There's a jolt in here somewhere. Winners. Losers.

Read for yourself.

After focusing on her $3.6 billion transportation proposal, her pitch for a 0.5 cent sales tax increase, and her education reform plan, Gov. Chris Gregoire got her biggest sustained applause of her state of the state speech  today when she concluded by urging the legislature to pass a gay marriage bill. [pullquote]"Regardless of what appeals to you in the orientation sense, everyone has the right to get married." ---Republican state Sen. Joseph Zarelli[/pullquote]

I have one more very important request. It’s about our values. Our Washington has always fought discrimination. It is time to do it again. It is time for marriage equality.

Let’s all stand together to make it happen. Let’s tell the children of same-sex couples that their parents’ relationship is equal to all others in the state.

Let’s pass a marriage equality bill.

The Democratic side of the aisle and both galleries above erupted into sustained applause. Twice.



The GOP side of the aisle was awkwardly quiet, with the exception of State Sen. Cheyl Pflug (R-5, Maple Valley) who was clapping vigorously and almost defiantly. (Pflug announced today that she supports the bill, making her the second Republican out of 22 to come out for gay marriage. The bill needs 25 votes in the senate, where Democrats have a 27-22 advantage with a few Democrats on the 'No' side.)

Defiantly indeed. Pflug's side of the aisle, the Republican side, is on the wrong side of history, and it was painful to watch them sit on their hands as the 21st  century passed them by.

At their press conference response to the governor's speech, the Republicans didn't even mention Gregoire's call for a gay marriage bill. [pullquote]We're not discriminating against anybody from marrying—Republican Sen. Joe Zarelli[/pullquote]

Afterward, I asked prominent Olympia Republican, Sen. Joe Zarelli (R-18, Ridgefield), where the caucus was on gay marriage. Here's what he said:

We haven't talked about it.

There are a lot of folks who just don't think it's a priority for us and would rather not even have to have the debate.

It conflicts things. It makes things harder. Regardless of where you're at on it, it's a very passionate, divisive cultural issue. The timing ... certainly when we have so much on our plate to get done. My personal opinion is at a minimum it ought to go to the voters. It's the voters who passed [the Defense of Marriage Act]. The voters said we want marriage to be between a man and a woman. If we're going to change that,  out of respect, we should go to the same voter and ask them if they agree with us. It's that kind of a cultural change.

The law does not prevent anybody from [getting married]...everybody has the same right to marry. Regardless of what appeals to you in the orientation sense, everyone has the right to get married. We all live by the same set of laws.

You go down the list of things that marriage prevents you from doing. You can't just marry anybody. A father can't marry his daughter. A mother can't marry her son. You've got to go out at least to second cousin.

We're not discriminating against anybody from marrying unless you want to start saying to whom you can marry.

There's certainly a lot to respond to here, but a fact check: The state legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, not the voters.