To help crime victims stay safe, the office of Secretary of State in Washington administers a very sensible program called Address Confidentiality Program (ACP)
The ACP is designed to prevent offenders from using the state’s public records to locate their victims and cause further harm. The ACP is available to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, and/or stalking, and certain criminal justice employees who have been targets of threats or harassment on the job or due to the job.
One way the ACP helps crime victims stay safe is by keeping confidential their marriage records. “ACP participants may apply for Protected Records Marriage (PRM) licensing, which means no record is made available to the public,” according to the ACP info page.
Unfortunately when the state’s Domestic Partnership registry was set up in 2007, no provision was made in the law to give registered domestic partners access to ACP protections. Bills have been introduced into the Washington state Legislature (SB 6213 and HB 2385) to remedy this discrepancy. The bills do the following:
Prohibits the secretary of state from making available for inspection or copying, the name and address of a program participant, who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or stalking, contained in state registered domestic partnerships applications and records.
Bills have been introduced in both the State House and Senate that if passed, will create a confidentiality program under which domestic partners will be able to hide their names and address from public disclosure.
What am I missing here? Am I mis-reading these bills?
And some of the sponsors are those, who along with Sec. Reed and Attorney General McKenna, fought to disclose the names and addresses of all those who signed Referendum 71 petitions—and prevailed. And now all the names have been published on several websites.
Check out SB 6213 and HB 2385. Notice the sponsors.
The argument? “This is different.” Full disclosure is actually, “selective disclosure.”
Where is the high browed disgust from Sec.–“The people need to know, I represent the people,” Reed? And will A/G McKenna and his people look into this violation of disclosure if the bills should pass?
Why should the names and addresses of domestic partnerships be exempt from public access? Marriage licenses are not.
In the world of so-called “sexual orientation” and “equality,” things are most often not as they seem.
While we are trying to defend marriage, yet another little secret is being advanced.
While the priority is on the defense of marriage, please take an extra moment and call your Representative and Senator and tell them you oppose these 2 bills.
It causes one to wonder what else is happening in the shadows of ” disclosure” and “equality”?
It seems that Pastor Randall is still so enraged about the United States Supreme Court rejecting the anti-gay camp’s multiple attempts to keep anti-gay referendum petitions secret that he won’t support bills that help protect victims of violent crime if those victims might be gay. It should be remembered that not all of Washington’s domestic partners are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Washington Registered Domestic Partnerships are also available to heterosexual couples where one partner is at least 62 years old.
No word yet on whether Pastor Randall’s anti-gay colleagues in the legislature or at Family Policy Institute of Washington will support or oppose these bills. In the past, FPIW has shown a willingness to pull the rug out from under seniors and sacrifice child security on the altar of anti-gay animus. However, even ardently anti-gay legislators like Sen. Dan Swecker have voted for improvements in the domestic partnership law, so you never know.