Same-sex marriage becomes law in Washington state

Former Army Major Margaret Witt, right, and Lori Johnson, left, stand in their South Hill home, Monday, Dec. 3, 2012, in Spokane, Wash. They are planning to marry in a few weeks after receiving one of the first marriage licenses for same sex couples this week. Witt fought the Army over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and was with President Obama when he signed the repeal. / Jesse Tinsley,AP Photo/The Spokesman-Review

OLYMPIA, Wash. Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law a measure that legalizes same-sex marriage in Washington state, which now joins several other states that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

Gregoire and Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the election on Wednesday afternoon, as they were joined by couples who plan to wed. The law doesn't take effect until Thursday, when gay and lesbian couples can start picking up their wedding certificates and licenses at county auditors' offices. King County, the state's largest and home to Seattle, and Thurston County, home to the state capital of Olympia, will open the earliest, at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, to issue marriage licenses.

Because the state has a three-day waiting period, the earliest that weddings can take place is Sunday. Same-sex couples who previously were married in another state that allows gay marriage, like Massachusetts, will not have to get remarried in Washington state. Their marriages will be valid here as soon as the law takes effect.

"This is a very important and historic day in the great state of Washington," Gregoire said before signing the measure that officially certified the election results. "For many years now we've said one more step, one more step. And this is our last step for marriage equality in the state of Washington."

Last month, Washington, Maine and Maryland became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote. They joined six other states — New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont — and the District of Columbia that had already enacted laws or issued court rulings permitting same-sex marriage.

• Voters support pot legalization, split on same-sex marriage
• West Point chapel hosts its 1st same-sex wedding
• Same-sex couples anxious for Supreme Court ruling

Referendum 74 in Washington state had asked voters to either approve or reject the state law legalizing same-sex marriage that legislators passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gregoire in February but was put on hold pending the outcome of the election. Nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure.

The law doesn't require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages, and it doesn't subject churches to penalties if they don't marry gay or lesbian couples.

Maryland's law officially takes effect Jan. 1, however couples can start picking up marriage licenses on Thursday, as long as the license has an effective date of Jan. 1. Whether clerks of court issue a postdated license is up to them, however. They are not required to do so. Maine's law takes effect on Dec. 29. There's no waiting period in Maine, and people can start marrying just after midnight.

In addition to private ceremonies that will start taking place across Washington state this weekend, Seattle City Hall will open for several hours on Sunday, and several local judges are donating their time to marry couples. Aaron Pickus, a spokesman for Mayor Mike McGinn, said that more than 140 couples have registered to get married at City Hall, and weddings will begin at 10 a.m.

Washington state has had a domestic partnership law in place since 2007. The initial law granted couples about two dozen rights, including hospital visitation and inheritance rights when there is no will. It was expanded a year later, and then again in 2009, when lawmakers completed the package with the so-called "everything but marriage" law that was ultimately upheld by voters later that year.

This year, lawmakers passed the law allowing gay marriage, and Gregoire signed it in February. Opponents gathered enough signatures for a referendum, putting the law on hold before it could take effect.

There are nearly 10,000 domestic partnership registrations with the secretary of state's office. Most same-sex domestic partnerships that aren't ended prior to June 30, 2014, automatically become marriages, unless one of the partners is 62 or older.

That provision was included in the state's first domestic partnership law of 2007 to help heterosexual seniors who don't remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits.

[erzkarlaspern]

Marriage has always and everywhere had a nature. It is the Reproductive union between a human male and (usually) one human female of the only two complimentary sexes that exist in a stable union for the raising and social capacitation of the children reproduced. The ancient homosexual Greeks married only women, no matter how many male lovers they had. Marriage has been greatly cheapened and deformed by Hollywood, among others, and those who claim that any legal union is marriage. No, they are not. You can't marry your dog or pony, although you may love them and have sex with them, and it is not because of lack of consent, since dogs do not have to consent to be neutered nor cows to be artificially inseminated. Civil unions are in order for all those not in the pursuit of reproduction and responsible parenting until the children are able to participate in society as responsible "adults" (however defined). If homosexuals are approved for "marriage", then there would be no excuse to deny "marriage" to bisexuals so that at least three people can be called "married". There is No Precedent for this radical change in what marriage has always been. Polygamy has precedents and even marriages of "children" such as 12 year old and younger girls have precedents. If we recognize the radical re-definition of marriage, how then to deny anyone else their "rights" to whatever they wish to define as "marriage"? The attempt to legalize marriage to same sex couples is tied to the precedent of two people being married, but that is Extremely Superficial, and any judge who goes with that as precedent instead of the main definition of male and female union for reproduction is Irresponsible and Capricious. Civil unions are a sensible solution, except for Radicals who wish to impose an Absurdity upon society.

[sciline]

If Mark Twain had ever been asked about his thoughts on Gay Rights, he might have replied:
"I don't care who marries who or who has sex with who as long as they don't scare the horses."

[erzkarlaspern]

He would more probably have said, "Why not marry your dog? He is probably more loyal and dependable. Or why not marry your horse? He is probably more useful and stronger.

[recowger]

The law should also read that these same-sex couples should stay married for five years are so

[erzkarlaspern]

You ought to try to impose that on Hollywood. Good luck on that!

[recowger]

The law should also read that these same-sex couples should stay married for five years are so

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

Former_Marine_Sgt replies: I have not been able to comprehend how they can support this ironic hypocracy.
---
Hypocrisy is easily accomodated by the "weak-sense" critical thinker. Look up the definitions of the "strong" and "weak" sense critical thinkers and I think you'll see what I mean.

[erzkarlaspern]

Yes, it is ironic that they try to impose a "marriage" that does not respond to the definition of marriage. It is also hypocrisy since they use as Precedent the fact of TWO people (male and female) but ignore the more constant Precedent of Male & Female in a reproductive union.

[Ulgnud]

The perverts with their chosen lifestyle have managed to putrefy another state. What a liberal cesspool. It'll be incest and pedophilia next using the "I was born this way" baloney

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

What a surprise. Predictions of gloom and doom from a repub.....

[Former_Marine_Sgt]

You're comparing 'gay' to 'incest' and 'pedophelia' and you're calling THEM perverts????

As soon as you can convice ANYONE that the victim in those cases can give legally binding consent, we'll talk - but even gays (and just about every other thinking person out there) know that it takes legal consent to get married AND/OR have sexual relations.

And that goes for wanting to marry / sex up your dog, your Llama, your Ford truck or the building down the street.

[cpgrant3]

To paraphrase Victor Hugo, "there is no stopping an idea whose time has come." The right wing knows this but will not accept such a reality. Nevertheless, the increasing acceptance of gay marriage is like a social juggernaut; the trend is clear and resistance is futile. Growing up in Mississippi, I witnessed similar opposition to letting go of segregation. Alas, history has ground that resistance into dust and its adherents live in infamy. All social reforms encounter resistance, even in the face of profound shifts in public opinion. One might as well oppose a tsunami.

[erzkarlaspern]

Naziism also became a social juggernaut, but that was not because it was just or right. An absurd idea can take hold of a large segment of a population. That is not its justification.

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

And homophobes twist in the wind as the discrimination ends.....

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

And I'll add that I call that sweet justice.

[Ulgnud]

It'll be pedophilia and incest next. Wait for it.