Lena Seino

Head Line: Saving Families or Tearing Them Apart

“I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want my son’s parents to be married, ” Dan Savage said at debate held at Washington State University on Oct. 20.

Savage is a renowned journalist and voice for gay rights. He and his partner were married in Vancouver, B.C., and have one adopted son. Although they are married, their benefits as Washington state residents do not reflect that due to the current law.


Senate Bill 5688 is the “everything but marriage” law that explains the rights for couples registered under domestic partnership registry.

“SB5688 was already passed by the legislature (capitalize when referring to specific legislature) in 2009. Referendum 71 is in reaction to that bill,” said Ybarra, executive legislative assistant for Senator Sen. Edward B Murray.

Opponents of SB 5688 collected more than 135,000 around 137,689 signatures, which allows this already established law is up for debate and the bill to be put on hold and go to the people for a vote.

“We need to do what’s best for society as a whole, and looking at historical presidencies precedents, that does not include same-sex marriage,” William Stetson, vice president of WSU College Republicans, said at the debate on Oct 20.

“Priority should be given to heterosexual couples,” Stetson said. “ It becomes an issue of society when it marriage is institutionalized and made law.”

Although with Ref 71 marriages are not what is on the ballot

The some of rights Ref 71 are protecting are, labor and employment law, Pensions, including survivor benefits, and other public employee benefits.

Stetson also mentioned the many amendments republicans Republicans proposed, all of which were either withdrawn or failed to be added to the bill. “all of which were … failed to be added to the bill”



“Those amendments are not needed,(run-on sentence) they just stated what the bill was not, and we do not need amendments to say what the bill is not… such as the right of refusal to marry are still reserved so amendment 673 is not needed,” Savage said.

Another argument Conservatives argue propose is the amount of money this the law will be too expensive for the state. In From 2009 to 2011(,) it is expected to cost $606,039, and in from 2011 to 2013 to it will cost $1,856,871.

“These cost are mainly related to the estate tax and public-employee pension and survivorship benefits. And would not go into effect until 2012, in recognition of the state budget’s current downturn,” Ybarra said.

“A couple million is a drop in a bucket when it comes to government spending,” Savage said.