Who knew that the executive session of a House committee could be so riveting?  I only tuned in for the satisfaction of hearing SB 5688, the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009, get the stamp of approval from the House Judiciary Committee.  That happened, but not before the committee debated and voted on fourteen (14!) amendments** to the bill.

Reading the summaries of these amendments, I had to ask why in the world would their authors embarrass themselves by wasting valuable committee time debating what were redundant, out of scope, mean spirited and sometimes unconstitutional amendments?  Well, the answer came, at least in part, in some emails today (see below flip).

**The amendments, WHICH ALL FAILED, did things like restate the state’s DOMA law; make legal loopholes for religious people who discriminate; establish a 1 year residency req’t for marrying or DPing here; establish a 1913 law; parental consent on any curriculum particle any parent may disapprove of; place a referendum clause in the bill.Here’s the first revelatory email I got.

Not only did the House Judiciary Committee vote in favor of gay marriage but they also voted against religious freedom. A proposed amendment was introduced by Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, it would grant protection to churches and individuals who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, it was voted down.

If passed, this law will very possibly lead to the prosecution of churches and individuals of religious belief who differ with the state on their definition of marriage.

Aha!  Anti-equality forces were using the dud amendments to generate “evidence” that pro-equality legislators are “anti-religion”, etc.  This gotcha scare was from our gaydar-pinging friend and member of The Washington Hate Coalition, Russell Johnson.  Btw, Russell, can’t you read?  The vote was on a DP bill, not a marriage bill.  Well, don’t feel too bad.  House Judiciary Cmte member Shea lied made the same mistake in a missive distributed by Gary Randall.  They’re also Hate Coalition members, so maybe it’s all ultimately from the same memo?  Shea’s email:

Senate Bill 5688 would essentially redefine traditional marriage and extend to homo- sexual domestic partners all the rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples.

During committee debate, I proposed an amendment that would have protected the free speech and religious rights of Washington citizens….All six Democrats on the committee voted against this and other free speech and religious freedom amendments offered by Republicans.

Could Rep Shea be one of those slippery attorneys that his party warns us about?

Below is my transcript of the event.  It’s a bit long but WELL worth the read.  We are well-served by our pro-equality legislators, who provide excellent rebuttals to the loopy amendments.  You can also watch a video of the proceedings here.

But first, let’s start with dessert!  The final vote on ESSB 5668 was: 7 yea (Pedersen, Goodman, Flannigan, Kelley, Kirby, Ormsby, Roberts), 4 nay (Rodne, Shea, Ross, Warnick).  The bill is headed to the House floor after a visit to the Ways and Means Committee.

Note that I have inserted the “effect” statement from each amendment within the debate.  I have also put in occasional time stamps for your reference.  Otherwise, what you read is my faithful attempt at what was said during the committee, without addition or deletion.  Please notify me of any mistakes – I am not a professional transcriber.

[00:52:42]



PEDERSEN: It has been moved and seconded that engrossed SSB 5688 be reported from committee with a “do pass” recommendation.  There are amendments.  Representative ROSS.

ROSS: Thank you Mr. Chair I move Amendment, um

PEDERSEN: Let’s use the “H” numbers.

ROSS: (laughing appreciatively) Thank you I move Amendment H-2827.1

EFFECT: Declares that the act recognizes the legislature’s policy against same-sex marriages and that nothing in the act is intended to or shall be construed to promote or endorse same-sex marriage.

PEDERSEN: Amendment H-2827.1 has been moved.  Any remarks?  Representative ROSS.

ROSS: Thank you Mr. Chair.  I move this amendment with um a thought in mind that, um, over the 3 years that I’ve been here this has been probably one of the most, um, difficult discussion that we have here, and I also want to take a moment to thank this committee for its approach on this particular subject, in giving respect to both sides of the argument.  However, we have corrected citizens many times who have come to give testimony in front of this committee about the vote the legislature took a while back to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  And I have heard tremendous input from my district about the methodology that’s being used in changing the rules without consenting the voting public.  So, it is with that in mind that I move this amendment that would just simply clarify that what we are doing, or what what the majority party is doing in this case does not with intent to change that basic definition, the fundamental definition that is accepted I think by the majority of folks in this state that marriage is between a man and a woman.  And with that I move the amendment and I urge adoption.

PEDERSEN: Thank you for the remarks.  Representative Goodman.

GOODMAN: Ah thank you Mr Chair, um, I would um recommend a “no” vote on this amendment because we, this legislature has already expressed a clear policy through the defense of marriage act.  We don’t need to restate it, it’s already existing law.

PEDERSEN: OK, a roll call vote has been requested on the amendment.  Clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Ah, Mr Chair that’s 4 votes “aye”, 7 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Representative SHEA.

[00:55:43]

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment H-2828.1.
EFFECT: Explicitly states that the act and any provision of the code shall not be construed to endorse and specific belief, practice, behavior, preference, to orientation, to to modify state law relating to what constitutes marriage, or equate domestic partnership with marriage.
SHEA:  Thank you Mr Chair, I would urge the adoption of this amendment.  I, I think it’s it’s clear that there there aah, people on both sides of the isle that believe that the definition of marriage should should remain ah as between one man and one woman, and Mr Chair, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the way that these hearings have been conducted and and the respect both sides of the argument.  Ah, in this particular case I think that this amendment would specifically uh protect marriage in the law as it currently stands.  We’ve seen in this bill that marriage has actually been defined to mean domestic partnership, so I think this just clarifies outside of this statute, uh, and inside of the statute exactly what the boundries are for that so I urge a “yes’ vote.  Thank you Mr. Chair.

PEDERSEN: Thank you for the remarks.  Representative Ormsby.

ORMSBY: Thank you Mr Chair, urging a “no” vote as uh uh the good Vice Chair reminded us earlier, uh, that is an existing law, and it flies in the face of the intent of the bill, getting to the point of endorsing any specific belief which would be that equity and equality should be provided to all Washington State families. Urge a “no” vote.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks, Representative Goodman.

Goodman: Uh, thank you Mr Chair.  This amendment is technically out of scope, although we’re not making a motion to that effect.  But I also do want to re reiterate that this bill is in fact about equating domestic partnership with marriage with respect to legal rights.  Ah, this isn’t about any sacrament or a religious matter, this is about legal rights afforded to those living in committed relationships.  So we’re not, by any means, modifying what constitutes marriage.  But we are equating domestic partnership with marriage with regard to legal rights.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  A roll call vote has been requested.

CLERK: Ah, Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Ah, Representative SHEA.

[00:58:25]

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment H-2825.2
EFFECT: Explicitly states in the marriage statutes that marriage is not a state registered domestic partnership.
PEDERSEN: H-2825.2 has been moved, remarks Representative SHEA.

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, and again I think we need to to establish the clear definitions in in the bill, and I think that this bill would do that.  Explicitly stating that marriage statutes in the marriage statutes that marriage is not a state registered domestic partnership.  I think that retains the definition of marriage as it is in the law, and I think that’s something we need so we don’t leave this interpretation up to ah judges and lawyers.  And I would ah urge your adoption.  Thank you Mr. Chair.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks Representative Kirby.

Kirby: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Um I’m ah, well I’m still a majority here in that I’m not a lawyer uh, there’s still more of us than there are of them.  Uh, but I’ve, I’ve been a law*maker* for about 25 years, and uh uh I was looking this over and it just seems, that’s, ordinarily we don’t write laws that say “this isn’t that”. Um, and because they’re unnecessary.  I think this is unnecessary not only to this uh bill but it’s unnecessary to put into law.  I’d be like, you know, do we need a law that explicitly states that uh a wall is not a door?  Um, there’s just no reason ah for this to be in the law, and so I would urge us to vote “no”.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  A roll call vote has been requested.  If the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Ah, Representative SHEA.

[01:00:50]

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment TANG-067.
EFFECT: States that the domestic partnership laws do not apply to any religious sect, denomination, or organization acting in accordance with its creed, tenets, or principles.
SHEA:  Thank you Mr Chair, this amendment is is aimed at protecting and preserving, uh, religious liberty.  Ah, we heard during testimony that there there were numerous cases throughout this country where similar laws were adopted where religious liberty had been encroached on fairly significantly, and this amendment would specifically say that the bill does not apply to any religious sect, denomination, or organization acting in accordance with its creeds, tenets, or principles.  I think that’s fairly clear.  Religious liberty is a fundamental pillar of our country and our state, and so therefore I would urge its adoption.  Thank you Mr Chair.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks, Representative Goodman.

GOODMAN: Thank you Mr Chair, um I would urge a “no” vote on this ah, amendment.  I’ve been reading the bill and it doesn’t seem like it could possibly be construed to apply to any religious sect based on our founding documents, um in fact reinforces I believe the separation between church and state, and the amendment is not necessary.

PEDERSEN: Ah, we’ll be doing a voice vote on this.  All those in favor say “aye” {he’s interrupted}.  We’ll be doing a roll call vote on this one.  Clerk will call the roll please.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Ah, Representative WARNICK.

[01:03:05]

WARNICK: Thank you Mr Chair, I move Amendment H-2826.1
EFFECT: Explicitly state in the marriage statutes that domestic partnerships do not constitute marriage.
WARNICK:  Thank you Mr Chair.  And I too would like to um comment on the respectful way that this controversial um difficult bill has been handled in the committee, and I appreciate that.  I, this amendment attempts to define the differences between what a marriage and a domestic partnership is.  Marriage is definitely defined in our statute and, um, this amendment will clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman, ah not between two males or two females.  Or, a male and a female under chapter 20 6.60, so I urge your support, thank you.

PEDERSEN: Thank you for the remarks.  Representative Kirby.

KIRBY: Thank you Mr Chairman uh, I guess the same ah um comments apply to the last time I I spoke.  This, uh, you know as the good lady says, we have a law that says what marriage is, and this law isn’t about marriage. Uh, you know, domestic violence ah isn’t speeding.  We don’t need a law that specifically says that, and so this I think this is unnecessary, and so I urge a “no” vote.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  A roll call vote has been requested, clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Representative SHEA.

[01:05:11]

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment H-2815.1
EFFECT: States that the domestic partnership laws are not intended and must not be construed to prevent, burden, hinder, or interfere with a person’s lawful exercise of the right to free speech or the lawful exercise of his or her religious beliefs.  Written or spoken words expressing religious beliefs on opposite-sex or same-sex relationships shall not subject a person or organization to civil or criminal liability.
SHEA:  Thank you Mr Chair.  This amendment would clearly state that none of this bill would be applicable, ah, in any way to prevent, burden, hinder, or interfere with a person’s lawful exercise of the right to free speech or their lawful right to exercise of their religious beliefs.  And again I highlight the word there “lawful”.  So this isn’t, this isn’t doing anything in the way of harassment laws, or changing any of that.  This is just clearly saying this bill doesn’t in any way hinder a person’s lawful exercise of religion, lawful exercise of free speech.  Again, we heard testimony that in numerous cases throughout the United States where laws like this have been passed, that the free speech and religious liberty of people has consistently been encroached upon by human rights commissions in those states.  This is a fundamental, both of these are fundamental pillars to our society and therefore I think this amendment is necessary to give guidance to our our wonderful supreme court that sometimes doesn’t listen to our intent over here in the legislature ah, and god bless ‘em, but I think we need to provide them guidance in this specific area, and to allay the fears of those that believe their free speech and religious liberties are going to be infringed upon.  So Mr Speaker, er excuse me Mr Chair, not Mr Speaker yet, Mr Chair I would urge adoption of this amendment.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: Ah, I’m going to ask for a “no” vote on this amendment, um the bill does nothing, it does not include a constitutional amendment, it does not change the protections in Article 1 of our state constitution for religious liberty or freedom of expression.  What it does, is amend by reference, which I think is also a problem, not only this domestic partner bill and the previous two domestic partner laws, but also the anti-discrimination law and the hate crimes law in this state, to create giant exceptions to them in the case of sexual orientation.  So that I think there would be a legitimate question for the court if we were to adopt this amendment, about what lawfully remained.  ”I’ve fired you because you’re gay, but it’s because of my religious belief and therefor it’s not a violation of the anti-discrimination law”.  I think it’s a real danger and urge a “no” vote on the amendment. Further remarks?  Representative ROSS.

ROSS: Again, I, I think I bring up the kind of non-attorney viewpoint that was mentioned earlier from the far left over there.  Um, my understanding is that this deals with “lawful”, I mean again we’re kinda co-mingling the intent of the amendment, Mr Chair.

PEDERSEN: Thank you for the remarks.  All those in, oh sorry, a roll call vote has been requested on this one as well.  Clerk will call the roll.

Clerk: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Representative RODNE.

[01:08:31]

RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment H-2816.1
EFFECT: States the domestic partnership laws are not intended and must not be construed to prevent, burden, hinder, or interfere with a person’s lawful exercise of free speech or lawful exercise of religious beliefs regarding opposite-sex or same-sex relationships.
RODNE: Well thank you Mr Chair.  And again, this amendment is similar to the one that we just previously considered uh, in that it makes clear that one’s lawful exercise of speech or religious belief ah expression ah would not violate ah the ah ah the law that we’re about to pass, uh the underlying bill.  And this comes from testimony that we ah heard when we considered the House companion bill and that ah there were other instances ah both north of the border and from this country of, of the lawful exercise of of free speech and religious expression ah that ah ran ah ran those individuals afoul of the law.  This would provide that explicit protection in the law that uh those constitutional practices , those constitutionality protected practices would not be violative of this, of this measure.  I urge your support, thank you.

PEDERSEN: Ah, and I’m going to urge a “no” vote again, I will ah respond to the gentleman from the 14th and the gentleman from the 15th, uh, 5th by saying that the question, we, nothing amends the constitution, which already provides that we are not going to interfere with the lawful exercise of rights of free speech and religious beliefs.  The question here that this amendment would introduce is the question of what was lawful, and this would seem to create a giant hole in the anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws.  So for those reasons I urge a “no” vote.  A roll call vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Representative RODNE.

[01:11:04]

RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of Amendment H-2818.1.  Oops, strike that.  H-2817.1
EFFECT: Provides that written to spoken words expressing a person’s or organization’s religious beliefs about opposite-sex to same-sex relationships shall not subject the person or organization to civil or criminal liability.
RODNE:  Thank you Mr Chair.  Ah this amendment, though similar to the last ah amendment ah really goes one step further and just provides that the lawful exercise of speech or religious expression will not subject one to civil or criminal liability.  Um, obviously the other amendments dealt with the protection of constitutional activity.  Uh this kinda goes the other direction and established that floor that ah at least ah if we’re not going to explicitly make clear that the expressions of religious prefer-, ah, religious practice in this issue will not ah will not subject one to civil or criminal liability.  I urge your support, thank you.

PEDERSEN: I’m gonna urge a “no” vote.  This is even less protective than the previous two amendments because there is not in fact any mention of the word “lawful”.  It says “…mere written or spoken words expressing a person’s or organization’s religious beliefs” dot dot dot “will not subject the person or organization to civil or criminal liability”.  This would mean, for example, that a fellow who stabbed someone else and while saying “die faggot”, um, would not be subject to the hate crimes law.  There’s no other way to read it.  I urge…are there any further remarks?  Ok, a roll call vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.  Representative SHEA

[01:13:30]

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of H-2818.1.
EFFECT: Parties seeking to get married or register as domestic partners in this state must first have resided in this state for at least twelve months prior to getting married or registered as domestic partners.
SHEA:  Thank you Mr Chair. This amendment would simply put a residency requirement ah ah for domestic partnerships.  I think it’s it’s something we need to consider.  This bill has sigNIFICANT fiscal impact on our state, uh to the tune of 2 million dollars as I understand it just this biennium, and I think that that doesn’t take into account that other people from other states will be moving into Washington to take advantage of our laws, because there is no residency requirement currently affecting them.  So I think this would be good from a fiscal fiscal perspective, and also good from a consistency perspective, and ah I urge you adoption.  Thank you Mr. Chair.

PEDERSEN: Any further remarks?  Representative ROBERTS.

ROBERTS: Thank you Mr. Chairman.  The actual effect of this bill is, and I read from the report, that parties seeking to get married or register as domestic partners in this state must first have resided in this state for at least twelve months prior to getting married or registering as domestic partners.  And I think that fails to acknowledge the reality of our mobile society, um and also the tradition at least that affected me and I hope it will affect my daughters, is that you come home to get married.  And that is not, um, please don’t have it be that they have to live with me a year before we can have the wedding.  So, um, I would urge, um, a “no”.

PEDERSEN: Any further remarks?  We’re going to do a voice vote on this one. The amendment is not adopted.  Representative SHEA.

[1:15:25]

SHEA:   Mr Chair I urge adoption of amendment H-2819.1
EFFECT: For nonresidents, a domestic partnership registered in Washington is not valid if it would not be allowed or recognized in either of the party’s resident state, and the same provision applies to marriages.
SHEA: Ah, thank you Mr Chair.  I think this amendment would simply ah help to ah recognize the sovereignty of other states, and also recognize their own laws.  And so therefore I would urge its adoption.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: I’m gonna urge a “no” vote on this.  This is a reverse evasion clause, as they call it in the conflicts of laws trades, um there’s rather an ugly history I’m afraid of this kind of law, um.  Massachusetts, in fact, recently repealed such a law, but originally they were conceived as ways for states to avoid marrying interracial couples who were coming from other states where those marriages were, ah, not permitted. Ah, happily I think there are only two of these remaining in the United States, and uh haven’t been enforced, uh I would hate to see Washington follow along those lines.  I urge a “no” vote.  Any further remarks?  OK, ah we’ll be doing a voice vote.  The amendment is not adopted.  Representative RODNE.

[1:16:42]

RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair, I move adoption of amendment H-2814.2
EFFECT: Ads a “reverse severabililty” clause to the bill.
RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair, this amendment would add a reverse severability clause ah, which would operate in a manner that if one provision of the bill were to be struck down or found problematic, ah, from a, from a legal perspective, then the entire bill would, would have to come back to the legislature to be reworked so that we could get it right.  And um, I’m not going to say it’s a technical fix, but I do think it is technical in nature and I would urge your support.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks, Representative Goodman.

GOODMAN: Thank you Mr Chair, this is a so-called trapdoor amendment I guess, um, and in a somewhat exhaustive search, first of all the courts presume that um that ah that sections of bills are severable apart from one another.  Um, and so if you want to make this reverse severability effect, you do have to put it into a bill, but in a pretty exhaustive search, we haven’t found anything like this ever done before.  I’m not sure it’s a very good policy to do.  I would recommend a “no” vote on this amendment.

Pederson: Any further remarks?  We’ll be doing a voice vote.  The amendment is not adopted.  Representative ROSS.

[1:18:14]

ROSS:  Thank you Mr Chair, I move amendment H-2823.1
EFFECT:  Prohibits a student from attending or participating in a public school-sponsored class, program, or activity dealing with or regarding opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships, including marriage and domestic partnerships, unless a student’s parent has been previously notified and approves of the student’s attendance or participation.  The school must have on file a confirmation from the parent that he or she has been notified.
ROSS: First let me again thank the Chair for not scoping the amendment, I know that could have occurred, but I bring this amendment forward as I have each time that we’ve addressed these issues.  And I think when I reflect back on the testimony that we heard from folks from the state that came out to talk about this I did hear, um, significant fear from some folks about whether or not they know or are informed about what the the school is teaching their children.  And out of fairness to both viewpoints on this subject I think it’s only fair that we ask that we inform parents who may have objection to this very subject of what we’re talking about, and with that in mind I bring this forward.  I know this would be complicated but, out of fairness to both viewpoints on this subject, I think it is the most prudent and and fair thing to do to alleviate, and I think in many cases this would alleviate quite a bit of I think the fear that comes along with those folks that came up and talked about this issue.  And I remember last time I brought this amedment up, the Chair so very carefully pointed out that if we were to do this we would, you know, a simple book that was included in the syllibus would trigger this and uh, I want to say that I think that that’s exactly the reason why we bring an amendment like this up, that um, to those folks out there who have serious concerns about this, I think they would like to know exactly what’s going on in the syllabus, at the school, and is being taught to their children.  So with respect I bring forward this amendment.

PEDERSEN: I’m gonna ask for a “no” vote. I certainly appreciate the spirit in which the gentleman from the 14th has offered the amendment, but I’ve made a little syllabus of books that would be problems, um, “Dick and Jane”, “Gone With the Wind”, “Jane Eyre”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “The Scarlet Letter”, “Of Mice and Men”, “Little Women”, “The Hardy Boys”, “Band of Brothers”, just as some examples of things that would require specific consent each time that one of these books was going to come up in the curriculum, or any part of one of those books was going to come up.  I think it’s totally unworkable for our public schools.  I think this would be a giant unfunded mandate from Olympia, and urge a “no” vote on the amendment.  Representative ROSS.

ROSS: Again, I, I anticipated you having something like that ready to go, and I want to tell you that on issues like this I think sometimes you have to weigh realistically the effect of what we’re doing.  And I think what a wonderful opportunity if if you are supporting the exact subject we’re discussing today, then what a wonderful opportunity to talk to not only a child about this, but talk to their parents.  And in that vein I think there’s a potential there to maybe change other folks’s mind who simply don’t understand and will not have the understanding that the child will gain from the materials you have recommended.  So thank you Mr. Chair.

PEDERSEN: Thank you for the remarks.  We’ll be doing a voice vote.  Oh, I’m sorry, Representative FLANNIGAN.

FLANNIGAN: I just would like to remind all the members that there are sometimes more than two sides to an issue.  Ah, I just want to make sure that if there’s a variant anywhere out there that we would allow that too. Thank you.

PEDERSEN: ok we’ll be doing a voice vote…The amendment is not adopted.  And finally, ah, Representative RODNE.  Oh, I think first you need to withdraw 2824.1.

[1:21:39]

RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair. Oh, I withdraw amendment 2824.1.

PEDERSEN: Amendment 2824.1 has been withdrawn.  Representative RODNE.

RODNE:  Thank you Mr Chair. I move adoption of amendment H-2837.1.
EFFECT:  Adds a referendum clause to the bill.
RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair.  This amendment would add a referendum clause to the bill.  I think it goes without saying that ah this is a, ah, highly emotional, ah, issue for people across the state.  Ah, I think that was evidenced by the fact the we had an overflow crowd here testifying for the House bill, ah there was lots of folks on both sides of this issue down here.  I think there could be no better way to, ah, to really, ah, finalize and resolve this issue once and for all than to um, to allow the people of the state to have the final say as, as um citizens of the state.  SO this would allow for that.  Um, I think that we shouldn’t be fearful of giving the people their their voice on this matter.  Ah, this amendment would, ah I think again, ah, add, ah, so much ability to resolve and finally decide this issue that is provided for in our constitutional framework Urge your support.  Thank You.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  Representative FLANNIGAN.

FLANNIGAN: Thank you Mr Chair. Uh it just strikes me that we’re sent here to make difficult decisions, and as has been mentioned this is one of those difficult ones.  Uh, not difficult for the voters.  They’re pretty much, us voters, we stand on one side or the other.  But, um, I think that’s why we have a representative government that I’ve been learning that quite a bit in my other committees.  And I think we’re supposed to take these decisions.  Thank you.  I vote a “no”.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  Representative ROSS.

ROSS:   Again thank you Mr Chair.  And kind of towards the end of this bill again, and I want to point out again to the staff, and to you, Mr Chair, and to the members of this committee, that for some of us this is a very difficult, um, topic to discuss.  And I really again appreciate the professionalism that’s been extended to every member on this committee.  From the staff and the folks who have participated.  But I think in hearing what I’ve just heard, I think of all the things we’ve talked about in regards to this bill, I think this is the wisest thing we could do.  I think you’re right.  I think legislators are sent here to make decisions.  And in this particular year, I find it kind of ironic that we’re told this with this bill, while yet when it comes to tax measures and taxing the citizens, there’s a definite different tune coming out of Olympia about how do we come here and make these fiscal decisions, and yet maybe I don’t want to make the vote that says that we’re going to tax the citizens.  But yet on the other hand we have this same argument that says we don’t want to consult the citizens because we were sent here to make this decision.  I think this idea would give is a wonderful opportunity of truly what the state feels about this issue as a collective voting body amongst the state.  Clearly, as you travel across the state, you run into communities that embrace this concept with no, no problems.  And there are other parts of this state that this whole concept runs contradictory to their their being and their beliefs and their religion and many many other aspects.  And again, I believe in a world that is governed by the majority, and I think what more of a, we’ve seen here this is an incredibly important issue to both sides.  And rather than us run this bill in the middle of the night, this I see is one of those creatures that we bring up in the middle of the night, like we do some bills around here, and I’ve never understood that.  And only being here 3 years I’m sure someone can inform me as to why we do that.  I think that this bill should be put out to the voters and allow them a chance to put their mark on the ballot as to whether they agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.  With that in mind I strongly urge the members in here to ask the citizens of the state what they think on this one.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  Representative Shea.

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair.  And I appreciate the eloquence of Representative Ross.  And I would, I would echo his sentiments.  But I would just add this one point.  The power that we have as representatives comes from the people.  And when we make such wide-sweeping policy decisions such as this proposal, I think that it needs to be ratified by the people who have given us this power.  And I would urge a “yes” vote on the amendment.  Thank you Mr Chair.

PEDERSEN: Ah, I’ll just note two further things.  One is that ah, for the members of this body, ah, most of whom served in the previous session.  Um, the decision at some level has been ratified by the people.  All of us have voted one way or another and have stood the test of an election since then.  Ah, the other thing that I’ll note, ah, is that there is not an emergency clause, or a mead easy clause, or whatever we want to call it in this bill.  Um, if in a year where we have, ah, little money to spend on all sorts of things, if the people feel that’s important enough for us to spend several million dollars having a referendum and counting votes state-wide, ah, on this, then that is the peoples’ right.  And there’s nothing that will interfere with that.  So I urge a “no” vote.  Ah, a roll call vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr Chair that’s 5 votes “aye”, 6 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: The amendment is not adopted.

[1:27:51]

PEDERSEN: We now have before us engrossed second substitute senate bill 5688, ah without amendment and with final passage.  Are there remarks?  Representative Rodne.

RODNE: Thank you Mr Chair, and before I begin my comments I do want to, ah, thank you sincerely for, and all the members of this committee and staff and the folks in the audience for the way this uh this uh issue has been dealt with in a in a highly professional manner that’s bee respective, ah respective and and its appreciated.  I will say Mr Chair, um, for the last 3 years um we have, we’ve dealt with this issue.  And I gotta be candid that I have really admired the honesty of the proponents of this bill all along, and that the goal has been marriage.  The goal has been to um to have a marriage ah bill, or you know, have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.  And so this really is about marriage.  I think Representative Ross, I don’t know if it was a slip, but you mentioned, in regards to the last um amedment ah that the voters should have a chance to to pass on whether or not marriage should be between one man and one woman. And and I think that goes to the very heart of the issue here that this really is all, it perceived by everyone to be about marriage.  About the validity of DOMA.  About how are we as a society going to structure and regulate the marital relationship.  This has always been about marriage, and yet the, we have shirked away from that debate.  Year after year in the last 3 years we have couched the debate in terms of expansion of rights.  And, I feel we’ve been disingenuous about that, because this has been about marriage since day 1.  And, back in 2006 when this measure was first introduced, I think it was back in ’06.  ’07.  I stood on the House floor and said, let’s have the debate.  Let’s have the debate about marriage.  Let’s have the debate about how we’re going to define marriage.  And let’s have that vote on our convictions and all of the values and asperations that we bring as, as elected representatives.  Let’s have that vote.  Let’s have the courage to stand up on the floor of the House, and take that vote, and go back to our districts, and explain that vote to our constituents.  I welcome that debate.  We’re going to have to wait again another year, at least, to have that debate because, this is, again, a circumvention, or a way to get around that debate.  Um, if this had been about rights all along, I think the vote tally would have been a lot different.  But it is about marriage in a covert sense.  I’d rather have that debate overtly, and and for those reasons Mr Sp- Mr Chair, I’ll be voting “no”.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  Representative FLANNIGAN.

FLANNIGAN: Thank you Mr Chair.  Um, the issue of of marriage among domestic partners is certainly an issue, but it is not the one before us.  And, and I’m a proponent of that and don’t particularly mind if it comes for a vote and would be happy to engage, ah, any of the other side on the issue in a floor debate.  Ah, at this moment, we all know that in this country, then issue of um, of marriage, ah divides us in many many ways.  What I don’t think divides most of us is whether people, however they are living togerther in a loving relationship, whether they have a right to visit, ahm, themselves in the hospital, as we already allowed, whether they have the right to get the benefits of of ah insurance, that they have the rights to simply have the courtesies of what is um, a part of our secular laws.  And where they go in terms of religious beliefs and all that sort of thing is not for us to decide.  What’s for us to decide is whether there is equity in all of the benefits of any relationship.  And so I can’t imagine not voting “yes’ in support, and I hope you all will.  Thank you.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks?  Representative Shea.

SHEA: Thank you Mr Chair. We’ve, I think, debated this back and forth on the various amendments.  But I’d like to to bring up several, several points.  The the proponents of this bill, and I believe yourself included Mr Chair, have admitted that this puts domestic partnerships on the exact same legal footing as marriage.  It’s troubling ah to me, as an attorney, because I believe that that gives the legal grounds for a challenge to the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. I know that that might be argued, but I do believe that gives and argument and a challenge to the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which was put in place in a bipartisan fashion.  And in fact if I recall correctly, I was not here at the time, overrode the governor’s veto. Ah, that’s that’s significant I think.  I think that we made a public policy decision at that time, and I think we need to, ah, maintain that public policy decision.

Ah, I would urge a no vote on this for many other reasons, but one that, one other one that I want to share:  the fiscal impact on this is going to be 8.5 million dollars, and I think that’s conservative over the next five years.  And again, I share many great concerns that people are going to come in outside of this, from outside the state to take advantage of this law, and that number is significantly lower.  Ah, a  massive expansion of government to implement this policy, ah is something that we have not debated, ah, vigorously, and I think it’s something we need to consider in this economic crisis that we’re facing.  And so Mr Chair I thank you again for the opportunity to all sides of the argument the opportunity to debate these points, and uh but however I would appreciate a “no” vote on this bill.

PEDERSEN: Further remarks Representative Ross.

ROSS: Thank you Mr Chair. Um again I, participating on this committee has been in some ways a blessing, and in some ways difficult. Um, I think that, um, way back when we first came to this legislature, um, we had great discussions about how we approach this, and one of the things I struggle with is how do we the legislature and independent representatives maintain trust with the voting public.  Um, I think that a lot of people are just now realizing what exactly is happening with what what’s been done here.  And um, going back to the beginning where if we were to say from day one that this was an issues of high importance, it was put out to a vote of the people, and the vote of the people of this state by majority ruled that this is what should be, I’m a believer in that.  There’s been many a times where I have capitulated and followed the majority, many times where it was against what I personally believed.  But I truly believe in a majority vote rule.  And I think that in this case, it is just a perfect example of how, when you win by technicality, or if you, we we, I’ve had many people tell me that they found it so hard to understand why things were let out of court, why the court was overturned on a technicality.  And I believe that this approach is a very technical, and I think that the folks that are involved in creating this are extremely brilliant people.  And I think that I’m, my district is contacting me more on this bill than any other bill.  And I think that the people out there are asking themselves, why was I not consulted on this major change in societal policy.  And then to give, when I have to try to give the answer that, you know, I’m sent here to do this work on your behalf, works for 99% of those.  But on this, Mr Chair, I wanted to have a moment to explain why I disagree with this.  The other part that concerns me is I remember Representative Miloscia giving a very passionate speech on the House floor about senior citizens.  And if I remember right, in the beginning, they were also included in this.  What, are they still?  I, I yield.  Thank you.  And with that, Mr Speaker again, or I’m sorry Mr Chairman, in closing, again, the folks that have been interacting with me here, I want to tell you personally thank you for being so kind, and treating this in the proper respect.

PEDERSEN: Ah, thank you.  I’ll just close by, ah, mentioning a couple of things.  First of all, with respect to the fiscal effect, I ah, approximately $2.1 million of the $2.3 million in the upcoming biennium actually has to do with health care benefits for the different-sexed senior couples.  Ah, we’re working, because we know there are approximately 413 different-sexed senior couples who are registered, um, I think there’s some concern that that fiscal note may be rather dramatically overstated since it’s unlikely that all of them are state employees or former state employees.  But we’re certainly in discussions with the health care authority about that.  I think that by the time the bill goes to Ways and Means that there may be some further light shed on that.  But it is absolutely a concern, and that is the reason why, ah, there are a number of provisions that have a fiscal effect on the state that are delayed in the senate bill all the way out to, ah, to 2014.  Even though that will certainly create a hardship for some people who otherwise would benefit from immediate implementation of the law.  

Um, it seems to me that a lot of the debate and concern about the bill is not really about the bill, but about the bills, in some ways, that we’ve passed over the last couple of years.  Um, the fact is that as of this time, we have 5,200 couples, ah, who are registered across the state as domestic partners.  Ten thousand four hundred people, and their families.  They live in every one of our districts.  A lot of them live in my district, but all of us have, uh those folks who live in their districts and who depend on the legal protections that the domestic partner registry has established for them.

Ah, this bill, as it was originally drafted, was nearly 2,000 pages when we took the approach of trying to do it the same way ah that we have done it with line amendments over the last couple of years.  And in a effort to make it more transparent, and more workable, ah, we restructured the bill so that we were amending just the chapters that were remaining.  The result of that I think is that uh there’s been quite a bit of excitement, um, that I ah I think isn’t necessarily in relationship to the particular changes that the bill makes, um which are, for example, providing that a police officer, a lesbian police officer that is killed in the line of duty will be able to leave a death benefit to her surviving partner.  Or a teacher ah who passes away will be able to leave a pension, if he has so elected, to his surviving partner.  Um, a lot of these changes don’t affect very many people.  But for the folks whom they do affect, they are profound and important.  And as we complete our work with this bill, of making sure that we treat all of the families recognized by our state with equal dignity and respect, ah, I think that this is a very important step that will make a very real and profound difference to people in the state.

And I would echo the comments from folks on the other side that I certainly appreciate the, ah, respect and tenor of the of the debate that we’ve had.  I know that we’re deeply divided on this, um but this is the process we have.  So, yeah, Representative Ross.

ROSS: Um, just a question.  You referenced a 2,000 page bill to accomplish these things.  Could the same accomplishment have been achieved if you would have simply modified the definition of marriage?

PEDERSEN: Ah, we actually had referred to our committee, I believe it was House Bill 1727 that we did not hear, that would have changed, ah, RCW 26.04.010 and 020 in a 2-page bill you could have accomplished all of this if, if you had allowed same-sex couples to marry.  This bill does not allow that.

ROSS: So the reason you opted not to modify the definition?

PEDERSEN: Ah, well this is sort of unusual in an executive session.  But I, uh, I guess, I guess what I’ll say, um, Representatives Rodne and Ross, you both know that I’m among those proponents who have from the beginning been very clear that I don’t think that we can as a state achieve equality of treatment for families in our state until we have access to marriage.  But I don’t think that we have a consensus, ah, or anything near it at this point.  So in the mean time, um, we have families who need protection, and this bill and the approach that we’ve taken, in terms of my motives for it at least, has been to provide some protection, um, and to help bring people along rather than trying a huge change all at once, um, to help make that change.  

Ok, the clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: That’s 7 votes “aye”, 4 votes “nay”.

PEDERSEN: By your vote you’ve reported ESS 5688 from committee with a “do pass” recommendation.