Some South Sound lawmakers remain on gay-marriage fence

Same-sex marriage remains a divisive issue, and some Washington politicians have struggled to reconcile their own internal divisions.

Whether by searching their souls or judging the political consequences, a few state lawmakers representing South Sound have had tough decisions to make as votes line up in the Legislature for an expanded definition of marriage.

Some remain on the fence.

“I frankly think if it went to a vote of the people, it would pass with a comfortable margin, just like Referendum 71 did,” said Tacoma Rep. Steve Kirby, referring to the 2009 “everything but marriage” expansion of domestic-­partnership rights that he supported. “But Referendum 71 didn’t pass in my district. I’m mindful of the fact I need to pay attention to the people I represent.”

The latest to decide: Sen. Jim Kastama, a centrist Democrat from Puyallup who threw his support behind same-sex marriage last week. His about-face leaves supporters just one vote shy of a majority in the Senate.

They already have enough allies in the House, plus Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who put forward the proposal after her own change of heart. As hearings begin Monday, all attention has turned to a handful of uncommitted Senate Democrats and Republicans, including Joe Fain, a freshman GOP senator from Auburn.

The issue is the kind where the political becomes personal. It’s certainly personal to gay or lesbian lawmakers, including Rep. Laurie Jinkins, a Tacoma Democrat who shares a child with her partner.

It also is personal to lawmakers who have wrestled with their faith over it.

If they wind up in support, they tend to describe a “journey” to get there – as Gregoire, a Catholic, and Rep. Tami Green, a Mormon, do.

“My spiritual, doctrinal belief clashed with what’s happening in the real world,” said Green, a Lakewood-area Democrat who said she decided it’s not her role to impose her faith on others. “It’s a really hard vote for me, because I’ll be disappointing many people in my faith. … I’ll be disappointing my family, in some ways.”

Green’s husband opposes same-sex marriage, she said.

Even some who backed giving gay and lesbian domestic partners the legal rights of a married couple balk at taking a final step to call it marriage. That’s where Rep. Chris Hurst, a conservative Enumclaw Democrat, has decided to draw the line.

“Marriage is and always has been fundamentally a religious institution,” Hurst said, “and I think for government to deeply involve itself in what is fundamentally a religious issue is wrong.”

If state recognition of same-sex marriage would mainly be symbolic, it invokes perhaps even stronger feelings than the domestic partnerships that have more practical significance.

Kirby, who backed partnerships, says the issue’s divisiveness – at a time when lawmakers need to work together to tackle a $1.5 billion budget problem – is the main source of his reservations.

He plans to vote for the measure in committee to move it along, then push for an addition on the House floor that would send it to a statewide vote. If that fails, he said, he doesn’t know how he’ll vote on the floor.

Rep. Katrina Asay says she, too, wants to defer to voters.

“The people of the state want more say in matters that are real, heavy changes,” the Milton Republican said. “I think this is one.”

Asay opposes Gregoire’s proposal as written but said she would be open to backing it if such a “referendum clause” were added – and if one more concern is cleared up. She’s worried churches will be liable for refusing to perform same-sex marriages.

The measure says no religious group is required to open its doors for a same-sex ceremony unless it charges money to the public for the use of the same facilities.

Jordan Schrader: 360-786-1826
jordan.schrader@ thenewstribune.com
blog.thenewstribune.com/politics
Twitter: @Jordan_Schrader