Washington State’s House Ways & Means committee met on April 4, 2009 to review the fiscal impact of ESSB 5688, the Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill of 2009.  By now, everyone knows that the bill will become law, so the hearing was short and sweetly sedate.  The only witness to testify in opposition, a representative of the Catholic Conference, couldn’t even muster a topical criticism relating to the purvue of the committee, but simply repeated the same tired non sequitur: egg + sperm = zygote-American.

The committee debate during the executive session was equally brief, but the one objection raised by Rep. Alexander is worthy of examination as an object lesson in the complete lack of objectivity exhibited by The Washington Hate Coalition.  Join me after the flip for a brief transcript and analysis.Video of the executive session is found here.  Jump ahead to time 00:25:00.

Rep Mark Ericks (D-1, Bothell)

ERICKS: Thank you Madame Chair.  I move that engrossed second substitute senate bill 5688 be reported out of our committee with a “do pass” recommendation.

Rep. Kelli Linville (D-42nd)

CHAIR LINVILLE: It has been moved and seconded that engrossed second substitute senate bill 5688 be reported from committee with a “do pass” recommendation.  Comments?  Ok, Representative Alexander has a comment.

Rep. Gary Alexander (R-20th, Olympia)

ALEXANDER: Thank you Madame Chair.  Well, we’ve been up here again in this process, basically passing bills that add more dollars to a budget challenge that is already very very significant.  And I’m not sure I understand why.  You know, Madame Chair, I made this comment to you earlier about, and I was very pleased with the fact that you supported and actually sponsored a bill to develop priorities of government, and put that into codification.  But Madame Chair, I don’t see it being used.  And Madame Chair this particular bill doesn’t fit the priorities of government at this point in time to add 5 million dollars when we’ve got a 9 billion deficit we’re trying to deal with.  So I’ll be asking for a “no” vote.

CHAIR LINVILLE: Other comments?  Representative Ericks.

ERICKS: Thank you Madame Chair, I’ll be asking for a “yes” vote.  I think that while I do agree that these are challenging fiscal times, this is a bill that addresses significant rights and constitutional rights for our citizens.  And, I think that there’s always room for us to figure this out on something this significant.  I’m urging a “yes” vote.  

CHAIR LINVILLE: Other comments?  Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

CLERK:  13 yea, 7 nay and 0 excused

Rep. Alexander’s remarks recognize the elephant in the room by talking about the tiny volume of air it isn’t inhabiting.  The elephant is the fact that ALL spousal benefits the state is providing to its employees is going selectively to married heterosexuals.  Gay employees have also earned these benefits, but have been forced by the state to forfeit them.  To even think of hindering this bill because of the paltry funds a few DP’d employees may cost the state is to ignore that heterosexuals have been granting themselves grossly unfair special rights from time immemorial, and forcing their gay counterparts to subsidize them.

As a friend very cogently stated, Since the pension aspects of the DP bill don’t kick in until 2014, people must realize that the DP bill costs next to nothing presently, and what the costs will be in the future represent an end to gays subsidizing benefits for heterosexuals while being denied those very same benefits. It’s just a matter of equal pay for equal work.

Since Rep. Alexander bemoans the earned benefits that DP’d employees will finally be able to access, I have a question for him: What is the fiscal impact of married heterosexuals on the state budget?  It must be astronomical, since we’re told that heterosexuals make up over 97% of the population.  And Rep. Alexander, if your interpretation of the Priorities of Government policy is that earned benefits should be withheld during these challenging budgetary times, why aren’t you addressing the elephantine burden that married heterosexuals place on the system by stripping those employees of benefits?  I imagine that would ease the budget challenge considerably.

Readjust your mirrors so you can see the blind spot, Rep. Alexander, because it is time for this myopic game to end.  Gay employees have been subsidizing special rights for heterosexuals for a very long time.  Let’s keep the debate honest by recognizing that fact.