When was gay marriage legalized in washington

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Washington since December 6, On February 13, , Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation that established full marriage rights for same-sex couples in the state of Washington. Washington's voter-approved same-sex marriage law took effect on December 6, , earlier than the laws passed by Maine and Maryland voters.

Just after midnight on that date, King County Executive Dow Constantine (b. ) signed the first same-sex marriage licenses ever issued by the county. In , a couple of same-sex partners sued the state of Washington for marriage rights. Although a lower court ruled in their favor, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed the decision, citing the existing DOMA legislation. Ten years ago today, then-Gov.

Christine Gregoire signed one of the most controversial bills in the recent history of Washington, pushing the state into the forefront of a national debate. – Washington State - Gay rights bill passes the WA legislature [4]; state Supreme Court upholds state ban on same-sex marriage [5] – Washington State - Domestic partnership for same-sex couples becomes legal in WA [4]. Over the course of four decades, the Seattle City Council took incremental steps to expand the coverage and definition of human rights.

Marital status and sexual orientation were included in anti-discrimination laws, and families were defined more broadly so that domestic partners of employees could receive benefits. This led to the city's domestic partnership registration program and eventually to its support of statewide marriage equality legislation. With support from Councilmember Jeanette Williams, the Seattle Women's Commission began to provide advice to the Mayor, City Council, and other departments regarding women's issues in Part of the Commission's mission was to establish goals, priorities, and immediate action objectives in alleviating discrimination against women.

Legislation mandating fair employment practices was first passed by City Council in Ordinance ; it prohibited employment discrimination due to race, age, sex, color, creed or national origin. Amendments in Ordinance widened the prohibition to include marital status, sexual orientation and political ideology. The legislation was sponsored by Councilmember Williams.

Similarly, City Council had passed open housing legislation in to prohibit unfair housing practices in the sale and rental of housing; it was amended in to include prohibitions against discrimination based on sex, marital status, and political ideology. In , a citizen initiative, Initiative 13, was filed to delete the words "sexual orientation" from the fair employment ordinance and the open housing ordinance.

This would have had the effect of making it legal once again to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing and the workplace. Some anti activists filed an initiative petition of their own , which sought to establish an Unnatural Practices Commission. This commission would "exempt certain purveyors of unnatural practices from the civil rights to employment and housing" - namely, the same thing Initiative 13 was attempting to do to gays and lesbians.

The long list of those covered by the initiative included "males who shave the corners of their beards," "persons who work on the Christian sabbath," "persons who drink coffee, tea or alcoholic beverages," and "men who carry bags or purses, women who wear pants and eunuchs who wear anything. The sponsors were mainly looking for publicity for the anti cause and did not turn in signatures.

However, Initiative 13 was on the ballot, and was defeated with 63 percent of votes against. Seattle thus became the first city in the nation to defeat a challenge to an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Panel meetings occurred every Friday from September to December ; the panel submitted their report to Councilmember Williams in February Williams met with a City Council committee to review the recommendations and submitted the resulting proposed changes to the two ordinances in May Made up of eleven members, the Task Force was project-oriented.

Ed Murray was appointed in and became a co-chair in June In , legislation was introduced by Councilmember Jeanette Williams to amend the Fair Employment Practices Ordinance to broaden the definition of marital status and define sexual orientation. The work of the Human Rights Ordinance Review Panel preceded the legislation and provided impetus for its introduction. Police Chief Patrick Fitzsimons wrote Councilmember Williams to express his concerns, one of which was that the definition of "sexual orientation" was too broad and did not distinguish lawful from criminal sexual conduct, such as pedophilia.

The legislation, approved in July as Ordinance , specifically included "cohabitating" as a marital status protected from discrimination.

same-sex marriage law in the united states by state

The legislation also provided definitions of marital status and sexual orientation and designated the Department of Human Rights as the primary enforcement agency. Those who spoke out against the amendments included the Community Chapel and Bible Training Center, several attorneys and many citizens. In December , Seattle City Light employees Dee Smiley and Dana Backiel were denied permission to add their domestic partners to their medical and dental benefits package because they were not married and their partners were not eligible dependents.

The City was required to cover Smiley and Backiel's partners' medical and dental expenses from the time they applied for them in August through April when the case was settled. By this time, new City legislation was implemented, providing medical and dental coverage to all employees and their domestic partners. While employees were largely supportive of removal of the restrictions for care of a dependent child, expansion of sick leave usage for the care of parents, and establishment of the Sick Leave Transfer Program, the bill was considered controversial due to the provisions regarding domestic partnership benefits.

Opposition arguments included increased cost to the City for benefits, potential for abuse of the system e.