OLYMPIA – New numbers show hundreds of same-sex couples have gotten married since Referendum 74 took effect.

Between December 9, 2012 and March 31, 2013, nearly 2,500 same-sex couples tied the knot. That’s more than 20 percent of the 11,661 marriages that occurred in that time. Female couples constituted the largest number of unions — 63 percent — during that time.

According to the Department of Health, same-sex marriages happened in 35 of the state’s 39 counties. Ferry, Asotin, Garfield and Wahkiakum counties haven’t reported any marriages and one-third of new marriages were performed in King County.

Since Washington is one of the states that allow same-sex marriage, 14 percent of the couples who got married came from another state.

By Tina Sussman

Los Angeles Times

Rhode Island took a step Wednesday toward becoming the 10th state to recognize gay marriage after the Senate passed a bill that could clear the way for same-sex weddings to begin this summer.

The bill passed 26 to 12 after about 90 minutes of debate and is due to take effect Aug. 1, assuming nothing blocks what is seen as a routine vote in the House and the signature of Gov. Lincoln Chafee.

Chafee, an independent, supports the legislation, and the House easily passed the bill in January. It must vote on it again because of amendments made before the Senate vote, and its approval is seen as virtually guaranteed.

After Wednesday’s vote, Chafee issued a statement saying he was “always proud to be a Rhode Islander, but never more so than today.”

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7 to 4 to advance the bill to the full Senate, where all five Republican members had vowed to support it. The committee also voted 6 to 5 against letting voters decide on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

But it has been a long and difficult battle for the legislation, which Sen. Donna Nesselbush said had been in the works for more than 20 years. Nesselbush, a Democrat who is openly gay, was the bill’s sponsor and called its passage a “historic moment” that would undo decades of discrimination.

She said the bill protects religious leaders who oppose same-sex marriage by including a provision that permits them to opt out of performing gay weddings.

“The eyes of the nation are upon us,” Nesselbush said as lawmakers prepared to vote.

As promised, the five Senate Republicans joined 21 Democrats in supporting the bill. The 12 “no” votes came from 11 Democrats and one independent. Democrats opposed included the Senate president, Teresa Paiva-Weed, who allowed debate on the bill to go forward despite her objection to same-sex marriage.

“I give her a lot of credit,” Nesselbush told the Providence Journal earlier this week. I’ve heard stories about leaders derailing bills or killing bills, and that’s not happening, and that says something about her.”

Assuming the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island would join New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriage. Washington, D.C., also allows same-sex marriage.

The action by the Rhode Island lawmakers came two days after legislators in Nevada moved to end a ban on same-sex marriage there. During the often emotional debate, a state senator stunned fellow lawmakers by announcing that he is gay.

OLYMPIA — State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit Tuesday against Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts of Richland, Wash., for refusing to provide wedding flowers for a same-sex marriage ceremony.

The Attorney General’s Office said that on March 1, Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, refused to provide wedding flowers to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll based on her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Ferguson sent a letter to Stutzman on March 28 requesting she reconsider her position and sign an agreement indicating her intention to comply with Washington laws. Stutzman’s attorneys responded Monday and said that Stutzman would challenge any state action to enforce the law.

“As attorney general, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” Ferguson said in a news release. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

In a complaint filed in Benton County Superior Court Tuesday, the Attorney General’s Office seeks a permanent injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws. The state also seeks $2,000 in fines for every violation of the law.

Here is the letter the Attorney General sent to the owner of Arlene’s Flowers: StutzmanShifleyLtrAOD.2013-03-28

And here is the response of the attorney’s representing the owner of Arelene’s Flowers: 2013 04 08 Response to AG

SEATTLE — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for and against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA, which restricts federal marriage benefits and required inter-state recognition to marriages only between a man and woman.

However the Supreme Court rules, it won’t directly affect the 41 states that don’t have gay marriage, at least not right away. The immediate change would affect states such as Washington, where gay and lesbian couples are allowed to get married under state law but aren’t recognized under federal law.  And because they aren’t, they don’t have access to the many federal benefits that come with marriage.

“They are doing everything we ask people in this country to do — pay taxes, look out for their children, and they face DOMA and (are) told, you are second class,” said Lisa Stone, executive director of Legal Voice, a Seattle-based advocacy group for women. “If DOMA falls, then their families have full recognition, not just the 187 rights in Washington state but the 1,100-plus that come with full citizenship.”

Among those federal rights: Access to a partner’s Social Security benefits; ability to file a joint tax return; health care benefits for the spouses of federal employees, including those in the military; and many more.

“If I caught the flu and I needed to go see a doctor (under her spouse’s federal health care plan), I wouldn’t be able to because that’s not covered,” said Kelly Martin, who was married to a federal employee in Washington last December. Her spouse, Lindsey, is a petty officer in the Navy. 

“She would like to go back overseas, and, at the moment I can’t go overseas with her because DOMA is preventing us from being a recognized married couple,” Martin said.

Martin was among dozens who rallied Wednesday in downtown Seattle to mark the historic day at the Supreme Court.

“We’d like to be given the exact same benefits as every other couple in the country and, you know, full citizenship,” said rally attendee LeeAnn Martison, who plans to marry her partner Colleen Ozolitis soon.

The Supreme Court is expected to come down with its DOMA ruling, and a ruling on a California same-sex marriage case that was argued Tuesday, sometime between now and June.

 

 

Washington (CNN) — Day Two of the culture wars at the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage looks at the Defense of Marriage Act, with the justices considering Wednesday whether a federal law can deny equal benefits permitted in states where gay marriage is legal.

The arguments conclude presentations before the high court on one of the most prevalent social issues of this era — the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed and receive the full benefits of law provided to heterosexual couples.

Wednesday’s case examines the practical impact of the 1996 act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman and therefore means federal tax, Social Security, pension and bankruptcy benefits as well as family medical leave protections do not apply to legally married gay and lesbian couples.

It involves Edith “Edie” Windsor, who was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than a surviving spouse in a heterosexual marriage would have to pay.

Because her decades-long partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize their same-sex marriage in legal terms, even though their home state of New York did.

“I was devastated by the loss of the great love of my life, and I was also very sick, then had to deal with pulling together enough money to pay for the taxes,” the 83-year-old Windsor recently told CNN.

For the complete CNN story, go here.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case.  “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

PHOTOS: Supreme Court considers gay marriage

Kennedy is likely to have the support of the court’s four liberal justices when they meet later this week to decide the California case. They could decide to write an opinion that strikes down the California ballot measure on the grounds that it denies same-sex couples a right to marry. Or they could vote to dismiss the appeal, which also would have the effect of voiding Prop. 8.

On several occasions, Kennedy and other justices said they were wary of ruling broadly in a way that would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

But at one point, Kennedy said upholding California’s ban on same-sex marriage would cause real harm. He said there were more than 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California.

“It’s the voice of those children” that should be heard, he said. “They want their parents to have the full recognition” of marriage, he added.

For the complete Los Angeles Times story, go here.

 WASHINGTON – Four years ago, many gay rights advocates shook their heads when super-lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies announced they would challenge California’s ban on gay marriages in federal court and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was too risky, the skeptics said. Voters in state after state were rejecting same-sex marriage, and no federal judge had said such bans were illegal. One liberal legal scholar called the lawsuit a “Hail Mary” pass.

But now that Proposition 8′s ban on gay marriage is set for a hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court, the lawyers and activists who started the case think they may be on the verge of a historic victory. Even the early doubters are hopeful. “We think the time is right,” said Los Angeles lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Olson’s partner on the case. “Everything seems to be breaking in favor of marriage equality.”

FULL COVERAGE: Same-sex marriage

Olson and Boies are urging the court to rule that gays and lesbians have an equal right to marry under the Constitution, a decision that would not only strike down the California ban but could make gay marriage legal nationwide. That is “the right result,” Boies said last week. “There is no rational or legitimate reason for the government to deny marriage to these loving couples.”

That may go too far for the court’s majority. The conventional wisdom among legal experts is that the court will stop short of declaring that gays and lesbians have a right to marry nationwide. A narrow ruling voiding Proposition 8 would bring gay marriage to California, but it would not force a change in states where strong opposition to the idea remains. Nine states and the District of Columbia authorize same-sex marriages.