Vote!

For a year without a "marquee" election I am very nervous about the election tomorrow.

I don't live in Seattle anymore and think either mayoral candidate would be fine. The big issue that separated them is nothing more than lip service. Seattle will have a tunnel to replace the Alaska Way viaduct. It will be expensive and the citizens will hate it. However, the decision is made and time for discussing it is over. Greg Nichols sort of gave his mayoral career for the tunnel and I imagine he sleeps at night.

The King County Executive race is one I'm on the fence about. The news caster lady has some fishy things in her back pocket, but is endorsed by some groups I respect. However, Dow Constantine has the support of some very smart people who I have learned through the years care deeply about our community. Short of doing my own research I made a choice and I will stick with it.

I am deeply and passionately apposed to Tim Eyman's bill 1033. In addition to hurting schools his continual quest for less taxes will hurt social services that are badly needed in our community. If the Rhianna / Chris "I smacked her" Brown incident from earlier this year shows, domestic violence can happen to anyone. Cutting taxes and as a result programs like the Eastside Domestic Violence Program isn't good for us. I hope Timmy never needs to have a safe place to get away from his spouse but if he does I hope he isn't turned away over a few $$.

I am, as you might expect, in favor of keeping the domestic partner rights that was signed by our governor in effect. This bill is not about "gay marriage" it is about non-traditional families. Your or my religous beliefs aside - this bill evens the playing field when it comes to health care decisions, common property issues, and even child support.

In addition to same sex couples who have signed paperwork to be domestic partners there are quite a few elderly American's who are also documented domestic partners. Sometimes this happens because one or both have pensions that they financially rely on, but if they were to re-marry the pension would terminate. Is this a crime? I don't think so.

If my father were to pass away my mom would be entitled to a portion of his pension. This is/was a benefit my dad's employer offered, and at the time of his primary employment they had an expectation that "the wives" didn't work. It wasn't written anywhere, but the pressure was intense and it was clear that certain jobs were ok, but others were not. So, there's my mom, who as the 60's & 70's housewife wasn't earning her own pension and was supporting my dad's job by being flexible regarding the rotating schedule. (4 months at 9 to 5, 4 months at 7pm - to 11 am, 4 months at 5am to 2pm)

So, back to my example. Mom and Dad, now retired live off his pension. If he were to "go on a long bus trip" she would be paid his pension. I could see a scenario where, 10-15 years later my mom meets some nice old man and they decide to shack up. Unless he was willing to foot the bill for her every need, I doubt they would marry no matter how wonderful he might be, thus they might decide to file paperwork to allow them to care for each other related to property, health care decisions and child custody - but not legally marry.

This scenario may seem silly, but I can't tell you how many people I talked to when I worked for the Social Security Administration that couldn't marry because it would hurt them financially, and I don't mean not being able to go to Red Lobster every night, but not being able to pay the mortgage or keep their insurance.

Old people aside (because really, who cares about old people) - it is true that the majority of families that will benefit from this bill are same sex couples. But, is that so bad? This law has been on the books for almost a year now - has it hurt your marriage? Has it lessened your meaningful relationship? I don't think so.

Repealing it is simply wrong.

So, I'll be watching the returns with anxiousness. Will we do the humane thing?