Referendum Measure 71 passes in Washington state for domestic partners

[ribrepin]

Referendum Measure 71 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners.

It's not marriage, but registered same sex partners can have the same rights as married couples. Also includes anyone who lives together as a couple and has registered as a domestic partnership.

[SeattleGirl]

1. Has it been called?

I read something earlier from one of the groups supporting 71, and he said it might be awhile before we know the final result. (And apologies; I can't find the link again.)

[GOPisEvil]

2. I saw the same link you did, but here is the SOS' site.

http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeC...

[Divine Discontent]

19. correct - it's not over yet - that site just means 100% of the votes that have been counted are

accounted for between the Yes and No votes.

We have lots of votes still out there I am hearing and reading, as they were allowed to still send in votes thru the mail as late as today.

Still, looks good!

[Bumblebee]

3. It will win because it's winning 66% in King County but it has not been called yet

since today's results (we have mostly mail-in ballots which can be mailed as late as today) are very close --51/49. But, unlike Maine, it will win -- yet, also unlike Maine, it's still unions, not marriages, which is, alas, not the same, symbolically or otherwise.

Here's an article from the ST:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest...

[ribrepin]

6. I don't know if it has been called, but 100% of the votes have been counted

and there is a check by approve.

[Bumblebee]

9. No, it's misleading. There is another batch from Pierce County coming at 10:30

and a bunch of ballots which were mailed today or even on Monday. Lots from King County, so it's hopeful -- but not a done deal yet.

Here are 2 more articles about that:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/1840...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/1840...

[ribrepin]

11. OK thank you

I saw the check mark and assumed it was a done deal. Looking good.

[Bumblebee]

14. Here's the hopeful part from the updated ST article:

If you assume the roughly 50 percent statewide turnout predicted by the Secretary of State's office, there appear to be far more votes left to count in the counties that are approving Referendum 71 than in the counties that are opposing it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest...

[SeattleGirl]

13. Thanks! n/t

[Muttocracy]

4. small step in the right direction at least. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. This is great news and makes me feel much better about Maine. Though I'm still upset, I

think tonight's results in ME will push us to work harder. We still have a long way to go, apparently.

[harry_pothead]

7. Good news

Separate but kinda-sort-almost-but-not-quite equal passed.

Better than nothing, and better than what happened in ME I guess.

[paulsby]

8. i always wonder when they the SAME rights

for instance, one of the most essential marital rights is the confidentiality afforded to conversations between the spouses.

it's similar to attorney-client or priest-penitent.

do those rights attach to state-registered domestic partners? i have no idea. i would HOPE so.

fwiw, i live in WA so this isn't just speculation from afar

there are two marital privileges regarding spousal communications.

from wikipedia:
The marital confidences privilege, also called the "marital communications privilege," is a form of privileged communication protecting the contents of confidential communications between a married couple. This privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. When applied, a court may not compel one spouse to testify against the other concerning confidential communications made during marriage.

The privilege generally applies only where both of the following fact situations are present: (1) a third party was not present during the communication (the presence of a third party would destroy the confidential nature of the communication), and (2) both parties intended that the communication be confidential.

The privilege is usually restricted to confidential communications made during marriage and does not include communications made before the marriage or after divorce. The privilege does, however, generally survive the divorce; that is, a person can be prevented from testifying about confidential communications with an ex-spouse made during the marriage.

Either spouse can invoke this privilege, either refusing to testify against their spouse or preventing their spouse from testifying. Finally, courts may require that the communication relate specifically to the marriage.

AND


The spousal testimonial privilege (a.k.a. "spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. In federal court as a matter of common law, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his or her spouse from testifying against the defendant.

This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony about events that occurred during the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage.

[ribrepin]

10. I am not sure how it would affect the issues that you raise

It was sold as helping with end of life issues and financial issues. It's not marriage, but a step in the right direction. I not sure that same-sex marriage would pass in this state @ this time.

[paulsby]

12. yea, i'm not sure either

that<'s why i asked. i have a few prosecutor friends. they probably know. i will ask them[br />

[strategery blunder]

15. RCW

Most of the statutes from the Revised Code of Washington that I've happened upon use the terminology "spouse or domestic partner."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=5.60.060

RCWs online are a great resource for idle curiosity about WA state law. I'm not an attorney, so please do not rely on this post for any kind of legal advice whatsoever. If you have an actual legal issue for which you need advice or representation, you should consult with an attorney.

[paulsby]

16. thanks

fwiw, i work as a LEO in WA state ,so i'm well aware of what RCW is... but ...

clearly i should have looked it up

that's good to know

thx

[strategery blunder]

17. You're welcome

I actually recognized you as LEO from my lurking, but I had no idea which jurisdiction. Also I figured other people might be thinking/asking the same question, and they might not have as much background.

[uppityperson]

18. Good. This is the main reason I'm checking in late at night. good good good