Legislation watch
Capitol Building

2012 Senate Bill 6239: Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages
  1. Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray (Seattle) (D) on January 16, 2012, redefines marriage as a union between two persons, and prohibits discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Requires the secretary of state to notify certain same sex domestic partners that the state law on the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners will change in relation to certain same-sex registered domestic partners. (Companion Bill: HB 2516).
    • Referred to the Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee on January 16, 2012.
      • Substitute offered in the Senate on January 26, 2012, allows couples of the same sex to marry. Provides an exemption for religious organizations regarding solemnizing a marriage and providing accommodations, goods, and services related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Provides that a state registered domestic partnership in which the parties are the same sex and under the age of 62 will be merged into a marriage as of June 30, 2014, unless the parties marry or dissolve their domestic partnership before that date. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on January 26, 2012.
    • Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on January 27, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Don Benton (Vancouver) (R) on February 1, 2012, Clarifies that all faith-based social service organizations are covered under the definition of "religious organization". The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Don Benton (Vancouver) (R) on February 1, 2012, states that religious based educational institutions shall not be required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, service, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Provides protections against lawsuits. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Joe Fain (Auburn) (R) on February 1, 2012, removes the intent section from the original bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Joe Fain (Auburn) (R) on February 1, 2012, exempts certain religously-based organizations and facilities from forced recognition of marriage or marriage ceremonies. Also exempts such organizations from civil liability. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Joe Fain (Auburn) (R) on February 1, 2012, expands the definition of religous organization to include churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, (D-Camano Island) (D) on February 1, 2012, exempts religously-based child placement organizations from altering their faith-based operations. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Mike Padden (Spokane Valley) (R) on February 1, 2012, provides protection to religious organizations from adverse governmental action for refusing to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, service, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Don Benton (Vancouver) (R) on February 1, 2012, provides that religious-based child placement agencies may not be required to place or arrange for the placement of children with same sex couples or individuals in same sex relationships. Protects religious-based child placement agencies from adverse action of governmental entities that are based on the agency's decision not to place children with same sex couples or persons in same sex relationships. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Brian Hatfield (Raymond) (D) on February 1, 2012, requires a referandum be put on the ballot in the next general election to submit same-sex marriage to the voters for approval. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Mike Padden (Spokane Valley) (R) on February 1, 2012, recognizes the federal and state constitutional protections for religious freedom, the amendment ensures that public officials are immune from any civil cause of action based on the person's refusal to solemnize a marriage that conflicts with his or her religious beliefs. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Sen. Dan Swecker, (R-Rochester) (R) on February 1, 2012, provides that individuals and entities are not required to provide public accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage that is in conflict with the individual's or the entity owner's religious beliefs. Amends the human rights commission's statutes. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on February 1, 2012.
  2. Passed 28 to 21 in the Senate on February 1, 2012, legalizes gay marriage in Washington, provides certain legal protections for objecting religious organizations, alters the status of domestic partnerships, and requires Washington to recognize domestic partnerships that were formed in other states.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on February 3, 2012.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2012.
    • Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 6, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne, (North Bend) (R) on February 8, 2012, makes the following technical corrections: (1) removes a duplicative definition of "religious organization;" (2) codifies section 3, relating to the interpretation of "religious organization;" (3) removes extra words inadvertently left in. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne, (North Bend) (R) on February 8, 2012, adds a referendum clause requiring the Secretary of State submit the act to the voters for approval during the next general election. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Jay Rodne, (North Bend) (R) on February 8, 2012, this striking amendment: (1) provides an exemption and immunity to religious organizations for refusing to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to "the solemnization, recognition, or celebration" of a marriage, rather than the "solemnization or celebration of a marriage," (2) provides that a state agency or local government may not base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, license, or refuse to contract with a religious organization based on "the opposition of or refusal of" (rather than just "refusal of") a person associated with that organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage; and (3) makes technical corrections to remove a duplicative definition, codify section 3, and remove extra words inadvertently left in. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (Spokane Valley) (R) on February 8, 2012, adds a one month residency requirement before persons can get married in Washington. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Matt Shea, (Spokane Valley) (R) on February 8, 2012, adds an intent section to: (1) include language from Article I, Section 11 and Article XXVI of the state constitution and from the First Amendment of the federal constitution; (2) provides that no official of any religious organization or nonprofit institution or other person authorized to solemnize a marriage may be required to solemnize a marriage in violation of his or her free exercise of religion; and (3) provides that no person or private business or private entity may be required to recognize or provide accommodations, facilities, goods, or services for any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of religion. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Norma Smith, (Whidbey Island) (R) on February 8, 2012, reinserts language in the provision describing what persons getting married must declare in the presence of two witnesses (that they take each other as "husband and wife" or as "spouses"). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
      • Amendment offered by Rep. Norma Smith, (Whidbey Island) (R) on February 8, 2012, makes the following legislative findings: (1) written or spoken words alone lawfully expressing a person's opinions or beliefs about marriage is a constitutionally protected right; and (2) lawful expressions of opinions or beliefs regarding marriage are not based on a view of a person's sexual orientation but rather are based on a view of the institution of marriage. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 8, 2012.
  4. Passed 55 to 43 in the House on February 8, 2012.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on February 13, 2012, relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom.

Comments

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)  by prematureejaculation on May 3, 2012 
In my own opinion, I am not on the side of same sex marriage. YES, we know that we cannot avoid those same sex relationship but ending up their relationship into marriage is not quite in favor in the Roman Catholic side. Marriage is the union of man and woman, so if both sex will be united that is possibly not marriage.

But that was all my opinion and I just want to share it out to everyone here.

Good day! Thanks =)

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)  by lizziephel on February 13, 2012 

Bet that the hootels and motels love this ammendment.  We should be overrun on day one!



Re: 2012 Senate Bill 6239 (Redefining marriage to allow same-gender civil marriages)  by Lainie59 on February 7, 2012 
Even if the state does not force churches into performing homosexual marriages, the damage to society remains.

As I said in another post, once the state gives itself the authority to redefine the essence of things, the state becomes the arbitor of how society interacts. Do you honestly believe the legalizing of homosexual marriage is the end of the road? Once the state has codified into law the embracing of all types of sins and vices, the people become immune to wanting that which is good, healthy, and true and will demand an end to any concessions the state may make regarding the rights of the religious.

View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.