Talk:Same-sex marriage in Washington state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

When is it appropriate to mention initiatives in the article?[edit]

An initiative has been filed in Washington (I-958) that indirectly challenges the Andersen ruling by making procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The sponsors are to pass it and that the Court strikes it down, thereby striking down much of the reasoning which led to declaring the defense of marriage act valid. When would it be appropriate to update the article? Once details are released or only after the measure is certified for the ballot? TechBear 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it's actually I-957, but I can't find anything on it. I-958 is something about "relating to life safety and protection of property." I do, however, enjoy the proposal of an initiative not yet numbered: "Relating to the prohibition of proposing dangerous initiative & referendum measures." Gave me a chuckle. Anyway, as for inclusion, I would wait a bit. Has it been the subject of a couple non-trivial publications? News sources? It might be ok to mention it in a sentence or two now, though. (I can't believe this initiative isn't being proposed by Tim Eyman!). Thanks for the heads up. --Rkitko 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington SB 1247[edit]

How come nobody has mentioned Washington SB 1247 in this article?

Washington SB 1247 Summary: This bill would expand the existing domestic partner registry to provide registered domestic partners with access to the rights and responsibilities provided to spouses under state law.

Status: This bill passed the Senate March 10, 2009 by a 30-18 vote. It passed the House April 15, 2009 by a 62-35 vote. The bill now heads to Gov. Christine Gregoire’s desk.

Full Text: Read the full text of this bill.

Rating: Support

Action: Washington residents should use HRC’s Online Action Center to contact their state senator and representative to ask him or her to support this bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple: it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Washington has Jim Crow "domestic partnerships," which are not the same thing at all. Anyway, the bill is mentioned, just not by name. TechBear (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Capital punishment in Washington which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"When will same-sex marriage go into effect?", I hear you cry[edit]

PLEASE NOTE: Even though at the moment Referendum 74 is passing, the result will NOT be official until the Secretary of State certifies the election on December 6, 2012. Until then, we do not have same-sex marriage in Washington: please do NOT edit this article to say that we do until after the SoS has issued the certification. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - I say we should state that it won, but the result won't be official until December 5. So, I'm adding it, it's a huge oversight to not mention the most important part of the issue in this state.
This gets hashed out ever election. Until the results are certified, the law does not exist. That is how it works. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's my point, but we should mention the result anyway with that caveat. That is, in fact, what I put in the article. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ego White Tray. This is how Maine and Maryland look. It should be the same for Washington. It's not in limbo. It's been decided, it just hasn't taken affect yet. We call Elizabeth Warren the Senator-elect even though those results have not been certified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wedding photos[edit]

I took some photos outside and uploaded them to Commons. There are also many more photos of actual weddings inside City Hall, including various dignitaries, at City of Seattle photostream, licensed CC-by. I uploaded one, of Dan Savage & the mayor, but there are many more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate movement of article[edit]

Someone just moved this article from "Same-sex marriage in Washington state" to "Same-sex marriage in Washington (state)". Parentheticals are generally used on Wikipedia titles to disambiguate two things with the same fixed name or term, such as discerning Kansas-the-band from Kansas-the-state. As "Same-sex marriage in Washington state" is not a fixed term but rather a descriptive title, the parenthetical should not be used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nat. I hope you're doing well. Have a nice day. Teammm talk
20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I moved it to Same-sex marriage in Washington State, the capitalized State being, I believe, correct. Since we cannot keep the article at Same-sex marriage in Washington since we also have Same-sex marriage in Washington D.C., we do have to disambiguate, but WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical - you're correct. Rkitko (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ach, I was looking at day-old recent changes, which makes them less-recent. My apologies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
There why not create a proposal to rename Washington (state) to Washington State. TBrandley (TCB) 01:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ERISA and insurance benefits[edit]

It should be mentioned that legal recognition doesn't effect employment-related insurance benefits. If an employer self-insures its health plan — meaning the employer (or a trust the employer sponsors) pays health claims — that plan is not governed by state regulation. Instead, ERISA — the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act — becomes the guiding force. ERISA pre-empts state law, and historically has enabled self-insured employers not to cover same-sex spouses. So private companies can still do what they want.

Doubledragons (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. The Seattle Weekly article you cited was published a year ago, just six days after the Windsor decision, before people had had time to carefully analyze the legal consequences and were being cautious in their pronouncements, and before the Administration had begun announcing its findings and intentions for recognizing same-sex marriages in ways that would supersede what had "historically" been provided. (Note that even the article said the situation with ERISA-regulated benefits may not necessarily change, it didn't declare outright that it wouldn't.)
The relevant developments since then are these:
  • In September 2013, the Department of Labor addressed this question for retirement plans in Technical Release 2013-04. "In general, where the Secretary of Labor has authority to issue regulations, rulings, opinions, and exemptions in title I of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as in the Department's regulations at chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the term "spouse" will be read to refer to any individuals who are lawfully married under any state law, including individuals married to a person of the same sex who were legally married in a state that recognizes such marriages, but who are domiciled in a state that does not recognize such marriages."
  • In April 2014, the IRS, co-responsible with the DOL for ERISA, issued Notice 2014-19, providing the same recognition of legally created same-sex marriages regardless of the current state of residence. From page 3: "For Federal tax purposes, the Internal Revenue Service (Service) adopts a general rule recognizing a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a state whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex even if the married couple is domiciled in a state that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages."
—Largo Plazo (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If a company in Washington, for example, has two employees, a straight man and a gay man, one with a wife and one with a husband, and gives the wife medical and dental, but denies the husband dental, then this would be considered illegal on all levels of government? Doubledragons (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell (though I am not a lawyer). Washington State prohibits discrimination based on gender, gender identify, and sexual orientation, so that takes care of all matters within the scope of state law. Since ERISA is now read as defining "spouse" without respect to gender, and since gender-based discrimination is illegal under Federal law, I don't see any room for such discrimination to be permitted at the Federal level. I can't imagine even Alito or Scalia ruling otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)