Recent News

Marriage Equality Legislation Introduced

OYC Staff - Monday, January 16, 2012

Marriage Equality Legislation has been introduced in Olympia in the form of Senate Bill 6239 and it's companion bill HB 2516.  Below is the text of the original document introduced in the Senate.

 

 

SENATE BILL 6239

 

 

_____________________________________________

 

State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2012 Regular Session

 

By Senators Murray, Pflug, Hobbs, Litzow, Kohl-Welles, Ranker, Tom,

 

Harper, Pridemore, Keiser, Kline, Regala, Eide, Rolfes, McAuliffe,

Brown, Nelson, Chase, Fraser, Frockt, Conway, Kilmer, and Prentice;

by request of Governor Gregoire

 

Read first time 01/16/12. Referred to Committee on Government

Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections

 

1 AN ACT Relating to providing equal protection for all families in

2 Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the

3 domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom; amending

4 RCW 26.04.010, 26.04.020, 26.04.050, 26.04.060, 26.04.070, 26.60.010,

5 26.60.030, 26.60.090, and 1.12.080; adding new sections to chapter

6 26.04 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 26.60 RCW; creating new

7 sections; and providing a contingent effective date.

8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

9 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) It is the intent of this act to end

10 discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in

11 Washington, to ensure that all persons in this state may enjoy the

12 freedom to marry on equal terms, while also respecting the religious

13 freedom of clergy and religious institutions to determine for whom to

14 perform marriage ceremonies and to determine which marriages to

15 recognize for religious purposes.

16 (2) No official of any religious denomination or nonprofit

17 institution authorized to solemnize marriages may be required to

18 solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to free

p. 1 SB 6239

 

1 exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United

2 States Constitution or by the Washington state Constitution.

3 Sec. 2. RCW 26.04.010 and 1998 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read as

4 follows:

5 (1) Marriage is a civil contract between ((a male and a female))

6 two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who

7 are otherwise capable.

8 (2) Every marriage entered into in which either ((the husband or

9 the wife)) person has not attained the age of seventeen years is void

10 except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of

11 the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of

12 necessity.

13 (3) Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of

14 spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife

15 used in any statute, rule, or other law must be construed to be gender

16 neutral and applicable to spouses of the same sex.

17 Sec. 3. RCW 26.04.020 and 1998 c 1 s 4 are each amended to read as

18 follows:

19 (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

20 (a) When either party thereto has a ((wife or husband)) spouse or

21 registered domestic partner living at the time of such marriage, unless

22 the registered domestic partner is the other party to the marriage; or

23 (b) When the ((husband and wife)) spouses are nearer of kin to each

24 other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing

25 by the rules of the civil law((; or

26 (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female)).

27 (2) It is unlawful for any ((man to marry his father's sister,

28 mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter,

29 brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman

30 to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's

31 son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son)) person to marry

32 his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

33 (3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in

34 another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not

35 prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a)((, (1)(c),)) or (2)

36 of this section.

SB 6239 p. 2

 

1 (4) A legal union, other than a marriage, between two individuals

2 that was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction and that

3 provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities

4 as a marriage, does not prohibit those same two individuals from

5 obtaining a marriage license in Washington.

6 Sec. 4. RCW 26.04.050 and 2007 c 29 s 1 are each amended to read

7 as follows:

8 (1) The following named officers and persons, active or retired,

9 are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages, to wit: Justices of the

10 supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior

11 courts, supreme court commissioners, court of appeals commissioners,

12 superior court commissioners, any regularly licensed or ordained

13 minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church

14 or religious denomination, and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction

15 as defined in RCW 3.02.010.

16 (2) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam,

17 rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination is

18 required to solemnize any marriage. A refusal to solemnize any

19 marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained

20 minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or

21 religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of

22 action. No state agency or local government may base a decision to

23 penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any church

24 or religious denomination on the refusal of a person associated with

25 such church or religious denomination to solemnize a marriage under

26 this section.

27 Sec. 5. RCW 26.04.060 and 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 42 s 25 are each

28 amended to read as follows:

29 A marriage solemnized before any person professing to be a minister

30 or a priest ((of any)), imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church

31 or religious denomination in this state or professing to be an

32 authorized officer thereof, is not void, nor shall the validity thereof

33 be in any way affected on account of any want of power or authority in

34 such person, if such marriage be consummated with a belief on the part

35 of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been

36 lawfully joined in marriage.

p. 3 SB 6239

 

1 Sec. 6. RCW 26.04.070 and Code 1881 s 2383 are each amended to

2 read as follows:

3 In the solemnization of marriage no particular form is required,

4 except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence

5 of the minister, priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church

6 or religious denomination, or judicial officer solemnizing the same,

7 and in the presence of at least two attending witnesses, that they take

8 each other to be husband and wife.

9 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW

10 to read as follows:

11 (1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60

12 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,

13 facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the

14 solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization

15 offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or

16 facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,

17 privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

18 (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide

19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods

20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not

21 create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers

22 those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or

23 goods to the public in transactions governed by law against

24 discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.

25 Sec. 8. RCW 26.60.010 and 2007 c 156 s 1 are each amended to read

26 as follows:

27 Many Washingtonians are in intimate, committed, and exclusive

28 relationships with another person to whom they are not legally married.

29 These relationships are important to the individuals involved and their

30 families; they also benefit the public by providing a private source of

31 mutual support for the financial, physical, and emotional health of

32 those individuals and their families. The public has an interest in

33 providing a legal framework for such mutually supportive relationships,

34 whether the partners are of the same or different sexes, and

35 irrespective of their sexual orientation.

SB 6239 p. 4

 

1 ((The legislature finds that same sex couples, because they cannot

2 marry in this state, do not automatically have the same access that

3 married couples have to certain rights and benefits, such as those

4 associated with hospital visitation, health care decision-making, organ

5 donation decisions, and other issues related to illness, incapacity,

6 and death. Although many of these rights and benefits may be secured

7 by private agreement, doing so often is costly and complex.))

8 The legislature ((also)) finds that the public interest would be

9 served by extending rights and benefits to ((different sex)) couples in

10 which either or both of the partners ((is)) are at least sixty-two

11 years of age. While these couples are entitled to marry under the

12 state's marriage statutes, some social security and pension laws

13 nevertheless make it impractical for these couples to marry. For this

14 reason, chapter 156, Laws of 2007 specifically allows couples to enter

15 into a state registered domestic partnership if one of the persons is

16 at least sixty-two years of age, the age at which many people choose to

17 retire and are eligible to begin collecting social security and pension

18 benefits.

19 The rights granted to state registered domestic partners in chapter

20 156, Laws of 2007 will further Washington's interest in promoting

21 family relationships and protecting family members during life crises.

22 Chapter 156, Laws of 2007 does not affect marriage or any other ways in

23 which legal rights and responsibilities between two adults may be

24 created, recognized, or given effect in Washington.

25 Sec. 9. RCW 26.60.030 and 2007 c 156 s 4 are each amended to read

26 as follows:

27 To enter into a state registered domestic partnership the two

28 persons involved must meet the following requirements:

29 (1) Both persons share a common residence;

30 (2) Both persons are at least eighteen years of age and at least

31 one of the persons is sixty-two years of age or older;

32 (3) Neither person is married to someone other than the party to

33 the domestic partnership and neither person is in a state registered

34 domestic partnership with another person;

35 (4) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic

36 partnership; and

37 (5) Both of the following are true:

p. 5 SB 6239

 

1 (a) The persons are not nearer of kin to each other than second

2 cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of

3 the civil law; and

4 (b) Neither person is a sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle,

5 niece, or nephew to the other person((; and

6 (6) Either (a) both persons are members of the same sex; or (b) at

7 least one of the persons is sixty-two years of age or older)).

8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 26.60 RCW

9 to read as follows:

10 (1) Partners in a state registered domestic partnership may apply

11 and receive a marriage license and have such marriage solemnized

12 pursuant to chapter 26.04 RCW, so long as the parties are otherwise

13 eligible to marry, and the parties to the marriage are the same as the

14 parties to the state registered domestic partnership.

15 (2) A state registered domestic partnership is dissolved by

16 operation of law by any marriage of the same parties to each other, as

17 of the date of the marriage stated in the certificate.

18 (3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, any state

19 registered domestic partnership in which the parties are the same sex,

20 and neither party is sixty-two years of age or older, that has not been

21 dissolved or converted into a marriage by the parties by June 30, 2014,

22 is automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of

23 June 30, 2014.

24 (b) If the parties to a state registered domestic partnership have

25 proceedings for dissolution, annulment, or legal separation pending as

26 of June 30, 2014, the parties' state registered domestic partnership is

27 not automatically merged into a marriage and the dissolution,

28 annulment, or legal separation of the state registered domestic

29 partnership is governed by the provisions of the statutes applicable to

30 state registered domestic partnerships in effect before June 30, 2014.

31 If such proceedings are finalized without dissolution, annulment, or

32 legal separation, the state registered domestic partnership is

33 automatically merged into a marriage and is deemed a marriage as of

34 June 30, 2014.

35 (4) For purposes of determining the legal rights and

36 responsibilities involving individuals who had previously had a state

37 registered domestic partnership and have been issued a marriage license

SB 6239 p. 6

 

1 or are deemed married under the provisions of this section, the date of

2 the original state registered domestic partnership is the legal date of

3 the marriage. Nothing in this subsection prohibits a different date

4 from being included on the marriage license.

5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW

6 to read as follows:

7 If two persons in Washington have a legal union, other than a

8 marriage, that:

9 (1) Was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction;

10 (2) Provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and

11 responsibilities as a marriage; and

12 (3) Does not meet the definition of domestic partnership in RCW

13 26.60.030,

14 then they shall be treated as having the same rights and

15 responsibilities as married spouses in this state, unless:

16 (a) Such relationship is prohibited by RCW 26.04.020 (1)(a) or (2);

17 or

18 (b) They become permanent residents of Washington state and do not

19 enter into a marriage within one year after becoming permanent

20 residents.

21 Sec. 12. RCW 26.60.090 and 2011 c 9 s 1 are each amended to read

22 as follows:

23 A legal union, other than a marriage, of two persons ((of the same

24 sex)) that was validly formed in another jurisdiction, and that is

25 substantially equivalent to a domestic partnership under this chapter,

26 shall be recognized as a valid domestic partnership in this state and

27 shall be treated the same as a domestic partnership registered in this

28 state regardless of whether it bears the name domestic partnership.

29 Sec. 13. RCW 1.12.080 and 2011 c 9 s 2 are each amended to read as

30 follows:

31 For the purposes of this code and any legislation hereafter enacted

32 by the legislature or by the people, with the exception of chapter

33 26.04 RCW, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow,

34 widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying

35 equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in

p. 7 SB 6239

 

1 state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital

2 relationships and married persons, and references to dissolution of

3 marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships

4 that have been terminated, dissolved, or invalidated, unless the

5 legislation expressly states otherwise and to the extent that such

6 interpretation does not conflict with federal law. Where necessary to

7 implement chapter 521, Laws of 2009 and this act, gender-specific terms

8 such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall

9 be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in

10 state registered domestic partnerships and spouses of the same sex.

11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. (1) Within sixty days after the effective

12 date of this section, the secretary of state shall send a letter to the

13 mailing address on file of each same-sex domestic partner registered

14 under chapter 26.60 RCW notifying the person that Washington's law on

15 the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners

16 will change in relation to certain same-sex registered domestic

17 partners.

18 (2) The notice must provide a brief summary of the new law and must

19 clearly state that provisions related to certain same-sex registered

20 domestic partnerships will change as of the effective dates of this

21 act, and that those same-sex registered domestic partnerships that are

22 not dissolved prior to June 30, 2014, will be converted to marriage as

23 an act of law.

24 (3) The secretary of state shall send a second similar notice to

25 the mailing address on file of each domestic partner registered under

26 chapter 26.60 RCW by May 1, 2014.

27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. Sections 8 and 9 of this act take effect

28 June 30, 2014, but only if all other provisions of this act are

29 implemented.

 

 

 

--- END ---

 

 

SB 6239 p.

Governor Gregoire Voices Support for Marriage Equality in Wasington State

OYC Staff - Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Marriage Equality Speech

January 4, 2012

Marriage Equality Speech
Governor Chris Gregoire
Jan 4, 2012
Olympia, Washington

Today I stand before you as Governor of the state of Washington...
...And as a wife...a mother…a student of the law...and as a Washingtonian with a lifelong commitment to equality and freedom.
Today, I’m announcing my support for a law that gives same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington – the same right given heterosexual couples.

It is time, it is the right thing to do, and I will introduce a bill to do it.

Once again, the call for equality is sweeping through our nation – and this time it’s for our gay and lesbian citizens.

Make no mistake, America has been here many times before.

In our long, hard road for equality – history shows we have faltered but we have always fought hard when it comes to protections against discrimination.

...We have made major strides towards equality for racial minorities...for women...for people with disabilities...for immigrants...for religious sects.

We applaud the generations before us for their wisdom and courage to fight for equality.

Now it’s our time...this generation’s call to end discrimination – discrimination against our gay and lesbian citizens.

It is time for marriage equality.

That means the State of Washington should not deny our citizens a marriage license based on sexual orientation.

For all couples, a marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children if any, are protected by well-established law.

Why then does our state deny a marriage license?

Some argue that the state should deny a marriage license to same-sex couples based on the premise that marriage is for procreation. Do we then deny a license to heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?... To those who can’t have children or those who adopt?...
To those who have children through in-vitro fertilization?

Some argue that same-sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage. Is this a role of the state? If so, it has failed miserably with a divorce rate among heterosexual couples now at about 50 percent.

Some argue that the state must deny a marriage license based on religious beliefs.

With a marriage license, couples marry in civil or religious ceremonies.

In issuing the license, the state should not involve itself in an applicant’s religion.

The responsibility of the state is to license only. The right of a church is to decide whom to marry, and the state will honor the religious freedom of all faiths.

The arguments used today to discriminate based on sexual orientation should remind all of us of the arguments used to discriminate in the past, and specifically the laws banning interracial marriage.

It wasn’t until 1948 that the California Supreme Court became the first in the nation to declare such a law unconstitutional.
And the United States Supreme Court didn’t declare anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional until 1967!

While we have worked hard to confront racial discrimination in our state, we have been on a journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Until 2006, Washington lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens were denied basic protections from discrimination.

It was that year that I signed a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing and other areas.

A year later, I signed a law creating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, along with a number of rights enjoyed by married couples. And the year after that, I signed a law expanding those rights even more.

Then in 2009, voters approved Referendum 71, which expanded the domestic partnership rights of same-sex couples.

It was a notable achievement in our long journey, but it still left same-sex couples with a different status. Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage. That’s a version of the discriminatory separate but equal argument of the past.

For decades, that argument was used to keep African-Americans separate at schools, apartments, and drinking fountains. After all, the argument went, those separate places were just as good. But we all knew separate is not equal and finally the law caught up.

While I understand the experiences of racial minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans are not identical, laws that keep some Americans in a separate status are inherently unjust.

It is now time for equality of our gay and lesbian citizens, and that means marriage.

When someone asks me what marriage means, I don’t think about the legal protections of a marriage license. I think about love, commitment, responsibility, and partnership.

Same-sex couples should not be denied the meaning of marriage. They have a right to be equal!

Throughout our journey, an ever-growing number of Washingtonians have come to understand that equal rights for same-sex couples is not only a good thing, but the right thing to do!

It’s time to give our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends, and the couple down the street the right to marry in our state.

Now it’s time for all of us to stand up for equality in Washington.
We have our champions like Sen. Ed Murray and Representative Jamie Pedersen. I stand with them.

I also stand with our younger Washingtonians
Is there a generation gap here? Is it time to listen to our young people?

Poll after poll show that young Americans – by substantial margins – support same-sex marriage even as their parents or grandparents struggle with it. Why?

Can it be that our children knew some kids on the playground who had two moms instead of a single mom, or two dads instead of a mom and dad?

Can it be because they befriended children of same-sex families – friendships that endure today?

Can it be that today’s young Americans see sexual orientation discrimination as just as unacceptable as my generation saw racial discrimination?

We must tell these children and their families that they are every bit as equal and important as all the other families in our state.
Finally, I stand in the memory of Cal Anderson – the late state senator who so humbly and courageously fought for civil rights in decades past.

Passage of the law would make Washington the seventh state in nearly as many years to grant same-sex couples the right to marry.
The first state was Massachusetts, followed by Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. And by the way, same-sex marriage is legal in our nation’s capitol, throughout Canada, and here in Washington by the Suquamish Tribe!

For many people, I know this is a very sensitive issue. I understand that. To those who fear it, I ask them to consider the fact that Massachusetts has permitted same-sex marriage since 2004 without the doomsayers’ predictions.

In fact, the people of that state are raising their children, coping in this economy, and working to make a better world, just like Washingtonians.

A special commission created by the state of New Jersey recently did a study about the potential impacts of same-sex marriage. It found that the economy of Massachusetts’ truly benefitted, and continues to benefit from the change in the law.

Among other findings, the study found that professional same-sex couples continue to move to Massachusetts, bringing their credentials, their children, and even extended families with them.
Same-sex couples have strong families, and have been raising happy, healthy children for years – right alongside other couples and single parents.

Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families – making ends meet, finding time for career and family, raising their children and saving for college.
And we are better for it!

They and their kids join us in our churches, our schools, and supermarkets. And we are better for it!

We need to ask ourselves, how would it feel to be a child of a gay couple? How can we tell these children that their parents’ love is seen as unequal under the law, that their families are different.
We must tell these children and their families that they are every bit as equal and important as all the other families in our state.

As Washingtonians and Americans, we have serious problems to address – a far-off war, the Great Recession, more than 13 million people looking for work, worldwide economic competition.

Loving, committed married couples of any sexual orientation can only help us. They can help us defend our Democracy, help our neighbors, and build strong communities. And they will.

Fellow Washingtonians: Throughout our history, we have fought discrimination. We have joined together to recognize equality for racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, immigrants, religious sects.

Please answer the call to support equality again in our great state. It is the right thing to do and it is time.

Thank you.