12 same-sex couples apply for marriage licenses in NCW

4 free views left!

12 same-sex couples apply for marriage licenses in NCW

By Mike Irwin
World staff writer

Friday, December 7, 2012

WENATCHEE — Local jewelers take note: You might want to order a few more matching wedding ring sets.

In North Central Washington, the number of applications for gay and lesbian marriage licenses reached an even dozen on Thursday, the first day the state’s same-sex marriage law was in effect.

By this morning, six applications had been filed in Chelan County, four in Okanogan County and two in Grant County. Douglas County had none.

“We got skunked,” chuckled Douglas County recording supervisor Mardy Jordan. “We’ll see what today brings.”

More than 800 gay and lesbian couples across the state received marriage licenses Thursday — more than half of those in King County and Vancouver — in an urban rush to get the first licenses under the state’s new law.

In Seattle, couples lined up and waited for hours to obtain a license. Vancouver saw the second-most number of applications due to same-sex couples from Oregon crossing the state line to apply. And about a dozen couples obtained licenses in Spokane.

After a three-day waiting period, the first legally binding same-sex weddings can be held Sunday.

A Stehekin couple, Anna Maria Spagna and Laurie Thompson, were the first same-sex couple in Chelan County to apply for a license here Thursday. The couple has been together for 22 years and plan to marry Sunday at Mission Ridge Ski & Board Resort.

Following passage of Referendum 74 in November, Washington became one of seven states to recognize same-sex marriage, and the first to do so by voter directive. A similar law is set to take effect in Maine and Maryland in coming months.

In eight counties — many in Eastern Washington where voters rejected Referendum 74 — no same-sex couples applied for licenses, according to the Seattle Times.

Mike Irwin: 665-1179

irwin@wenatcheeworld.com

» Recommend this story.

» 21 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

Madgsxrr 5 months, 1 week ago

Bottom line is that God/Evolution intended Boy and Girl parts to fit together only one way...... And this is not it!

pstring 5 months, 1 week ago

What does procreation have to do with marriage? Putting 'parts' together has been going on way longer than marriage.

Meowzzz 5 months, 1 week ago

God didn't "intend" for humans to do a lot of things, like fly, yet we do in airplanes every day. There are a lot of things that God didn't "intend" for humans to do, but that doesn't make those things wrong. The argument is weak in that aspect. Love is love, period. Gay people should and do deserve the right to have rights just like heterosexual couples. The law doesn't redefine marriage in the eyes of the church, just in the eyes of the state where they can be entitled to the same legal rights as hetero couples.

kyook 5 months, 1 week ago

I would really like to know how you are qualified to speak for God's "intent". I have yet to see a scripture that addresses flying, consequently your argument is weak, very weak (almost laughable) in that respect.

Meowzzz 5 months, 1 week ago

My comment is in response to this: "Bottom line is that God/Evolution intended Boy and Girl parts to fit together only one way......". According to Madgsxrr, God didn't intend for humans to pair up with like humans, because of their given parts. In the aspect, then God also didn't intend for humans to fly, as he did not give us wings. Therefore, should we not fly because of that? We don't have the given parts, so we shouldn't do that then. The argument that because God didn't intend for like humans to "fit" together doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't. I stick to my argument.

kyook 5 months, 1 week ago

What you said was, "God didn't "intend" for humans to do a lot of things, like fly, yet we do in airplanes every day." You didn't say anything about wings. God didn't give us gills either and yet we are able to survive under water. God gave us the ingenuity to invent and build airplanes and submarines. It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity for humans to figure out that it feels almost as good to rub two Tab A's together as it does to insert a Tab A into a Slot B. Unfortunately, rubbing two Tab A's together can't result in procreation, which appears to be purpose behind the design of aforementioned parts.

Anatomy and homosexual relations aside for a moment, I'd like to repeat my original question to you, I would really like to know how you are qualified to speak for God's "intent".

So that we don't go down the same conversational road again, I'll pose it to you in a different way. Perhaps you can explain to us what God's intent was for making a Duckbill Platypus or for making water clear instead of say, lime green? Maybe you could explain what God's intent was for making the Earth spherical instead of cubicle or perhaps you could explain why chickens don't have lips.

In short, did God bestow upon you knowledge that to the rest of us is unknowable? If not, perhaps you could cite your source for such universal "facts".

Stever 5 months, 1 week ago

As the parent of a mentally challenged daughter, I find your avatar highly offensive. I suspect you are the type of person who enjoys "making fun" of those who are different than you, and for that, I feel sorry for you.

Stever 5 months, 1 week ago

My comment was directed to Madgsxrr. Sorry.

Stever 5 months, 1 week ago

Geez, I still can't get it right. I'm not sorry for my original comment directed to madgsxrr, but for my subsequent comment, which erroneously appeared to be directed at Kyook.

kyook 5 months, 1 week ago

Agreed.

JimboBear 5 months, 1 week ago

Stever, I can't do anything about people who would use such an avatar, but I'm sorry now that I posted in a way that was sympathetic with his post below. If I had paid attention to the avatar I would have criticized both he and his views instead. I apologize to you for not doing so. That picture is despicable and highly offensive!

I must say it amazes me that the WW staff who freely removes members from this forum and bans their return for merely stating that someone is clueless will allow anyone to post something so obviously hurtful and hateful as Madgsxrr's avatar and remain here with us. I have a suspicion that Milo is correct and "Mr. John Smith" is posting here anonymously and therefore illegally as well.

Are you paying attention WW Staff? Mr. Robbins?

CJohn 5 months, 1 week ago

I saw on the Seattle news last night where a couple who had been together for 53 years was finally able to get married. Personally, I believe that God intended for us to love one another, and if that doesn't show love and commitment, then I don't know what does. It's not my place to judge who someone loves or wants to spend their lives with.

JimboBear 5 months, 1 week ago

I'm chuckling here John. I have two cats who are neutered males, and if I decide to marry them, which is not a bad idea because I could then claim them as dependents, I'll have a real battle on my hands. Same sex, polygamous, and bestiality, but at least 1/3 of my battle is now won. I'll just have to pray (I can still do that, can't I?) that our great progressive society makes it all legal for me before my cats pass on.

CJohn 5 months, 1 week ago

Animals can't form a 'choice', but people can. Obviously, Madgsxrr, you don't choose to have a relationship or marriage with someone of the same sex. That's your choice, and your right, and no one is trying to force you to do otherwise. But what right do you have, then, to force your choice on others who might choose differently? I just dont' get that about the whole anti-same-sex marriage argument. Why do people care? Shouldn't everyone be free to make (and live with) their own choices?

kyook 5 months, 1 week ago

"Shouldn't everyone be free to make (and live with) their own choices?"

Without limits?

pstring 5 months, 1 week ago

The more logic argument after gay marriage would be polygamy, which in many countries is legal.

That is the nature of things, when you take a step forward or back, there is always another step...every decision leads to new and usually harder decisions.

Ain't progress grand!!