Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 08:08:29 -0800 From: rwinters@seanet.com (Roger Winters) Subject: Re: (WA STATE) HB2262 (Anti Gay Marriage Bill) >If you live in WASHINGTON STATE: >NOW is the time to write or call your State Legislators in opposition to >HB2262, as it is coming before the Committee on Law and Justice today >(Jan 31, 1996). Actually, a substitute bill was approved, one which would try to correct initial defects and avoid a Governor's sure veto by sending it to the people for a vote. This by the anti-gay people who have failed to get a ballot measure qualified for several years. They would like to get a measure on our ballot so they can continue their homophobic rhetoric and anti-gay/lesbian crusade. Following the substitute bill is the House Committee report on the bill and testimony; note the biases. Here is the substitute bill: H-4723.2 _______________________________________________ SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2262 _______________________________________________ State of Washington 54th Legislature 1996 Regular Session By House Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Representatives Thompson, Koster, Carrell, Hargrove, Stevens, Mulliken, Fuhrman, Hymes, Crouse, Sterk, Backlund, L. Thomas, McMahan, Beeksma, Pelesky, Johnson and Casada) Read first time 02/02/96. AN ACT Relating to marriages; amending RCW 26.04.010 and 26.04.020; creating a new section; and providing for submission of this act to a vote of the people. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. The legislature and the people of the state of Washington find that matters pertaining to marriage are matters reserved to the sovereign states and, therefore, such matters should be determined by the people within each individual state, not by the people of a different state. Sec. 2. RCW 26.04.010 and 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 26 are each amended to read as follows: {+ (1) +} Marriage is a civil contract (({- which may be entered into by persons of -})) {+ between a male and a female who have each attained +} the age of eighteen years, {+ and +} who are otherwise capable(({- : PROVIDED, That -})){+ . (2) E +}very marriage entered into in which either (({- party - })) {+ the husband or the wife +} shall not have attained the age of seventeen years shall be void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity. Sec. 3. RCW 26.04.020 and 1927 c 189 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: {+ (1) +} Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: (({- (1) -})) {+ (a) +} When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage(({- . -})){+ ; +} (({- (2) -})) {+ (b) +} When the (({- parties thereto -})) {+ husband and wife +} are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law{+ ; or (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and female as provided in RCW 26.04.010 +}. (({- (3) -})) {+ (2) +} It shall be unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it shall be unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son. {+ (3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction shall be valid in this state only if the marriage is not otherwise prohibited under this section. +} {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. This act shall be submitted to the people for their adoption and ratification, or rejection, at the next succeeding general election to be held in this state, in accordance with Article II, section 1 of the state Constitution, as amended, and the laws adopted to facilitate the operation thereof. --- END --- Now, the House Committee Report: 12 HOUSE BILL REPORT HB 2262 As Reported By House Committee On: Law & Justice Title: An act relating to marriages. Brief Description: Prohibiting marriages between two persons of the same gender. Sponsors: Representatives Thompson, Koster, Carrell, Hargrove, Stevens, Mulliken, Fuhrman, Hymes, Crouse, Sterk, Backlund, L. Thomas, McMahan, Beeksma, Pelesky, Johnson and Casada. Brief History: Committee Activity: Law & Justice: 1/31/96 [DPS]. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 12 members: Representatives Sheahan, Chairman; Delvin, Vice Chairman; Hickel, Vice Chairman; Campbell; Carrell; Chappell; Lambert; McMahan; Morris; Robertson; Smith and Sterk. Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 5 members: Representatives Dellwo, Ranking Minority Member; Costa, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Cody; Murray and Veloria. Staff: Edie Adams (786-7180). Background: Marriage is a civil contract extensively regulated by the state. Marriage must be solemnized before a judge, court commissioner, or licensed or ordained minister or priest. In order to be lawfully married, both parties must be at least 18 years of age and capable of giving consent. Marriage is specifically prohibited if one party has a spouse living or if the parties are closely related. Persons of the same gender are prohibited from legally marrying in the State of Washington. Although not specifically prohibited in the marriage statute, a Washington appellate court decision, {+ Singer v. Hara +}, 11 Wn. App. 247 (1974), held that the marriage statute does not allow marriage between persons of the same gender. In {+ Singer +}, the court relied on references to "husband and wife" and "female and male" contained in the original statute and some current provisions in determining that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same gender marriage. The {+ Singer +} court also held that prohibiting marriage between persons of the same gender does not violate the Equal Rights Amendment to the Washington Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, in {+ Baehr v. Lewin +} (unpublished), ruled that not allowing persons of the same gender to marry presumptively violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Hawaii Constitution unless the state can show a compelling government interest in prohibiting same gender marriage. The court remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on whether the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting same-gender marriages. The rehearing on this issue has not yet occurred. If Hawaii ultimately determines that marriage between persons of the same gender is a right protected by the Hawaii constitution, it is unclear whether the state of Washington would have to recognize a marriage between persons of the same gender that is validly contracted in Hawaii. Generally, if a marriage is valid in the jurisdiction where it is contracted, it is valid in all other jurisdictions unless it violates a strong public policy of the other jurisdiction. For example, common law marriages are not valid under Washington statutory law, but case law has established that Washington will recognize a common law marriage if it is valid in the state where it was contracted. In addition, Washington courts have held that polygamous or incestuous marriages will not be recognized in Washington, even if valid in the jurisdiction where they were contracted. Summary of Substitute Bill: Marriage is redefined as a civil contract between a man and a woman. References to "parties" in the marriage statute are replaced with references to "the male and female" and "the husband and wife." Marriage between persons other than a male and female are specifically prohibited. A marriage that is valid in another jurisdiction will not be recognized in the State of Washington when either party has a husband or wife living, when the parties are too closely related, or when the parties are of the same gender. The bill contains a referendum clause requiring the act to be submitted to a vote of the people at the next general election. Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill: The original bill prohibited marriage between persons of the same gender and specified that a marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction will not be recognized as a valid marriage in this state. Appropriation: None. Fiscal Note: Not requested. Effective Date of Substitute Bill: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. Testimony For: The bill simply defines what marriage is and always has been in our culture. We should not allow another state to redefine for us what marriage is. This bill is necessary to stop the movement for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle into our homes, schools, and society. Homosexuals are not interested in marriage because they don't want monogamy. The real motive is forced acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexual behavior is unnatural, deadly, and devoid of any moral character. Sixty percent of people are opposed to allowing same gender marriages. The movement to recognize same gender marriages by homosexual activists is an attack on family values and the moral foundations of America. Testimony Against: This bill represents an attempt to rationalize discrimination, bigotry, and hatred. It demonizes, dehumanizes, demeans, and slanders. This bill is not necessary because current law prevents same gender marriage. It will cost the state money in expensive litigation challenging the bill. It violates the federal and state constitutions because it treats people differently based on their sex. This bill is anti-family and a denial of civil rights. It tells children of gay and lesbian partners that their parents' relationships are bad. It is a painful insult to have committed, loving relationships likened to incest and bigamy. The recognition of same- gender marriages will not cost the state a lot of money to provide health benefits to state employees. In Seattle, insurance for domestic partners costs less than insurance for spouses. Testified: Representative Thompson, prime sponsor; Robert Larimen, Washington for Traditional Values (pro); Michael Johnston, Alaskans Opposed to Pro-homosexual Policies (pro); Mike Gabbard, Stop Promoting Homosexuality America (pro); Kurt Mach, citizen (pro); Jeff Kemp, Washington Family Council (pro); and Carol Sterling, Karen McGaffey, Sally Fox, John Wilkinson, Gwen Hall, and Paul Beeman, Privacy Fund (con). _________________________________________________________ The above message is sent or forwarded from Roger Winters