Comments on Gov. Gregoire's Other Afternoon Meeting

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:

Aline Fesquet, a 27-year-old school teacher, and Frank Embert, a 29-year-old doctoral student, have been together for eight years, but say they do not feel ready yet for marriage. Both are children of divorce and they think marriage is a burdensome institution, weighed down with religious connotations, likely to end badly and at enormous expense.

But when France last year created a new form of legal partnership, originally intended for gay couples, it seemed just right to them.

On a recent day, dressed casually in slacks and baggy sweaters, they waited for their turn to enter into a civil solidarity pact, or Pacte civil de solidarite, known here as a ''PACS.'' [...]

In the four months since the law went into effect it has proved wildly popular. Experts predicted that perhaps 10,000 couples would be interested in such unions in the first year. But already the numbers are higher than that, and show no sign of slowing down. The government has already recorded almost 14,000 PACS, many of them among young heterosexual couples. To preserve privacy, it is illegal to keep statistics on who has taken part in the ceremony, but some advocates have estimated that about 40 percent are heterosexual couples. [...]

Under the law, when a couple is joined in such a union both parties are responsible for financially supporting each other. Any purchases and debts are theirs jointly, unless otherwise specified. In three years, they can file a joint income tax form and get the same tax break as married couples. They are usually eligible immediately for the other person's work benefits.

But a PACS is much easier to dissolve than a marriage and does not require a lawyer to do so. If both are agreed, they can do it almost instantaneously. Divorce in France is a lengthy process, usually taking several years and involving several court appearances, and women often complain that the process is biased against them.

Hm...easier to dissolve than marriage, and less to distangle. Sounds about right for serially-monogamous America....