion would want gay marriages?
vitaliyl said on October 31, 2009 at 2:00 PM
you think the people who wrote the constitution would want gay marriages? god will punish everyone who disobeys his laws
wishfulthinking said on October 31, 2009 at 2:59 PM
So either you have to be gay or over 62! What about the people that are not gay not married and not 62 or older. Gays choose to be in relationships that are non childbearing. The should not be aloud to adopt
drphlogiston said on October 31, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Wow, "the Washington Poll, released through the University of Washington, found even stronger support, with a 56-46 lead, with 5 percent undecided." We need some better math jockeys at the UW. Are 107% of the voters going to vote?
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Of course the voter does not get the last say. The sodomites will file a motion to overthrow it and/or the sodomite senator from capitol hill will introduce legislation to make sodomite marriages legal.
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Anyone who thinks washington state voters have the last say in anything is a fool. I still hate this new site - especially 250 word limit.
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Anyone else notice all the news sites now look the same and the stories and even the titles of the stories are identical???
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:19 PM
The laughing stock of the seattle area news media. This site is now a KOMO clone (as is most of the belo sites now)
tommylee said on October 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Now I can pretend to be Tommy Lee and agree with Anonymous User
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Now I am back to being Anonymous User. This backwards feature is great for trolls.
anonymoususer said on October 31, 2009 at 4:26 PM
KING - your new site sucks. This is a disaster and a half. I now spend 1% of the time here that I used to (if that much) - and most of that is hoping the nightmare ended and it's back to being the old KING site
factoid said on October 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Character limits suck, typing the hallucinogenic words to submit is a pain. If these don't get fixed, I am out.
Anonymous said on October 31, 2009 at 6:11 PM
KING THIS SITE SUCKS!!! FIRE THE GUY WHO DESIGNED THIS NEW FORMAT OF YOURS!!!
ruba61 said on October 31, 2009 at 6:14 PM
I left 3 messages on here and none showed up. This site is BS!! KING GET RID OF IT AND GET BACK THE OLD SITE!!
bazwest said on October 31, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Reject R-71 and preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our great state!
kilercounts said on October 31, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Those that believe that there are some Americans who should have more rights than others are UnAmerican and pathetic. Equal rights for all Americans, not just the ones you agree with you right wing morons. Approve R-71 people, Equal rights for ALL !
commonsensewa said on October 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Complain and spew all the ignorant hate speech you like, but in the end the voters will prevail in upholding our rights. I wish you all well in your search for the next group to vent your rage.
anonymoususer said on November 1, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Everyone already has the same rights - marry a HUMAN BEING of the OPPOSITE SEX, who is NOT CLOSELY RELATED, and is OVER THE AGE OF 18 (16 in some circumstances) Any modification of this is SPECIAL RIGHTS -
anonymoususer said on November 1, 2009 at 1:34 AM
whether it's a pedophile marrying a young child, a zoophile marrying an animal, or a sodomite marrying someone of the same sex - those are SPECIAL rights, not normal rights that everyone already has.
anonymoususer said on November 1, 2009 at 1:36 AM
next the pedophiles and zoophiles will want the same special rights just like the sodomites.
oldreliable said on November 1, 2009 at 8:10 AM
this site DOES suck ... I am going to KOMO.... besides their anchors look and act smarter on the tube ....
frred said on November 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Gee, am I anonymoususer this time or frred? I wonder if my post will even show up, my last five have dissappeared or show up, then dissapppear. Good job on this new site. King5 is self destructing like our country is. Signed, anonymous user..........
wishfulthinking said on November 1, 2009 at 12:50 PM
This law is age and sex discrimanatory.
drphlogiston said on November 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
The religious puzzle me, why would they even care if gay folks get married. I have been married 33 years, a gay marriage in no way impacts my marriage. It is really the religious seeking "special rights'", the ability to dictate to others.
bazwest said on November 1, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Why is marriage between one man and one woman the current definition of marriage? Because that is what our society has determined is natural, moral, and appropriate. Why is bigamy, or polygamy not legal under the law even though there are
bazwest said on November 1, 2009 at 10:18 PM
adults who would consent to such a relationship? Simple--because our society has determined that this is not moral and appropriate and should not be sanctioned by the state. Just because there are consenting adults who would choose a certain
bazwest said on November 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM
lifestyle if it were made legal is not reason enough for society to sanction it. I believe that the same is true of gay marriage. I do believe that marriage between a man and a woman should remain our societies definition of marriate. Reject R-71
Anonymous said on November 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM
bazwest ,Gays are tax paying citizens and they deserve equal rights. Saying they should only marry someone of opposite sex is same as saying "Race mixers should only marry someone of the same race" back before Loving v. Virgina.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 1:08 AM
slaide2 sez that pedophiles and zoophiles deserve "equal" rights along with sodomites because they all pay taxes. So if a murder pays taxes he should be allowed to have special rights too??? sodomites are the only ones who think behavior = race.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM
God says those who approve of sodomy are just as guilty as the sodomites and will be punished equally right along with them (Romans 1) slaide2 sez zoophiles should be able to marry animals and pedophiles should be allowed to marry young children.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM
slaide2 sez incest should be allowed too because those involved in incest pay taxes and their behavior needs to be treated the same as a race of people.
2lat4me said on November 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM
If I hear someone mention "special rights" one more time...I DARE ANY OF YOU BIGOTTED, SELF-RIGHTOUS, THICK SKULLED IDIOTS TO SHOW ME WHAT SPECIAL RIGHTS ARE THESE PEOPLE AFTER THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO. Yes, you can have your mommy check your spelling.
2lat4me said on November 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I knew none of you fools could come up with anything. HA! Wusses.
mtrgphr said on November 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM
I must agree with the other bloggers. This new site is not very friendly and lacks the character. the previous site had character and stood out as unique and different. Please return to the previous format.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The sodomites already have the same rights as everyone else: Marry a HUMAN BEING of the OPPOSITE SEX who is NOT CLOSELY RELATED and is OVER AGE OF MAJORITY. Anything else is special rights. Special rights are being demanded by the sodomites and then next the zoophiles and pedophiles will also want special rights to marry animals and young children. sodomy is a BEHAVIOR and is NOT a race of people - otherwise they would have already died out. The only way they can continue their deviant lifestyle is to recruit children into joining their sick society - just like drug dealers who continue to prey on children so do the sodomites.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM
sodomites are sexual deviants. pedophiles are not allowed to have sex with children (yet), zoophiles are not allowed to have sex with animals (yet), fathers are not allowed to have sex with their daughters (yet) - so why do sodomites expect not only to be able to have sex with each other but get benefits from taxpayers and their employers for having their deviant lifestyle ??? next the zoophiles and pedophiles will want special rights and benefits for their deviant sexual lifestyles too.
anonymoususer said on November 2, 2009 at 12:51 PM
old KING was a great site. new KING sucks.
2lat4me said on November 2, 2009 at 1:02 PM
aNONYMOUSABUSER, you crack me up. You are so uneducated, closed minded, misinformed and full of hate that you just can't be taken seriously. What are you, 12, 13? All of this jibberish coming from a man who has never had sex without say, "Ow, Daddy. NO! Quit! Quit!"