dow-marriage-license2.jpg
King County Executive Dow Constantine, right , leads a cheer as the clock strikes midnight and he can begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples lined-up, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, in Seattle. First in line are Jane Abbott Lighty, and Pete-e Petersen. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

First marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Washington state

BY Chris Sullivan  on December 5, 2012 @ 1:13 pm (Updated: 2:09 pm - 12/6/12 )

More Photos

See all photos
Related:
The wait is over for gay couples in Washington state eager to get their marriage licenses after voters passed R-74 last month. Dozens of same-sex couples obtained their marriage licenses in Washington state early Thursday, just hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a law legalizing gay marriage in the state.

King County, the state's biggest county, opened the doors to its auditor's office in Seattle just after midnight PST to start distributing marriage licenses. But hundreds of people had lined up hours earlier, snaking around the downtown Seattle building on a chilly December night.

Executive Dow Constantine held a brief ceremony at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday to honor the first couple in King County to receive its same-sex marriage license, Jane Abbott Lighty, and Pete-e Petersen.

"What we are doing here today is bringing us one step closer to living up to the founding ideals of this country, that all people are created equal and that they have the right to the pursuit of happiness," said Constantine.

Since midnight, the office has issued 418 licenses.

"It's huge to be a part of history and I couldn't pass up a moment to be a part of that," said Jen McKenna on why she stood outside the King County Auditor's Office Wednesday evening. She is marrying her partner of five years.

In Seattle, the mood was festive. Volunteers distributed roses, coffee and fruit. Couples canoodled to keep warm. Champagne was poured. Different groups of men and women serenaded the waiting line, one to the tune of "Going to the Chapel."

People in line said they just couldn't wait one more day to get their marriage licenses.

"We're now going to be married. She can change her name. Our kids will have the same last name. It's going to be a real family," said Emily Maltby who waited in line with her partner Marlene Hillyer.

"To be able to say this is my wife and not have people question it," said Hillyer, "is just amazing."

The King County auditor's office will be open all day Thursday until 6:30 p.m. It will be open Friday, December 7, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday, December 8, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Thurston County Auditor's Office in Olympia also opened at 12:01 a.m. to issue marriage licenses.

Governor Gregoire signed R-74 into law earlier Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriages.

"This is a very important and historic day in the great state of Washington," Gregoire said before signing the measure that officially certified the election results. "For many years now we've said one more step, one more step. And this is our last step for marriage equality in the state of Washington."

Referendum 74 in Washington state had asked voters to either approve or reject the state law legalizing same-sex marriage that legislators passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gregoire in February but was put on hold pending the outcome of the election. Nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure.

The state has a three-day waiting period after a license is issued, so couples will have to wait until Sunday before weddings can take place.

Several ceremonies are expected on Sunday across the state. Seattle City Hall will open for several hours with judges donating their time to marry couples. Mayor Mike McGinn's office says more than 140 couples have registered to be married beginning at 10:00 a.m.

Couples who've been wed in other states do not have to get remarried. Their marriages will now be recognized in Washington.

Washington, Maine, and Maryland became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote in last month's election.

Legislators passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage and Gregoire signed it into law in February, but it was put on hold pending the outcome of the election.

Churches and other religious organizations are not required to perform gay weddings and they cannot be penalized for refusing a wedding.

A domestic partnership law has been in effect in Washington state since 2007. It granted couples hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and about 20 other rights. The law expanded two more times to include the "everything but marriage" law that voters upheld in 2009.

There are nearly 10,000 domestic partnership registrations with the secretary of state's office. Most same-sex domestic partnerships that aren't ended prior to June 30, 2014, automatically become marriages, unless one of the partners is 62 or older.

That provision was included in the state's first domestic partnership law of 2007 to help heterosexual seniors who don't remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits.

Among those getting marriage licenses Thursday was gay rights activist Dan Savage, who will marry his partner on Sunday with other couples at Seattle City Hall.

"It's been a long fight but it ain't over," he said. "We still have to fight (the Defense of Marriage Act) and there's 41 other states were same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Chris Sullivan, KIRO Radio Reporter
Chris loves the rush of covering breaking news and works hard to try to make sense of it all while telling stories about real people in extraordinary circumstances.
Related:
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Heartstopping
    Daredevils post breathtaking pictures atop Seattle landmarks

  • Snowy Passes
    Escape cold Seattle; go skiing at Crystal Mountain

  • Dirty Wars
    Director Jeremy Scahill says Obama hasn't been fighting a clean war
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (70)


  • Add A Comment

  • Ted Bundi wrote...
    This is a great moment
    December 6, 2012 1:11 am
    Now we need to work on allowing 5 wife's per male and partners under age 16.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pebohead wrote...
    Ahh
    December 6, 2012 1:13 am
    Good ol' fashioned biblical marriage!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pressman wrote...
    Thank You-
    December 6, 2012 2:04 am
    Pebohead- I had forgotten that there was some dude in the bible done slept with his daughter- as usual the bible thumpers only read what justifies their particular vice...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Ted Bundi
    December 6, 2012 6:43 am
    There's this little problem with legally binding consent. By law, Minors (aka children) can't give legally binding consent for nearly anything. And if you really want to marry 5 women, you would have to open it up for all permutations of polygamy. 5 men to a woman, etc. And if you want something like that, go do the hard work to convince folks that despite all the negative stereotypes, and the very real situations where children and women are taken advantage of, are manipulated, coerced, brainwashed, etc. be it by a religion, a religious cult, any other cult, etc aren't going to create situations where legally binding consent isn't possible, or is at best very unlikely, then you might be able to get something like that through into law. Although I honestly doubt that you really want either of these.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Now the cheating, the Polygamy and the Homosexual domestic violence
    December 6, 2012 4:51 am
    can begin.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    I had forgotten that there was some dude in the bible done slept with his daughter- as usual the bible thumpers only read what justifies their particular vice...
    December 6, 2012 4:53 am
    And government was not there to support and back them up. Was it?

    That person paid for their Sin. As we all shall.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    It's Me! Boo Hoo
    December 6, 2012 6:21 am
    As I recall, there are also passages from Leviticus stating that those that work on The sabbath are condemned to hell as well as those that plant more than 2 different crops in a field, those that wear clothing made of more than 2 fabrics, anyone who looks at a woman with lustful eyes. The list goes on. The Bible is a book created by man who were inspired by God. Man is imperfect and the book has it flaws, just like any other institution. If you are going to hold these people in accordance to The Bible then you are destined to hell for working on The Sabbath as a firefighter. At least you tell us that you work for the fire department and I assume you work on Sundays from time to time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @wsualumn
    December 6, 2012 6:48 am
    Normally, when cornered by the fact that most Christians ignore much of the old testament while cherry picking what they can use to support thier arguement of the moment, they use the 'get out of jail free' card that the teachings of Jesus invalidated certain portions of the old testament laws - aka portions of the old testament itself. HOWEVER - they continue to pick and choose from that very text to show others how wrong they are with God. It's very confusing. It's as confusing as Christians demanding that they get every last bit of thier Constitional rights (religious rights or others) while demanding that folks others CANNOT have those very same Constitutional rights simply because they don't believe exactly the same way.... (and yes, I'm Christian - just not the 'force you to be like me' type.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GloScot wrote...
    Sarge
    December 6, 2012 7:50 am
    Kind of off topic here, but since a couple of you brought it up... What kind of Christian (aka a follower of Christ) are you? There should be one kind. The early church in Acts 15 only required that gentiles who wanted to embrace Messianic Judaism abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from sexual immorality. That's it. The apostles were not going to burden those who believed in Jesus with the law. So what "cherry picking" is so confusing? You have seen what I have written to you before. As Christians, we do have a standard that God requires of us. As U.S. citizens, the rights are afforded to those however the law is written. That being said, those of you who throw us Christians under the bus, while claiming to be one yourself, need to familiarize yourself with your own text. The Constitution, or any state or local code, doesn't validate sin. Sin, in all its various forms, is the problem. You can't just redefine one and say it's not. If you want to have a serious and civil conversation about this as a professed brother in the Lord, then let's talk. Otherwise, don't slam your fellow believers for believing what the sacred text says.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @gloscot
    December 6, 2012 10:11 am
    There's the problem right there. "What kind of Christian (aka a follower of Christ) are you? There should be one kind." You completely reject that people are allowed to have thier own views on what Christianity is, and completely ignore that there are more distinct religions within the label of 'Christian' than you can shake a stick at. There are differences in beliefs because we as humans are allowed to think for ourselves and are allowed to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs to follow. I don't need to tell you what 'flavor' of Christian that I am because I will not be baited into a discussion on 'what is right and what is not' within your narrow view of what Christianity is. And that follows through to your second point. Because we are allowed to think and believe whatever we want for our personal religious beliefs, You cannot define sin as only your interpretation and then try to force that interpretation upon all the rest of society. If you do beleive that this is your right - please feel free to meet with the Taliban and other Islamic extremists who beleive that they have the right to force others to follow only THIER version of that religion. You might learn something in how to get your way. I'm not slamming other Christians. I am merely pointing out that there is a 'we want it both ways' problem within those Christians who wish to force everyone else to follow thier version of God's law. You cannot demand your own religious priviliges under the Constitution while you are actively denying others that very same privilige. Although by your words, I doubt if I will be able to get my point across to you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GloScot wrote...
    Sarge
    December 6, 2012 12:24 pm
    I asked some straight and simple questions of you as someone who professes to be a Christian. This has nothing to do with a personally held belief if I, like you, say I am a Christian. So, why respond with such animosity toward me. Being a Christian, is, first and foremost, acknowledging and repenting of your sin and accepting that Jesus died on the cross, is it not? So, do you have a problem with that and take it that "we need to be allowed to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs to follow"? You, sir, labeled yourself as a "Christian," not me. Second, if you repented of your sin, then logic tells me that you know what sin is. What then is sin and what is not? Sin is what is defined in scripture, in this case, sexual immorality. If you as a Christian have a problem with that, then I really don't know if you know what it is that you believe. Moreover, please read my comments again. Our country has laws that may not adhere to scripture. Fine. We are not a theocracy, and neither do I want to be in one. So, your bombastic suggestion that I and others like me are like the Taliban is ridiculous. I can't tell anyone what to do, but what I can do is admonish others who state that they are Christians, too. In fact, I and you are commanded to do so, if we state that we are of the same household of faith. Again, I would be happy to discuss this with you in a civil way, even face to face. Based on our like history of military service and shared beliefs, you might find that we would get along just fine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The King's Son wrote...
    @GloScot
    December 6, 2012 3:15 pm
    Very well said. And for those who make statements about Christians "cherry-picking" what they want out of the Bible because we don't follow all of the OT laws only say so because they haven't really studied the Bible for themselves. A good place to start for anyone who is interested in the truth of the matter and not a catch-phrase anti-Christian hate-mongerers like to throw around could do well by starting with something like this: http://www.padfield.com/2004/covenants.html
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @gloscot
    December 6, 2012 3:58 pm
    Sir, you claimed this "As Christians, we do have a standard that God requires of us." followed by "The Constitution, or any state or local code, doesn't validate sin. Sin, in all its various forms, is the problem. You can't just redefine one and say it's not. If you want to have a serious and civil conversation about this as a professed brother in the Lord, then let's talk" --------That is telling me that if I do not adhere to your definition of what it is to be Christian, that I am wrong. And that all others are wrong who may also not fit your definition. The problem is that while you are free to think that way, --No One Else Is Required To--. I'm not going to get into an arguement with you over what is or isn't right regarding how to be a Christian. We likely believe in quite similar ways - except that I don't believe that God gave us the right to --Demand-- that all others fit into my human understanding of what is or isn't Godly in our observance of him. The taliban comment was merely there to point out how out of bounds demanding that everyone else meet your definition and observance of being a specific definition of what Christian is. If you're offended by that connection, I'm sorry - but in that one narrow item, you seem to be at least similar in your desire to make sure that everyone observes your version and your version only.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GloScot wrote...
    Sarge
    December 7, 2012 9:04 am
    What more can I write to make you understand where I am coming from? I clearly defined Christianity. I clearly stated that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. If you have accepted that, then you should have an understanding of what sin is. These things should not be offensive. If they are, then the problem is what is defined in scripture, clearly, and not with me. You never responded to my comment about Acts 15. Do you have a problem with what is written there. That's not my version, it's what's written.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Ha Ha
    December 6, 2012 7:35 am
    Chow me the lightning or take your superstitions elsewhere.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    "Show"
    December 6, 2012 7:37 am
    Poor typing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Uilleam wrote...
    Special Rights
    December 6, 2012 6:25 am
    The taxpayer just paid tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover opening government, after hours, for marriage licenses. The Sheriff's Office and King County paid overtime to staff this "event". Another case of "special rights" for a "protected group". Why not just wait in line, during normal business hours like everyone else? Next, you will tell me they get extra pay for being homosexual?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @uilleam....
    December 6, 2012 6:52 am
    give it a rest. there's no 'special rights' being given. If there was something precious to you (say the ability to attend the Christian church of your choice, or to own a gun, have children -whatever) that had been denied to you for the last 200 + years was suddenly allowed and the goverment offices were opened up at midnight that first night so that you could buy the license that would allow you to do this precious thing - You'd be screaming from the rafters about how great it was that government allowed you to do it at midnight. So stop pretending it's special rights. You're just mad that they can do what you don't want them to.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    ummm...
    December 6, 2012 8:46 am
    Your equating a piece of paper the same as gun rights and freedom to travel and patron a place? These people are celebrating the fact they just paid a TAX to the government for them to print them out a piece of paper. YEAHHH...Personally the government should have NO business in marriage for anyone. If people need a piece of paper to feel legitimate, go for it, but when I got married, that was between me, my wife, and God, not the stupid piece of paper that want you to pay for.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @circuitfr
    December 6, 2012 10:17 am
    "Your equating a piece of paper the same as gun rights and freedom to travel and patron a place? " ---- No, I am not. You completely missed my point. IMAGINE a scenario where something you currently have a right to do or have is not legal and has NEVER been legal. I don't care what the item or right is. Just imagine it. Now imagine that that right to do or right to have is suddenly granted to be legal on Dec 15. Wouldn't you be happy if the government entity that licensed your ability to have that item or do that thing was open at the strike of midnight to let you get that license? Wouldn't you not only be shouting praise that they are open at that odd hour? Wouldn't you likely be right there in line to get that license? - instead of complaining about the 'special rights' that they would be getting?? -------------- THAT is the point I am making. It amazes me how hard it is for people to grasp the simple concept of a hypothetical situation. IF my using guns, freedom to travel, etc. offended your sensibilities because you can't understand hypothetical situations, then I apoligize - please re-read my comment and subsitute some other right you have instead of the ones I suggested.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Of COURSE it's "special rights!"
    December 6, 2012 10:19 am
    How can you call it anything else? It's not a huge deal, but there's no denying that it's special treatment, fergodsake. Are you blind?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @sean....
    December 6, 2012 12:16 pm
    If the city/county/state was willing to do this for the pent up demand for ANY license that allowed for folks to do something that they have NEVER been allowed to do before, then it's not a 'special treatment'. Oh wait - this is the very first time that a pent up demand for a right that's been denied forever, since well - Women got the right to vote, blacks no longer had to put up with racist Jim Crowe laws and 'poll taxes' to be able to vote.... So this kind of change in legality of a basic Constitutional right is so rare that it doesn't happen very often..... I guess that's how you can allow yourself to believe it's a special treatment / privilige / right.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    You're hilarious.
    December 6, 2012 12:30 pm
    Yeah, it would have killed gay couples to have to wait another eight hours, wouldn't it? Pandering, pandering, pandering....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Now that the party has begun...
    December 6, 2012 6:52 am
    let's make sure they're going to pay their "fair share" in taxes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    The County Executive
    December 6, 2012 7:37 am
    issues the licenses? "King County Executive Dow Constantine, right , leads a cheer as the clock strikes midnight and he can begin to issue marriage licenses..... " On another note, never trust anybody with a cheek mole.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    And the change is?
    December 6, 2012 7:39 am
    Same rights as before! Whoopie!! Sorry but the state making it legal will not change the fact that seeing two old ladies making out is creepy
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Now that there's gay marriage in this state...
    December 6, 2012 8:10 am
    ...jurisdictions MUST eliminate domestic partnership benefits rights for unmarried gay couples UNLESS they likewise provide those rights for unmarried straight couples. Otherwise they leave themselves open to massive lawsuits.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    The "Everything but Marriage" law...
    December 6, 2012 8:15 am
    ...must be repealed lest the State face lawsuits from unmarried straight couples.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @seattlenative
    December 6, 2012 10:18 am
    It was automatically by the gay marriage law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Show sources, please
    December 6, 2012 3:32 pm
    I have yet to read/see anything that suggests domestic partnership rights have been eliminated. Show sources.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Boo Hoo Left wing Parrots.
    December 6, 2012 8:56 am
    Also something in the Bible about Homosexual acts being a Sin as well. You people would leave that out of course!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @it's me...
    December 6, 2012 10:19 am
    You also leave out little inconvienent facts like not everyone is Christian, not everyone subscribes to the same religious definition of what is Christian and the little fact that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law - even for people who don't think gay = evil or sin. but then we all know that you leave out most facts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }