Tonight the state House passed the domestic-partnership bill, with a fair amount of WS legislator involvement — Sen. Erik Poulsen co-sponsored the Senate version, Rep. Joe McDermott co-sponsored the House version (and invoked Alki Point during debate).
I don’t understand the heterosexual requirement of being over 62. Seems to me to be a discrinatory requirement…
Eric, I heard a blurb on the news this morning that the reason for this is that after age 62, there can often be some negatives to heterosexual couples marrying – that they may lose some of the benefits they have in terms of Social Security, etc. So it may be more economical for them to remain unmarried, yet want the protections that domestic partnership offers.
Hmmm, so anyone who is heterosexual and under age 62 can’t access the domestic partnership protections – in other words, they have to get married to access those rights/protections; is that what everyone else reads this to mean or am I missing something? Seems like it should give the same protections to heterosexual couples regardless of age…given that common-law marriage is not recognized in Washington State.
Yes, I agree that the law should’ve been applied to all heterosexual couples regardless of age. Its very unfair. I am happy though that homosexual couples now have more rights.
At least heterosexual people have the marriage option. If we want the legal benefits we can marry. If we extended that to all adults there wouldn’t be the need for this legislation.
I haven’t verified if your’re all correct on the hetero age issue, but if this is accurate I find it outrageous. I’m in favor of equal rights, but when the tables swing so that we’re giving an “advantage” to another group then we haven’t evolved as a group at all (think Afirmative Action). I’m concerned with continual “political double standards” that “minority” groups force down our throats (think the Don Imus vs Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson debacle….). Before you reply, read what I stated above…I believe in EQUAL rights for all indiviuals and that everyone should be held to the same stanards.
Peace out.
Lorie – I agree, I’m happy that homosexual couples will have more rights as well. And Lifer, I understand – hetero couples can get married of course, so I totally understand why this legislation is being presented. It’s just that not all of those couples would choose to get married, for a myriad of reasons, or would choose to do so without living together for a while first and it seems like those folks should have the same rights available, regardless of being over 62 or not. Just my two cents.
You can relax, The House. The only “advantage” still remains with hetero couples, who still have more hassle-free options and uncontested choices available to them.
This legislation allows a certain population of legitimate Americans to legally move a bit beyond their historical status as second-class citizens… in this state, at least.
It doesn’t quite level the playing field, and certainly doesn’t tip it in favor of a specific group. But if you support equal rights for all people, it’s hard to find fault with the progress made by this bill.
I wrote my (West Seattle) reps and thanked them for their vote. Bravo!
Sorry, comment time is over.
| 9 COMMENTS