Politics Gov. Gregoire’s Other Afternoon Meeting
posted by on January 18 at 13:45 PM
Newspaper reporters weren’t the only ones waiting around the Governor’s office yesterday afternoon for her 1:15 viaduct meeting to get out.
Activists from the LGBT community like Lifelong AIDS Alliance director Tina Podlodowski and folks from the Northwest Women’s Law Center (lead advocates on last year’s gay marriage case in the state Supreme Court) were there for a 3:30 meeting. Thanks to the fact that the viaduct meeting ran nearly three hours, the group wasn’t escorted into Gregoire’s office until about 4:15.
The annual gay rights meeting with the governor had some urgency this year thanks to the gay marriage bill and domestic partnership (awkwardly called dp) bill filed by Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen earlier this week. The group wanted to know where the governor stood on the bills.
According to folks in the meeting, Gregoire “registered her support for equal rights and benefits” and they “believe she’ll sign the DP bill if it shows up on her desk in its current form.” They also said Gregoire had “no comment” on the marriage bill but “acknowledged that the goal of the DP bill was ultimately gay marriage.”
A Gregoire staffer in the meeting pointed out that the DP bill has “momentum” and reminded Gregoire that Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-3, Spokane) and House Majority Leader Frank Chopp (D-43, Capitol Hill, Wallingford) both support the DP bill. Indeed, the House version has 56 co-sponsors, including 3 Republicans. The Senate version has 21 co-sponsors, with no Republicans. The marriage bills have 12 co-sponsors and 26 co-sponsors (no Rs) in the Senate and House respectively.
Meanwhile, I talked to Sen. Ed Murray yesterday about what some folks at the Stranger see as a flaw in the DP bill: It discriminates against young people.
Here’s the deal. Seniors, and particularly elderly women in new relationships, are caught in a bind. If they re-marry they lose access to their former husband’s pension. Meanwhile, if they don’t marry their new partner, they lack the same type of rights gay couples don’t have: hospital visitation, inheritance, wrongful death lawsuits etc. So, the DP bill solves the problem by allowing people over 62 to be eligible for domestic partnership along with same sex couples. Therefore, they can still collect their husband’s pension, but they can also access the rights of domestic partnerships with their new squeeze.
The problem? This is blatant discrimination against young people, who, for whatever reason, want the rights of domestic partnership, but just like elderly couples would rather not get married.
Murray acknowledged the discrepancy, and said the drafters had gone back and forth on that issue. The NWLC told me they support domestic partnerships for everyone. Pedersen says his ultimate preference is for domestic partnerships for het couples under 62 as well, but he wants to take an incremental approach. “We made a judgment that we would get more substantial pushback if we created an alternate family status for everyone.”
Pedersen also defended the legality of granting seniors special status over youngsters. For example, current law makes it illegal to hire someone under 40 instead of someone over 40 on the basis of age, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Pedersen, ironically, also pointed out that the legislature has the right to come up with a “rational basis” for granting seniors special status—just like DOMA’s “rational basis” for granting straight couples marriage rights.
In other words, just like the legislature can pass DOMA because it “protects the family” and not be dinged for discriminating against gays, the legislature can say dps (for seniors only) protect elderly women’s pension rights without discriminating against youngsters.
Interesting.
yes, but interesting doesn't get laws changed. talking is one thing ...
What about a very simple idea: Repeal of DOMA.
Josh, I thought the exact same thing about the age 62 limit. Does Pedersen's argument make any sense? I mean, how many votes will they retain because of the 62 limit that they would otherwise lose? I doubt it's enough to make a difference for a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL.
Packaging this as a senior citizen's bill might be a smart move. It brings in the elderly voters who might not otherwise get behind a "gay rights" bill, and it the generalizes the problems and contradictions around banning gay marriage to the population at large.
Seems like some serious legal and political thought went into this. Go Jamie!
"In other words, just like the legislature can pass DOMA because it “protects the family” and not be dinged for discriminating against gays, the legislature can say dps (for seniors only) protect elderly women’s pension rights without discriminating against youngsters."
The big difference being that gay people can't get married when gay marriage is banned, whereas young straight people can still get married even if the dp law only includes older straight people.
I think most young straight people, if they want a commitment that involves signing up for something, would end up just getting married.
Something else I'm curious about:
Have any young straight people in Washington been saying this bill discriminates against them? Do they even care? I'm sure if they are outraged, then the bill could be changed.
In New Jersey (I think), in 2003, they passed a dp law that only included straight people who were senior citizens. This didn't cause any anger in young straight people, or people who felt they were being discriminated against.
Jon--
Yes. It's been heavily litigated.
It's also been litigated in CA. and now a CA. legislator is trying to amend the DP law to include hets under 62.
I think the DP bill creates a "special right" for gay people (plus older str8 partners). As an out gay man, I do not want "special rights". I want equal rights and I'm willing to share my equal rights with str8 couples without requiring them to get married (which they may not wish to do).
Re age discrimination, a thing may be perfectly legal and yet inethical.
Re whether straights would want DP, I quote a NY Times archive article from April 18, 2000:
Hm...easier to dissolve than marriage, and less to distangle. Sounds about right for serially-monogamous America....Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).