Washington Leading The Way

Washington state, that is.  A measure allowing same-sex marriage in the state has easily passed the State Senate, is expected to pass the State House as early as next week, and could be on Democrat Gov. Chris Gregoire's desk before the end of the month.

“Regardless of how you vote on this bill, an invitation will be in the mail,” Senator Ed Murray of Seattle, the prime sponsor in the Senate, said in his final remarks before the vote. Mr. Murray, who is gay, has noted many times publicly that he and his longtime partner hope to marry in their home state. 

The measure, echoing one passed in New York last June, includes language assuring religious groups that they would not be required to marry same-sex couples or allow them to marry in their facilities. 

Washington would join New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Iowa as states where same-sex couples can marry. Washington, D.C., also allows same-sex marriage.

Washington has steadily expanded rights for gay and lesbian couples since 2006, when it approved domestic partnerships. In 2009, it passed a so-called everything-but-marriage bill, which was challenged in a public referendum and upheld by voters, 53 to 47. Opponents of the marriage bill say they will challenge it in a referendum this fall. The Roman Catholic Church is among the opponents. 

The floor debate late Wednesday was civil and relatively succinct. 

Before the final vote, senators rejected an amendment to put the matter before voters in a referendum. Some people who later supported the bill also supported putting it up for a referendum. One of the leading opponents, Senator Dan Swecker, a Republican, said he worried that approving same-sex marriage would “create a hostile environment for those of us who believe in traditional marriage.” 

As opposed to the absolutely hostile environment that banning same-sex marriage creates for the LGBT community?  I don't buy it.  Neither do Washington state lawmakers, and the slow journey towards equality continues across the country, despite states using the tyranny of the majority whenever possible.

It took the courts to get rid of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.  It'll take the courts to get rid of marriage inequality too.  The speed of that happening depends entirely on the person in the Oval Office who gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and that alone should be guiding people's votes in November.