Posted on 09/08/2004 11:59:29 PM PDT by Ritwngr
Another court in Washington struck down the state's marriage laws yesterday in a decision that called traditional marriage proponents' views "Lilliputian" while scoffing at the notion that marriage is designed as a union of man and woman for any non-arbitrary reason.
The court ignored federal DOMA altogether, even though two of the plaintiffs in this case are gay individuals who received an Oregon marriage license and are demanding that Washington recognize that marriage. This is unsurprising: after all, nothing in federal DOMA prevents state courts such as this one from ignoring it and importing out-of-state same-sex marriages. The decision is here, and the last 8 pages are the most important.
At this point, there are now 12 states facing direct legal challenges to their marriage laws. Same-sex marriage activists are currently challenging the marriage laws of California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. Lawsuits have been filed in Alaska and Montana to force these states to grant benefits to same-sex unions (regardless of whether they are married - the only state currently allowing that is Massachusetts).
At least 12 more states expect to have state constitutional amendments on the November ballots: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Louisiana is expected to have an initiative on the September ballot. Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment on August 4 with 71% support, and there will be more added to this list, as the final approval of the signatures is still pending in some states.
And as you know, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged directly in the federal courts in Washington and Florida. Click here for an update in several states around the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at augustine.redstate.org ...
Go to this site to read the judge's opinion. The extremes that liberal judges go to back up their decisions is almost laughable if it weren't so serious an issue.
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/Superior/Recent%20Opinions/Recent_Opinions.htm
"At the time, I discussed the so-called "legality" of such "marriages" with one of the editors, and she was quite flustered- especially when I told her I was surprised (not!) to find that those in the "news" business would be so uninformed..."
Kudos to you for standing up your values in such a direct way! Everyone should keep after their local paper's editors and publishers like this.
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.