Special or equal treatment for domestic partnerships?

Backers of measure that expands rights see incremental progress; opponents say it goes too far
by PAT MUIR
Yakima Herald-Republic
Special or equal treatment for domestic partnerships?
KRIS HOLLAND/Yakima Herald-Republic
Domestic partners Melody Madlem and Nancy Goodloe walk in their Ellensburg neighborhood with Nigel, their basset hound Wednesday, March 25, 2009. A bill passed the Senate this month giving domestic partners the right to visit a partner in the hospital and inherit property among other things. The bill is on its way to a vote in the House.

Email_black_18  E-mail           Print_black_18  Print            Talk_black_18  Comments
Advertisement

 

ELLENSBURG -- Nancy Goodloe and Melody Madlem don't think their life should be a news story.

They're just regular folks living regular lives. They watch basketball. They walk their dog. They garden. They're in the process of converting their old LPs into digital form so they can more easily listen to the music they love.

There's really nothing that remarkable about them, and they don't have any interest in being the face of gay Central Washington.

But here they are, in the news. In a story about committed gay couples getting rights Goodloe, 63, and Madlem, 46, figure they ought to have had all along.

They registered with the state as domestic partners last month, a day before the state Senate voted to expand the rights and responsibilities granted such couples. The legislation is expected to pass the state House this month, giving domestic partners essentially the same legal rights the state grants married couples.

For Madlem, it is bittersweet progress.

"This is a step in the right direction," she said last week, sitting in the Ellensburg home she and Goodloe share. "But I think it's really sad that it's something that would even be news. ... I'm glad that people are recognizing my rights. But, then, they always should have been my rights."

******

The sponsor of Senate Bill 5688, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, has not disguised the fact he sees it as a step toward legalized gay marriage in Washington state. That openness of purpose has riled opponents, including state Sen. Janéa Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, whose district includes Goodloe and Madlem's home.

After her side lost the Senate vote, Holmquist released a statement saying the new legislation effectively overturned the Legislature's 1998 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Same-sex couples have a right to form meaningful relationships, but they don't have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us," Holmquist said.

Groups opposed to gay marriage, such as the Washington Values Alliance and the Bellevue-based Faith and Freedom Alliance, promise to file a referendum putting the matter before the state's voters.

That's similar to what happened in California last year. Voters there passed Proposition 8 in November, restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. The measure, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, overturned a court ruling five months earlier that legalized gay marriage.

That left Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states that sanction gay marriage. Several others are similar to Washington in that they recognize domestic partnerships and imbue them with varying degrees of legal rights.

What has the Washington Values Alliance and the Faith and Freedom Alliance up in arms is that SB 5688 would give domestic partners all the same legal rights as married couples under state law.

Both opposition groups believe marriage between Goodloe and Madlem or any of the more than 30 same-sex domestic partners registered in Yakima and Kittitas counties -- there are more than 5,200 statewide -- would threaten the very foundations of civilization. And they see this legislation as a sort of marriage in sheep's clothing, essentially legalizing gay marriage without calling it that.

"You need to uphold marriage between a man and a woman as the standard," Washington Values Alliance President Larry Stickney said. "It's the basic building block of society and it has been for thousands of years."

Though he considers homosexuality itself morally wrong, Stickney has no problem with gay people forming committed relationships. His opposition to gay marriage is based in part on the belief that children of gay parents will suffer from not having a parent of each gender.

"I don't think any amount of legislation is going to make that kid not want a mother and a father," Stickney said.

This despite the fact gay couples already can adopt, and the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say children are no worse off with same-sex parents than with parents of the opposite sex.

******

Madlem and Goodloe are baffled by the idea that giving them the same rights as any other loving couple could be seen as a threat to anyone, let alone an entire civilization. But they're hardly surprised by it.

When they decided to consent to an interview on the subject, friends kept calling them "brave."

"Why brave?" Madlem said. "If you think about it, that response speaks volumes about what it's like to live in this world as a gay, lesbian or transgender person."

While both say they've been largely accepted in Ellensburg, where Madlem is a public health professor at Central Washington University and Goodloe is the former director of the Kittitas County Public Health Department, they've also both felt the sting of prejudice in the past.

They met 15 years ago when Madlem joined Goodloe on the faculty of Baylor University in Waco, Texas, the largest Baptist university in the nation.

They weren't attracted to each other immediately, but both were health educators and both loved the outdoors. So their relationship developed over time, with countless fishing excursions lighting the way. It sustains itself 15 years later through mutual respect and common interests.

"It's a cliche, but when you're partners with your best friend, things have a tendency to work out," Madlem said.

But Baylor didn't make it easy.

"If the university had ever had any proof that I was gay, I would have been fired," Goodloe said.

Madlem believes that's exactly what happened to her. Despite letters of merit throughout her stint at Baylor, Madlem said she was fired after five years because she "didn't support the mission of the university."

By then, they lived together and Goodloe knew she had to leave, too. She stayed another year, so she could make it an even 30 at Baylor, and then she resigned. She didn't want to stay in that environment.

******

The current legislation is the third expansion of domestic-partner benefits in three years. Two years ago, the Legislature approved hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. Last year, lawmakers expanded that law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship. This one adds a reference to partnerships alongside all remaining areas of state law where only married couples are mentioned, statutes ranging from labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.

The previous two passed the Democratic-controlled Legislature largely along party lines. It was the same story with this one, which passed 30-18, as only three Republican senators crossed the aisle to support it.

One of those three was Curtis King, R-Yakima, who said his support stemmed from his appreciation for gay couples he knows here in the 14th District. Since his March 10 vote, he has taken calls and e-mails from supporters of the bill and from those outraged. Generally the opponents believe the bill redefines marriage, said King, who has promised not to vote for a "gay marriage" bill.

"I viewed the bill as being about rights and equality of rights," he said. "It doesn't need to be called marriage."

State Rep. Norm Johnson, R-Yakima, also plans to cross party lines when the measure reaches the House floor. That leaves Rep. Charles Ross, R-Naches, as the only 14th District lawmaker to oppose the bill, which he described as "an incremental approach to legalizing gay marriage." Like other opponents, he'd like to see the matter put before voters and he believes they would vote against gay marriage.

"Marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman," Ross said.

Johnson agrees with that. But he's planning to vote for SB 5688. He'll support it for the same reason King did, because of his personal relationships with gay people in his district. In addition to friends, Johnson has two sons who are gay.

Those personal relationships may be a big part of gay people eventually reaching full social and legal equality in this country, said Ken Lewis, president of the Yakima gay social group First Fridays. Part of the change will have to come from large social shifts -- "Society itself has to wake up," he said -- but some of it is going to come from person-to-person contact. In other words, it's harder to discriminate against someone you know, he said.

"People have to realize, no matter who they are, they know someone who is gay," Lewis said.

 

* Pat Muir can be reached at 577-7693 or pmuir@yakimaherald.com.

* Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

 

The basics of Senate Bill 5688:

 

* Senate Bill 5688, sponsored by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, expands the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners. It adds language to state law referring to domestic partners in every place where married spouses are mentioned. That includes statutes dealing with labor law, pensions and public employee benefits.

* While SB 5688 will give domestic partners all the legal rights granted to married couples by the state, it will not have an effect on federal laws, such as how couples file income tax returns.

* The bill passed the state Senate on March 10. Since then it has been heard by the House Judiciary Committee, which approved it last Friday over the objections of state Rep. Charles Ross, R-Naches, a committee member. On Monday it was referred to the House Ways and Means committee. It has not been scheduled yet for a vote on the House floor.

* On the web: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688

 

 



Commentsicon2
Posted by Nick at 04/02/09 05:35AM        Post ID#: #2528

AS long as it isn't called a "marriage", I have no problem with a contractual arrangement between two people. I DO object to two people of the same sex adopting and raising a family. I have seen friends who are divorced and have carried on a lesbian relationship with a 13 yrs old, and 17 yr old impressionable children involved. It was a difficult thing for that young kids to explain to friends and other adults about their mom's living arrangements. Everyone knew her "roommate" was a lesbian and the stories and speculations never stopped. Finally, the mom decided it wouldn't work and ended the relationship for the benefit of her kids.

If gay people want to play "house", with children, then they should stick to traditional relationships for a full family scene, a mom and dad of opposite genders. What they do otherwise is nobody's business.

"..reaching full social and legal equality in this country".
The "full social" acceptance the quotation relates to will never happen in spite of the fact that passionate opposition to the gay lifestyle could, unfortunately, cause a person to be charged with a "hate crime", which is a violation of human rights itself, in my opinion.

Report Violation
Posted by ebrg at 04/02/09 02:25PM        Post ID#: #2535

Nick, dude, really!? I found your comment rather contradictory and random on several angles, but I think I have the gist of what you are saying - A stable home environment is very important to raising a family. The woman who has a "roommate" created her own problems by not being an honest person, as you are advocating in your "What they do otherwise is nobodies business" comment. The truth is really hard to twist around, so you're gay-- so what. Dysfunctional families and people are abundant, I doesn't matter what their sexual preferences might be.

So here's a question for you:
Which of these people or couples should be able to have a child with the full rights and responsibilities that go with raising a child?

(All of these scenarios ARE happening in Kittitas County)

1. A couple, both with steady income, bring home about 50k year combined. Relationship has been in place for 14 years, renting their home, have adequate time and desire to rear a child, working M-F, 8-5. Single parent staying home would be inconvenient to household income.

2. A couple, both with steady income, bring home about 175k year combined. Relationship has been in place for 12 years, owning their home, have adequate time and desire to rear a child and one parent could stay home with the child and not lose any income.

3. A couple, both with steady income, bring home about 80k year combined. Relationship has been in place for 8 years, owning their home, do have adequate time and desire to rear a child and work sporadic shifts all week. Single parent staying home would be inconvenient to household income.

4. A couple, both with unsteady income, bring home about 24k year combined. Relationship has been in place for 2 years, have two existing children, renting their home, do not have adequate time to rear a child, and work sporadic shifts - all hours during the week. Single parent staying home would be detrimental to household income.

5. A person, with a steady income, bringing home about 38k year. Divorcee, other person is absent, two children, renting their home, do not have adequate time and is expecting a child and works M-F, 8-5. Single parent staying home is not possible.

6. A person, with unsteady to no income, bringing home about 10k year. In a relationship for 7 mos,, renting their home, do not have adequate time and is expecting a child and works sporadically. Single parent staying home is not possible.


Interested to hear you reply because you may be shocked to find out that a couple of these scenarios involve gay people.

Hey Pat and Kris thanks for the story!

Report Violation
Posted by ebrg at 07/11/09 11:55PM        Post ID#: #6769

Hey Nick you never responded.

Report Violation
Log in or Register to leave a comment.

Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g., you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason. Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the "report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.

Registered User?