Washington Set To Become 7th State To Approve Same-Sex Marriage

The stage is set for the State of Washington to become the next state to legalize same-sex marriage:

Washington state is set to become the seventh in the country to legalize gay marriage, according to a report Monday.

Democratic Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen announced she would be the 25th vote needed to pass the same-sex marriage bill out of the state Senate, The Associated Press reported Monday. The Washington state House already has the necessary support for the measure, and Gov. Chris Gregoire publicly announced her support for gay marriage earlier this month.

Washington would then become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage along with New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex marriage.

“I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage,” Haugen said in a statement, according to the AP.

Haugen said she made her decision after taking time “to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy. This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor.”

Gregoire announced her support at a news conference on Jan. 4, saying, “It is time in Washington state for marriage equality. It is time; it’s the right thing to do.

And so it continues.

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed for too young in July 2021.

Comments

  1. Vast Variety says:

    It’s really passed time for this to happen, not just in Washington state but in all 50 states. Equality isn’t something that should ever be limited.

  2. David M says:

    Interesting that is almost the new normal now, and definitely sooner than I anticipated.

  3. grumpy realist says:

    Yay! Now a pair of dear friends of mine can get married!

  4. Richard Gardner says:

    As a WA State resident I have no issues with this. However knowing local politics I’m sure there will be an initiative soon to reverse this (will make the ballot but won’t pass even if Tim Eyman sponsored).

    Meanwhile we’re still recovering from the snow followed by the ice storm.

  5. Turner says:

    I have no preferences one way or the other with this gay marriage issue, but I feel that the gay activists need to follow a more orderly process for change. This country is on the edge of a total moral collapse. The family and social structure is in crisis. Moving too quickly without planning and thought will just create more cultural shock and disorientation. The marriage issue needs to be settled at the local level (city, county), not state and certainly not federal. No constitutional changes either way or activist judges ignoring the will of the people on either side of this. This issue is too political to be decided by elected officials; just look at the fiasco in New York, with huge pac money (on both sides). Committees and panels need to be set up in local towns and communities to study the many serious legal, social, economic, and psychological issues of gay marriage and their impact on the deteriorating family and social structure of this country. Succinct recommendations can be made and then community meetings can get the opinions and thoughts of the citizens. Of course, the views and recommendations of religious leaders must also be included. Then they vote on this issue in an orderly fashion. It doesn’t matter to me which side wins. We have seen the disaster in California with the governor’s insane mandate on the school system (without any input from parents or teacher ) that they must now teach the gay agenda; a school system that is in crisis and struggling just to teach reading and math (this mandate will create a backlash against the gay people). Politician demagogues and outside agitators will not be allowed to interfere in this process. Unfortunately, right now, in view of the worsening economic and unemployment situation, this issue is not real high on the priority list. When the country gets straightened out, then time and resources can be devoted to this issue. This issue cannot be rushed through. It must be an orderly process or their cause will be set back for years. Again, I do not have an opinion on this issue one way or the other, just that the process is orderly and well planned out. Whatever the people decide is fine with me.

  6. Fiona says:

    Glad to see it. We also have some dear friends in the Seattle area who will now be able to wed.

  7. Greg says:

    As for a possible referendum:

    When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as “strongly” yes, and 38 percent responded “no,” that they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

  8. Rob in CT says:

    @Turner:

    How the hell is this not orderly? Duly elected representatives doing their jobs is pretty much the definition of orderly change.

    they must now teach the gay agenda

    Oh… I see. Nevermind. For a moment I thought I was speaking to a rational person.

  9. Socrates says:

    “This country is on the edge of a total moral collapse.”

    Really? Total moral collapse? Total?

    And just by the way, extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians makes America more, not less, moral.

  10. jd says:

    @Turner: “study the many serious legal, social, economic, and psychological issues of gay marriage and their impact on the deteriorating family and social structure of this country.”

    http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2009/12/effects-of-gay-marriage.shtml

  11. Alex says:

    @Turner:

    The marriage issue needs to be settled at the local level (city, county), not state and certainly not federal.

    But it’s the state in every case that controls who can get married – municipal governments never have jurisdiction in this area.

    However, this local level stuff has already happened. Cities, towns, and counties in at least 34 states allow domestic partnership or civil union registries. The oldest of these was set up thirty years ago. The orderly process that you’re demanding has already been underway for three decades.

  12. David says:

    @Turner: For someone who doesn’t have a position, you sure have the anti same sex marriage talking points down. I don’t even know how to respond to this. Can you try and fit one more unsupported and totally inflammatory anti gay comment in there?

  13. Turner says:

    @David: I live in a small community of just a few hundred people. Our one policeman is just part time. When we have problems, we put our heads together and solve them. We don’t call in or need outsiders. We have had cable and internet only for about 5 years. Some around here still don’t have power. We don’t take to the government coming in and telling us what to do. Some of my friends and neighbors could be gay for all I know. It doesn’t matter to me. Everyone here just minds their own business and doesn’t nose into other’s business or tries to tell anyone else what to do. We don’t call Washington, or the state capital for any help. 911 doesn’t even work around here. We are just fine with the way it is.

  14. Turner says:

    I believe that my treatise of this subject is logical, balanced, cogent, and succinct. I have tried to suggest a process that would avoid the politics and emotionalism that has accompanied this subject and affects peoples’ judgment and actions.

  15. An Interested Party says:

    I have no preferences one way or the other with this gay marriage issue, but I feel that the gay activists need to follow a more orderly process for change. This country is on the edge of a total moral collapse. The family and social structure is in crisis. Moving too quickly without planning and thought will just create more cultural shock and disorientation.

    The same tired arguments about moving too quickly and not stirring things up too much were used against the Civil Rights Movement…the arguments will fail now as they did then…

  16. David says:

    @Turner: State marriage laws are changed at the state level. Recognition of marriages in one state by another state is regulated at the federal level through the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Not real sure how you can do this at a non political local level. Or are you just saying sit down and don’t fight for your rights?

  17. Rob in CT says:

    I live in a small community of just a few hundred people. Our one policeman is just part time. When we have problems, we put our heads together and solve them. We don’t call in or need outsiders. We have had cable and internet only for about 5 years. Some around here still don’t have power.

    That’s nice for you. 99.99% of Americans don’t live in such communities, though, and don’t solve problems that way.

    Your argument was, in the end: slow down with this equality business. It riling people up!

    Uppity gays, if they’d just wait a while longer things would go smoothly, amirite?