Referendum 71, which concerns whether to grant same-sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples in Washington state makes sense from a conservative perspective and should be approved.
The referendum appears on the November ballot as a result of SB 5688, which was signed into law this summer and greatly expands Washington's domestic partnership law. The bill is appropriately touted as the "everything but marriage" law. Should the voters approve Ref. 71, same-sex couples would be entitled to all the states rights of married couples, but for the right of marriage.
The bill passed through the Senate and House on essentially a party-line vote, with most of the Democrats voting in favor and most of the Republicans voting against the bill.
The opponents of the referendum contend the law is dangerously close to permitting same-sex marriage, which erodes the sanctity of marriage and embarks us on a path toward accepting homosexuality as the norm. Opponents maintain the purpose of marriage is to provide the most stable and healthy environment to raise children. The government should therefore withhold certain rights from gay couples as a way of preserving society. In order to accept this argument as true, one must believe that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality. Otherwise, it would not matter whether society somehow accepted it as the norm.
Of course, many opponents of gay marriage and same-sex couples' rights base their opinion on spirituality. They argue that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman per the Bible. Indeed, Christians often make a compelling case that Jesus did not embrace homosexuality and maybe did not condone it either. To that extent, it is difficult to argue the issue when one side genuinely believes that homosexuality is a sin and has some ammunition to back-up that position.
Even where other opponents of gay marriage do not believe homosexuality is a sin, some go to the church in defining marriage. For example, Gov. Gregoire has stated in the not so distant past that she is not in favor of gay marriage because marriage is in the domain of the churches and they should decide who is permitted to marry in their institutions.
The opponents of Ref. 71 are correct about one thing: this is a stepping-stone to same-sex marriage. If it is approved, it is only a matter of time before the Legislature seriously considers and passes an "everything" bill. The next referendum on the ballot will be whether to approve same-sex marriage as passed by the Legislature, like the voters are deciding in Maine in the next couple of weeks.
As a lifelong conservative and Orthodox Christian, I have always wanted the Republican Party to look at the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage from a very different perspective than set out above. I believe most conservative thinkers understand and truly believe the great strength and driving force in a free society is not the government, but its people. That is why the government should not be in the business of dictating morality beyond initiating laws that keep a safe, fair, and orderly society.
Consequently, the government should not be entitled to define marriage further than a legally binding union between two consenting adults who are not already married or related by blood. Denying same-sex couples rights does not keep us safer or more orderly and it is unfair. While Ref. 71 does not need conservative support in this state to pass, hopefully it gets some support from the group that understands the power of the people to live their lives is far greater than any politician or government should define.
Nicole Franklin is a lawyer living in Magnolia. She writes Right Angles once a month.[[In-content Ad]]
