Agreed, and here's the hippie in question:
Richard Hicks:
Posted on 09/07/2004 11:34:27 AM PDT by ohioconservative
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Echoing the ruling of another local court, a Thurston County judge ruled Tuesday that Washington state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
A King County judge had ruled in favor of gay marriage rights in a separate case last month. Both cases will now go to the state Supreme Court, where they will likely be consolidated.
"For the government this is not a moral issue. It is a legal issue," wrote Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks in his ruling, posted Tuesday on the court's Web site.
Hicks acknowledged that the intent of the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was very clear: Legislators wanted to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman. But, Hicks said, that law directly conflicts with the state constitution.
"What fails strict scrutiny here is a government-approved civil contract for one class of the community not given to another class of the community," Hicks wrote. "Democracy means people with different values living together as one people. What can reconcile our differences is the feeling that with these differences we are still one people. This is the democracy of conscience."
The plaintiffs in the Thurston County suit, filed in April, are 11 gay and lesbian couples from across the state. An attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union argued their case in court last week.
The King County suit was filed in March on behalf of six couples.
They can enter a marriage contract. They just can't enter an illegal marriage contract, same as everyone else. All are held to the same rules. How can he talk "deomocracy" while ruling like an oligarch?
it really sucks being a conservative minded person in such a liberal state
what about the supremacy clause?
""What fails strict scrutiny here is a government-approved civil contract for one class of the community not given to another class of the community," Hicks wrote. "
The Constitution does not support the concept of "classes"
Not quite, judge.
For instance, democracy does NOT mean that I am one people with a neighbor who is intent on destroying me and my family.
It's NOT just a matter of having "different values."
Ignoramus!
Another clueless hippie posing as a judge.
Make it constitutional.
This is why we need a FEDERAL Constitutional amendment.
LET THE STATES DECIDE! At least 2/3 rds of them.
Agreed, and here's the hippie in question:
Richard Hicks:
Child molestation isn't prohibited in the Washington Constitution, so I guess that's OK now, too.
Democracy means that THE PEOPLE, get to define their own society. When appointed judges define society, we cease to become a representative government, and are ruled by tyrants.
I, for one, have taken a vow to protect our Constitution from domestic enemies which would destroy it. Enemies like these judges.
"For the government this is not a moral issue. It is a legal issue,"
Any "legal issue" who's decision tears the fabric of societal security becomes a moral issue.
Any judge who would place a paper-thin parsing of the law over common sense is a danger to society, and should be removed.
It does suck be conservative in Washington state, especially when you live in the SW portion.
ping
""What fails strict scrutiny here is a government-approved civil contract for one class of the community not given to another class of the community," Hicks wrote. "
Not at all. It happens all the time that government makes social contracts with one set of citizens as opposed to another. Income taxes is one instance. All taxpayers are not granted the same exemptions. single taxpayers get to pay at a higher rate than married ones[the REAL crux of this issue, imho]
Same with the approval of any set of regulations which steer behavior in a government approved direction.
Are those to be ignored because we have different values?
Democracy, btw, does NOT mean that people with different values live together. Democracy means that the people vote for themselves the laws that will rule them. So far when votes have been taken, those with the weird values lose big time.
Moral relativists love to attempt to separate the two, but moral values provide the foundation for law and order. The latter can't exist without the former.
Nicely put!
Under this logic, any law that classified felons, or sexual offenders could be declared unconstitutional. For instance, it would be unconstitutional to deny voting rights to a convicted felon.
"For instance, it would be unconstitutional to deny voting rights to a convicted felon."
Haddnt considered it before, but it probably IS unconstitutional. If they had a strong lobby, they could probably make a case for it...
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.