An amendment to the bill required that House agreement says the legislation does not endorse homosexuality. The bill bans discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, jobs and insurance. Still pending in the state Supreme Court is a decision on whether gay marriage is constitutional.
What the gay rights vote means
- Gays and lesbians are added to state anti-discrimination laws, covering housing, employment and insurance. State anti-discimination laws currently cover, primarily, ethnic groups. The state Human Rights Commission will enforce.
- Foes may launch initiative to overturn new law. It would take 225-thousand voter signatures to reach November ballot.
- The bill does not address gay marriage. State Supreme Court to rule soon on state ban on same-sex marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No opinion, just facts
- Senator Brad Benson (R - Spokane) spoke in opposition to the bill. His comments on the Senate floor were later quoted in a press release this afternoon.
- Democrats who spoke in favor of the bill often referred to the bill as a way to give gays and lesbians the same protected status as ethnic minorities, equating homosexuals with ethnic minorities in terms of "targets of discrimination".
- Despite a handful of lawmakers voting with the "other party", Democrats and Republicans voted along party lines. With Democrats supporting the bill, and being the majority party in both bodies of the legislature, the bill was expected to pass handily, and did.
- Shortly after passage of the bill in the Senate, one Republican Senator (Luke Esser - 48th District) made a motion to move to the 9th order of business, for the purpose of relieveing the Senate Judiciary Committee of SJR 8210, a proposed consititional amendment that would preserve the state's Defense of Marraige Act (which defines marraige, as a legal matter, as between a man and a woman). The vote on the resolution was defeated along the same (mostly party-line) vote that approved the gay rights bill.
- A couple of years ago, voters in Washington were presented with an initiative (I-677), authored by Democrats, that was - in essence - the same as the bill that was passed today. That initiative was voted down by a 60% vote. Currently, Democrats hold a 55% majority in the House and a 53% majority in the Senate - less than the 60+% of the voting public that voted down I-677. By simple-majority, that same 53-55% majority in the legislature voted in favor of what over 60% of the voters in the state said "no" to just a couple of years ago. Using percentages, the Legisalture did not accurately represent the will of the voting public.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you have an opinion on this subject, please comment.
2 comments:
Wow, great topic. I think that if we are going to provide protections for minorities that will be discriminated against (an interesting topic for another day), we should include homosexuals in that protection. Respectable scientific people who study such things and should be listened to, like the AMA, APA and the Academy of Pediatrics, state that homosexuality is not a “lifestyle choice”. As homosexuals do not choose to be that way, they deserve the same protections that we afford other minorities.
As for the Defense of Marriage Act, how exactly does prohibiting homosexuals from marrying “defend” marriage? Is it going to improve the near 50% divorce rate? Is it going to keep me from leaving Mrs. Droyne and shacking up with Tom Cruise? Is it going to destroy society? Places that allow gay marriage or same sex unions appear to be doing fine. Gay marriage will not endanger my marriage. Will it hurt yours?
How exactly does allowing gay marriage hurt us? I really don't understand. The most vocal opponents of gay marriage are extremely conservative evangelical Christians who are the people who (it seems to me) always need an enemy to focus on, be that enemy Rock and Roll, D&D, or Swing Dancing. Homosexuals are just their current enemy.
Not to sound wishy-washy, but at this time, I have no opinion for or against the merits of the bill passed by the Washington State legislature (which, BTW, was signed today by Governor Christine Gregoire). I (like most folks) know homosexuals, and bear no ill-will toward them in any manner. I cannot fathom discrimination toward gays or lesbians because they are homosexual. I could no longer discriminate against a homosexual than I could discriminate against someone simply because their ancestors were German citizens during WWII.
If I were to have any criticism of the bill, it would be about the broad approach it gives, and the need for such legislation.
Already on the books, it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Race and ethnicity are pretty much easy things to determine. Determining religious persuasion would either be discovered through direct inquiry (for example, asking a prospective renter their religion), or through more obvious signs (for example, a prospective renter quoting the Koran during the rental application process). The bill that was pushed through the legislature does not specifically define "homosexual" - it paints a broad brush, protecting anyone who is truly a homosexual to anyone who may have a slight lisp in their voice. Good intentions aside, that's a big difference from defining who is an African-American, or who is a Hasidic Jew.
In addition, there has been no evidence, to date, to indicate any widespread discrimitation against gays in Washington State based upon the protections given in the bill. It may be putting the cart before the horse in the guise of good intentions. So far, in one of the most liberal states in the nation, there hasn't been a need for gay rights legislation, because there hasn't been discrimination of that sort. To the state's credit, Washington has been one of the most accepting states in the union. If I had criticism of the gay rights bill, it would be that it was pushed through simply to have a gay rights bill on the books. It doesn't address criteria for a person to be "homosexual" in order to be protected.
Again, I'm for gay rights, but the bill pushed through by the legislature may have benefitted by some more work.
Post a Comment