Referendum 71 is on the ballot for November’s election and is attracting controversy. This measure aims to provide many of the same rights of married couples to domestic partners. Those protections include compensation when one partner is injured and the right to use sick leave to care for an ill or injured partner.
The state of Washington needs to recognize the rights of domestic partners so their partners and children can be fully protected in case something goes wrong. The protections and rights of a marriage need to be available to everyone, not just those who fit into a specific, traditional formula.
The law, as it stands, recognizes two people sharing a common residence who are 18 and the same sex as eligible for a domestic partnership. A relationship where the members are of the opposite sex and one of them is over 62 is also eligible for domestic partnership status. Referendum 71 would grant these partnerships with protections in case one of the partners becomes injured or dies.
These rights and protections would benefit same-sex couples who have to worry about incomplete coverage in this state and deal with the anxiety of not having a more complete safety net in case of tragedy. Is it not fair that couples who are denied the legal right to marry in this state are at least allowed financial security in their partnership?
This is especially true if one of the partners in a same-sex relationship is in a dangerous occupation, such as police work or fire fighting. What happens to the family of that partner if he or she dies in the line of duty, protecting others? Should the families of dedicated public servants be denied basic rights simply because their family breaks the traditional mold?
To those who say increasing the rights of domestic partnerships would lessen the worth of marriage, that is a hollow argument. This law would not alter anyone’s ability to get married and enjoy that status, but it would give additional protections and rights to those who for legal or financial reasons cannot get married.
Marriage is an important social institution, but it is not the only way to define a relationship. There is plenty of room for alternatives. Young people who do not want to get married because of the extravagant costs associated with the ceremony but who choose to build a life together should be able to enjoy the rights of domestic partnerships as well. Currently, opposite-sex couples do not have domestic partnership status at all, forcing them into the insitution of marriage.
The group Protect Marriage Washington states on its Web site that Referendum 71 will provide a stepping stone for approval of same-sex marriage. The question is why the possibility of same-sex marriage so threatens these groups. Their status and rights are not being changed. A marriage is a marriage. Does the gender of the participants really make a difference?
Those interested in having their voices heard on this issue should vote in the Nov. 3 general election. Visiting the Web site vote.wa.gov is a good place to register to vote.
Remember, voting yes on Referendum 71 will allow ease of mind for same-sex and elderly couples across the state. They will know their partners, children and themselves will receive the benefits and protections long denied to them. Basic financial security in a relationship cannot not be held as a special privilege of opposite-sex marriage alone.
Only registered users can post comments.
Please login or register.
Be first to comment on this article
