gay-marriage.jpg
With Washington state's new law permitting gay marriage officially headed to the ballot, voters in the state will once again weigh in on the debate over same-sex couples and marriage rights. (AP Photo/file)

More than 2,400 gay couples have married in Wash.

June 6, 2013 @ 12:34 pm

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - More than 2,400 gay and lesbian couples have gotten married in Washington state since the state's voter-approved same-sex marriage law took effect last December, according to numbers released Thursday by the state.

The data released by the state Department of Health covers same-sex marriages from when licenses first were issued in early December until the end of March. Individual counties had released same-sex marriage numbers previously, but the Department of Health's numbers are the first statewide look at how many people took advantage of the new law.

According to the Department of Health:

_Same-sex marriages occurred in 35 of the state 39 counties during the December-end of March timeframe.

_Same-sex marriages represented more than 20 percent of the 11,661 marriages that took place during that same period of time.

_King County had the highest number of same-sex marriages, with 1,321.

_63 percent of same-sex marriages were female couples.

_14 percent of the weddings were for couples who had traveled to Washington state from other states.

_Three counties have reported no same-sex marriages through June: Ferry, Garfield and Wahkiakum. Asotin was also listed by Department of Health as having no same-sex marriages during the December-March time frame, but the auditor's office said Thursday they've had a total of 9 same-sex marriages since December.

Washington state is one of 12 states, plus Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage is legal. Minnesota is the most recent state to allow same-sex couples to marry after Gov. Mark Dayton signed legislation into law May 14, and couples there started picking up their marriage licenses on Thursday.

In November, nearly 54 percent of voters in Washington state approved a referendum that had asked them to either approve or reject the state law legalizing same-sex marriage that lawmakers passed earlier in the year.

The law took effect on Dec. 6, when hundreds of gay and lesbian couples picked up their marriage licenses. But because of the state's three-day waiting period, the earliest weddings started taking place was on Dec. 9. Numerous weddings took place across the state, both private and public, with the largest event hosted by Seattle City Hall, where more than 130 couples took part.

After all marriages, counties send marriage certificates to the state Department of Health. Spokesman Tim Church said that March is the most recent month the state has complete numbers for because it takes some time for the certificates to get from the counties and entered into the system. Church said that future reports will be released annually.

___

Follow Rachel La Corte at http://www.twitter.com/RachelAPOlyor http://www.facebook.com/news.rachel


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Bridge Opening
    A temporary bridge span across the Skagit River will be opening Wednesday

  • What to Eat?
    Woman living on light reveals what her first meal will be after 47 days without food

  • How To Fight Back
    Upset with the NSA? Just talk like a terrorist, all the time
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 (152)


  • Add A Comment

  • RoPo wrote...
    Please
    November 13, 2011 9:21 am
    I want to understand why it is not enough to have all the legal rights of marriage and not call it marriage. Wasn't that the goal? Why does marriage have to be re-defined? Can someone please explain??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Marriage Has Been Redefined Many Times
    November 13, 2011 10:52 am
    Just look in the Bible and see what marriage was like a few thousand years ago vs today. No longer is plural marriage acceptable, nor is marriage considered "ownership" of a wife (or wives).

    BTW, if you check, same sex unions DO NOT have all the rights of marriage.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dcnilsen wrote...
    Drool...
    November 13, 2011 4:08 pm
    You bring up the Bible but seem to not know what you are talking about. Lets look at the very first marriage ever before we humans started to screw things up. Adam and Eve...1 man, 1 woman. And it was good. After that we started to get in the way and call it all sorts of things and redefine all over the place, but if we look at how it was meant to be you will have 1 man and 1 woman every time...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    If Adam and Eve were white,
    November 14, 2011 6:51 pm
    were the first marriage, and you don't believe in evolution, where did black people come from?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • LogicNReasonPlusScience wrote...
    It's called "Anthropology"... and "species"... and "science"...
    July 2, 2012 2:28 pm
    "entropy" is probably wayyy too much for you to understand, but take a chance, remove yourself from the fiction books, and look it up in this context: "human evolution"!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @dcnilsen - "You bring up the Bible but seem to not know what you are talking about"
    October 14, 2012 6:37 am
    Sorry DC. You miss the point of Drool's comment altogether. Look at the changes in the bible and since then in how marriage is defined. Heck - in the early bible, people were marrying thier own close relatives.... We sure don't allow that these days!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Then let's change the legislation, Drool --
    November 14, 2011 8:52 am
    NOT redefine the word.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Then let's fix the inequality, Drool...
    January 3, 2012 5:41 pm
    not redefine a term that's been the accepted norm for a LONG time in our culture.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • LogicNReasonPlusScience wrote...
    @ Droop -- No, it really hasn't...
    July 2, 2012 7:44 pm
    Sodom and Gomorrah -- Book of Genesis -- read it. Mazal Tov!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Then lets fix the RIGHTS issue, Drool...
    July 9, 2012 11:39 am
    Not redefine a word that -- YES -- has meant the same thing for many many generations in this society.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Please - Thank you
    November 14, 2011 8:08 am
    As a straight man, even I can answer that question, RoPo. It's simple. There are hundreds of legal factors that are not equal without redefining marriage. Marriage has been redefined hundreds if not thousands of times over the centuries it has existed. a long,long time ago, it used to be that all you had to do was steal a woman from another village and you could force her to be your wife. Do that now, and all you get is a date with Prison. Marriage gets redefined everytime there is a major change in societal structure. Those who are resisting change are actually the ones on the wrong side of history.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Sorry, FormerMarine --
    November 14, 2011 8:54 am
    It's always been between a man and a woman. You want to open it up to anything goes? Maybe I'll marry my car or my couch. Please. The gay community is easily the more intolerant of the two sides here; much of society is fully prepared to give them the righs they should have. But that's not good enough, is it!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Sorry Sean - you can't marry your couch.
    July 2, 2012 6:29 pm
    " It's always been between a man and a woman. You want to open it up to anything goes? Maybe I'll marry my car or my couch. Please. The gay community is easily the more intolerant of the two sides here; much of society is fully prepared to give them the righs they should have. But that's not good enough, is it!" ---------- so changing everything else about marriage doesn't count as changing the definition just because you say it doesn't count? Talk about an ego there dude.... Plus, no matter how badly you want to marry your couch - you can't. That is unless you can convince a judge that the couch can give legally binding consent to the marriage. That's a part of this that you 'extremists' forget every time you bring up stupidly false arguements like this. Unless legally binding consent can be obtained, you can't marry a child, your couch, a Llama or your pet rock.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    RoPo has it down..
    November 14, 2011 8:51 am
    This is EXACTLY the issue. What's the important part to the gay community -- getting the rights they want and should have, or forcing society to redefine a word that has been unchanged for centuries? I'm starting to wonder. Talk about "intolerance" of the other side! No, they have to have it ALL their way, even when society grants them the rights they've been striving for. They're getting in their own way, over and over and over.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    Knew this was coming
    November 14, 2011 2:23 pm
    They want more than equal rights. They want to be called normal. Sorry-homosexaulity is not "normal". By letting homosexuals marry, we are making marriage meaningless. Their argument is I was born attracted to the same sex. I should not be discriminated against and should enjoy the same rights as straight people. The argument fails at this level to me. Take the recent Penn State scandal. Using the same argument, why cant Jerry Sanduski then say, hey, I was born this way, I cannot be discriminated against. And why could he not go further and state on the same grounds that he should be allowed to marry a 10 year old boy? I am not comparing homosexuals to child molesters but the argument is the same. It would also be the same argument to allow marriage to close relatives and plural marriage. If this is all allowed, marriage fails to have any meaning. All so the minority can feel as though they are normal. Seems very selfish to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fremont Res wrote...
    not the same rights
    January 4, 2012 10:46 am
    Currently, they do not have the same rights.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    It's about time!
    January 4, 2012 12:10 pm
    LGBT discrimination has finally ran out of road. Sadly it took until the 21st century for LGBT folks to gain equality. Better late than never.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    In a way, it should be illegal to allow voters to change laws that allows discrimination.
    June 17, 2012 2:13 pm
    forty five years ago they wanted to decide if whites blacks and Asians can marry as well, it was just as wrong.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • LogicNReasonPlusScience wrote...
    Race is the same as 'perverted psychosis'?
    July 2, 2012 8:23 pm
    Wow, write a disciplined thesis on 'rectal mutliation'='race' and you might just get a job at WWU. Nice - go for it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Charp wrote...
    re RoPo's "Please"
    July 2, 2012 11:43 am
    Because 'separate but equal' isn't equal, it's just separate. If not 'marriage,' what do you call the lifelong committment two adults make to each other, promising to forsake all others, in sickness and in health, for better and for worse? The sex of those two people and/or what they do in their bedroom with/to each other is completely irrelevant to their committment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    explaination: its not redefined.
    July 3, 2012 3:19 am
    Regular people will not become gay if a gay couple tied the knot. So redefinition does not fit the bill, and if the couple has the same rights anyway, according to you, then the only thing that would change is the title at the top of the certificate and that shouldn't bother you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @ fartforce, I have a problem with a gay married couple
    October 14, 2012 6:41 am
    raising adopted kids. How could they not be influenced to be raised gay as well?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle is a cesspool wrote...
    2 men later embraced the preperation H in Port Orchard...
    August 15, 2012 9:04 am
    Yuck.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @RoPo - "I want to understand why it is not enough to have all the legal rights of marriage and not call it marriage."
    October 14, 2012 6:35 am
    "I want to understand why it is not enough to have all the legal rights of marriage and not call it marriage. Wasn't that the goal? Why does marriage have to be re-defined? Can someone please explain??" ------- It's simple RoPo. If you were to be told that you couldn't buy a house because of your skin color, but you could lease it permanently - and that it was 'legally the same as owning it', you'd be upset because it's not fair, and it's not exactly the same thing as buying the house. Well, Telling gays that they can't MARRY but they can 'lease' a legal equivelant is the same thing. And by the way - there is one legal item that IS NOT the same for gays. They can't get that piece of paper that says they are married. Until they can, it's absolutely NOT the same thing, and it violates the Constitutional 'equal protections under the law' clause because 'seperate but equal' has never been allowed under the constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • James turnner wrote...
    Kewl
    November 13, 2011 9:29 am
    I heard that this new effort to legalize gay marriage is being paid for by the folks who make KY jelly.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    kewl - not
    November 14, 2011 8:09 am
    It was made by straights for straights. Your funny - ain't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The window of opportunity is closing rapidly!
    November 13, 2011 10:48 am
    The Homosexuals and their supports must realize that once the Obama regime is out of our government so are their chances of getting government to recognize Homosexual couples as married. Some more Liberal states allow this but the American people do not want government to recognize this as marriage.

    Also this is an Obama voting base. With the Dear Leaders re immac chances slipping away by the day, time to call in all the favors they can.

    For all the good it will do the regime!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • LivingForHim wrote...
    Is this good for society?
    November 13, 2011 1:40 pm
    The Bible is a great commentary on this issue, and thanks for bringing it up without actually knowing what you are talking about. But the essential question in this argument should be, what does homosexual marriage add to society? What is its contribution? If you argue that it adds more love to our society because two consenting adults can legally, and in title, love each other "till death due them part," you are mistaken. If you need the title of love, i.e. marriage, in order to love someone then that is not love and does not make our society more loving. If you argue that it creates a more accepting population because we are accepting instead of rejecting, you are also mistaken. When will this society stop "accepting" then? Start drawing that line from two homosexuals marrying each other and where will you end that line? You would have to accept all sorts of "loving relationships" no matter how wrong they are. If you argue that you can't give certain people privileges without giving them to others, then I would again ask you to explain what contribution to society homosexual marriage would add. In this case, a contribution does not exist that government needs to endorse. If there was one, then the government, and people, should care. But since there is no societal contribution there is no reason to care about homosexual marriage becoming law. Marriage between a man and a woman has a quantifiable contribution to society, and is rightly supported by government.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Is this good for society? YES
    November 14, 2011 8:13 am
    you can spout all kinds of gibberish(and you did) - but the truth remains that every point you make anti-gay marriage and pro-straight marriage has been invalidated thousands of times. And you didn't provide one shread of evidence that a married straight couple has any different quantifiable contribution to society than that of a gay couple. Lesbians can still give birth and gay men can adopt, so the 'children' thing is a lie. Other than that, there is no 'quantifiable difference' in the contributions possible to society. It's only bias and hypocritical thoughts that ring true in your arguement.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Just as there is no government recognized religion
    November 13, 2011 2:00 pm
    there is no marriage recognized by our government. Other than for taxing purposes.

    In this case the Homosexual community is hoping that the Obama government will recognize their same sex unions as marriage. Thus Government sactioned government (Obama) recognized marriage. Homosexuals with very few exeptions have the same rights as Man and Woman married marriages.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Judy L wrote...
    When should it be legal?
    January 4, 2012 10:46 am
    Not until the IRS recognizes these unions and taxes them accordingly. There is still a penalty to be married, especially where both individuals have income. As singles living together, each income is taxed individually, at its own level. Once two people are married, their incomes are combined and treated as one, taxed at a higher rate than each would have been taxed individually. Not filing jointly doesn't change that, either.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    haha
    October 14, 2012 6:43 am
    what about "in god we trust" on all our govt issued money....what god do you suppose they are referring to...Not that i am a bible thumper....just saying.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Op TK wrote...
    Why not let them marry?
    November 13, 2011 2:06 pm
    What harm does it do? Will america as we know it come crashing down? I would think with the evolution of civilized society we could get over this and move on. There once was a time when we thought slavery was ok. We've moved on from that. There once was a time when women had no rights and we thought that was ok. We've moved on from that. We pulled the "equal but different" on the minorities and thought that was ok. We've moved on from that. The nation didn't crumble when women were allowed to vote. Society didn't get collapse when public schools integrated. Of course there were dark days and a few incidents that we would rather choose to forget but most could argue that we came out the other side a bit more grown up and better as a county from where we started. So why are so many people digging their heels in to preserve an idea from a time of close-mindedness and inequality?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    i am only concerned
    October 14, 2012 6:45 am
    for their adopted kids that will be influenced by their gay upbringing therefore likely becoming gay when they more than likely may have not been.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    It's about time.....
    November 13, 2011 2:46 pm
    WA should have been the first state!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • artimus wrote...
    Fine by me
    November 13, 2011 4:01 pm
    I hope no one's worried about tarnishing the glorious example of breeder marriage. Good heavens, count the atrocities...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dori monson fan wrote...
    kim kardashian worked hard for 72 days
    November 13, 2011 4:39 pm
    to bring honor and meaning to what we call marriage. are we really willing to let couples who have been together for decades destroy that?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    I noticed that too...
    November 14, 2011 8:18 am
    And don't forget Britney Spear's what was it - 12 hour marriage? Straights have been destroying the sanctity of marriage for eons. Even I did a little - I've been divorced once. (although I think I've made up for that by being in my second marriage for over 30 years now).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    DMfan...
    November 14, 2011 8:57 am
    you couldn't possibly have a less-relevant argument.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • darthclown wrote...
    One thing is for sure...
    November 13, 2011 8:56 pm
    wedding receptions are going to become FABULOUS!!!(sorry, it was there) Seriously tho' They made the same tired arguments against interracial marriage. They made them against allowing blacks to vote. Or women to vote. Or integrated military units. "It's going to destroy the fabric of society". Well, none of those things happened and it's not going to this time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }