More news on same-sex marriages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
More news on same-sex marriages
36
Mon, 03-08-2004 - 6:55pm

I know that we've had MANY other discussions that have either started out or ended up on this subject...and deciding which one to 'update' was a true mind-boggler.  So, I decided to just start a new thread...


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/163743_gaycity08.html

Nickels helps out same-sex marriage


Monday, March 8, 2004


By KATHY GEORGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER


The city of Seattle will recognize gay marriages by its employees under an executive order issued by Mayor Greg Nickels Monday.


"Seattle has often been in the forefront of protecting all its citizens regardless of sexual orientation," Nickels said at a news conference announcing the order. He also proposed an ordinance to extend protections for gay married couples throughout the city.


The proposal was first announced yesterday by Nickels and City Councilman Tom Rasmussen.


The mayor's order expands the scope of the city's anti-discrimination law to protect gay and lesbian couples who marry in places where same-sex marriage is legal.


Although Seattle already outlaws discrimination in housing, employment or public services based on a person's sexual orientation or marital status, the order redefines "marital status" to include same-sex married couples, said Rasmussen yesterday, who added that he believes such a change would require equal benefits for gay and straight employees' spouses.


"As couples come here who are married, this will help them," said Rasmussen, the city's first openly gay councilman.


Earlier today, six gay couples from the Seattle area filed a lawsuit, seeking the right to get married.


As it is, state law prevents County Executive Ron Sims from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


A 1998 law says, "Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female," and denies recognition of same-sex unions in other states. (me:  This bill went through the state legislature, was vetoed by Gov. Locke and then the veto was overturned by the legislature.  I know many WA state citizens who find this law repulsive.)


"Neither the city of Seattle nor King County can define the terms of marriage," Sims said in an interview yesterday. "There is nothing I can do. Governments cannot pick and choose which laws they're going to enforce."


Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which is handling the suit along with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, agreed that the issue must be resolved in the courts. Yesterday, she said the lawsuit will allege that the Washington Constitution requires treating gay and lesbian couples the same as other marriage-license applicants.


"We have reached the point where it is no longer acceptable to say, 'We can do without it.' Marriage is core to personal autonomy, dignity and full participation in the community," Stone said.


The couples in the suit "are women and men. Some have children, and some don't. Some have been together seven to eight years. Some have been together 20 years," she said.


News of the lawsuit and the mayor's order capped a flurry of activity on the gay-rights front in recent days.


Last week, Multnomah County, Ore., began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, joining San Francisco and British Columbia in a new trend. (me:  GO PORTLAND!!)


More than 3,600 same-sex marriages have been performed in San Francisco in the past three weeks.


Then, on Friday, the Washington Senate in Olympia chose to adjourn abruptly -- killing nearly 100 bills in the process -- rather than allow a vote on a bill to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians statewide. Supporters were confident the bill would pass if it came up.


State Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, blasted that move as an "extreme far-right" tactic to deprive people of equal rights, but Senate Republican Leader Bill Finkbeiner of Kirkland said the adjournment had nothing to do with the issue and merely involved maintaining GOP control of the floor in the face of defection by some Republicans.


Stone said the lawsuit is in part a reaction to that Senate action, as well as to the "groundswell of joy and outrage moving across the country" as gay marriages gain legal ground in some places and lose it in others.


Murray, who is gay, said the lawsuit and the mayor's proposal "will have political consequences" in Olympia, both good and bad for the gay community. He added, "People who want equality have got to be willing to fight not only in court, but in the Legislature. The gay community has been significantly disengaged in Olympia."


Rick Forcier, head of the state Christian Coalition, yesterday called Nickels' plan a clear violation of state law.


"What he's about to do is anarchy -- taking the law into his own hands," Forcier said. (me:  Oh puh-leez!  He is just clarifying what the City of Seattle will accept when it comes to benefits for IT'S OWN EMPLOYEES!)


"We have to have uniform laws," he added. "People cannot be recognized as married in one jurisdiction and not in another. ... He's pretending to recognize counterfeit licenses that will have no value."


Nickels' executive order directs all city departments to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Practically speaking, however, the order is largely symbolic, because since 1989, gay and lesbian employees have enjoyed full health benefits for "domestic partners," who are treated the same as spouses.


Under the executive order, if employees actually marry their same-sex partners, they will no longer have to fill out the domestic-partner forms verifying that they have maritallike relationships.


Rather, they can simply check the "married" box on a form to be treated as married, said Rasmussen and former Deputy Mayor Anne Levinson, who was instrumental in creating Seattle's pioneering domestic-partner law.


"We're going to give everyone who works for the city who has been married equal rights, regardless of whether they are straight or gay," Nickels said yesterday.


"The basic message is one of fairness, and that is, that people who are willing to make a commitment to one another, who love one another and who are willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage ought to be able to, regardless of their gender," he said


City Council members were taken off guard by the mayor's announcement yesterday and initially struggled to understand how his executive order and proposed ordinance would have any practical effect, given the domestic-partner benefits and anti-discrimination laws already in effect.


City Council President Jan Drago said the council had been working to find a way for the city to support same-sex marriages -- within the constraints of state law.


"It looks to me like the mayor beat us to the punch here," she said, reflecting frequent tension between the mayor and council.


Councilman Nick Licata said the council is likely to approve the mayor's proposed ordinance, and called it "a very logical approach" and a "strong positive step."


The breadth of the ordinance -- and whether it will require private employers to recognize same-sex marriages -- remains to be seen. Rasmussen said he believes it will, but he plans to ask City Attorney Tom Carr for a briefing on the question. Carr said last night he has not seen the language yet.


The mayor said his order would require contractors doing business with the city to recognize gay marriages among their own employees. Businesses will want to know whether the proposal requires all employers to extend the same benefits to same-sex couples as to other married couples.


Bob Gogerty, a business consultant with the firm Gogerty and Stark, said when it comes to social policy, "I think our business leaders pretty much reflect our community. We've all come so far in recognizing people's unions. ... I don't know that there would be a big reaction."


The question will be cost, especially for small businesses already struggling with hard economic times.


"Small-business people don't like change, period. They tend to be much more conservative and much more bottom-line," he said.


Sims said the mayor's order will not change his decision not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. He said he is in the same position legally as before.


"I do believe in civil disobedience. Laws are changed because people demand it," said Sims, who supports the right of same-sex couples to marry. "But my personal views must be set aside."


Still, the pressure on Sims is growing. Today supporters of same-sex marriage plan to march from Broadway to the county Administration Building at Fourth Avenue and James Street to demand that Sims issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


PROPOSALS CITY ORDINANCE

The anti-discrimination law in the city would be expanded to protect same-sex married couples specifically.


  • Impact: The city already prohibits employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status. The ordinance would redefine "marital status" to include being in a same-sex marriage.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    The city will recognize same-sex marriages in other states for the purpose of employee benefits.


  • Impact: Gay and lesbian city employees now fill out forms to obtain benefits for "domestic partners." If they get married, they can just check the "married" box and skip the paperwork.




    This report includes information from The Associated Press.


    © 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer


  • iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-18-2000
    Tue, 03-09-2004 - 11:52pm

    After reading your post I was thinking maybe demographics play an important part in being for/against gay marriage. In larger cities one is

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-23-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 10:42am
    Great article!

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 06-22-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 11:38am
    I really don't care one way or another about same-sex marriage. If two people want to make a commitment to each other, regardless of gender, especially if children are involved, then they should have the right. Religion and State should be separate. When they start crossing lines, problems begin. The Federal government interfering with States rights, one religion imposing its constraints on others, or people telling people what to do from marriage to abortion, is against my definition of the Bill of Rights. Unless doing something is physically or emotionally damaging to another, leave people to decide for themselves how they want to conduct their lives.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-23-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 1:49pm

    Welcome


    Avatar for goofyfoot
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 3:26pm
    The thing is, when such an issue is put on a ballot, it gets shot down big time. I was in CA when the marriage proposition was on the ballot and it got killed 62% "against" to about 32% "for" gay marriage. We are talking CA here, you can't get more

    left than the left coast.

    There is a lot of left winger propaganda floating around on this issue.

    Avatar for goofyfoot
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 3:31pm
    Yes, I am saying that. Man and women get married, produce children. Children are raised in a nuclear family (which is best for society) to become the next generation of parents/workers/taxpayers. In order to keep the cycle going, the government offers "incentives" to those who participate in this cycle.

    This is what marriage is all about. It's NOT about "two comitted, loving people" so to speak, because two people can be comitted and loving without having to get married.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 3:45pm
    Yes like in New Paltz, NY where the Mayor is going to face possible prison time for defying a court order not to proceed with the unions.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-23-2003
    Wed, 03-10-2004 - 5:55pm

    No, you're wrong.


    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-06-2004
    Thu, 03-11-2004 - 9:34am

    The ballot measure you are citing, the Knight initiative or Prop 22, is still being called into contention.

    -=Seawyt
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 09-05-2003
    Thu, 03-11-2004 - 9:49am

    The thing is, when such an issue is put on a ballot, it gets shot down big time. I was in CA when the marriage proposition was on the ballot and it got killed 62% "against" to about 32% "for" gay marriage. We are talking CA here, you can't get more left than the left coast.


    I think you will find that that opinion is changing quite a bit, and besides, an issue about rights like this really isn't something that should be based on "public opinion" this is something that belongs in the courts.