Washington State Supreme Court Upholds BAN on Gay Marriage

www.ap.org | 7/26/06 | AP

[goodnesswins]

Washington Supreme Court has issued ruling upholding Washington State's BAN on Gay Marriage

[hunter112]

Neither a gay marriage or civil union initiative would pass in WA.

Gay marriage might be a tough one, but civil unions, you'd get enough signatures just in the cities that have colleges. As for a general election, remember that WA twice passed fairly liberal abortion laws, the first time in 1970 and the second time in 1990 (ultraliberal, just in case Roe v. Wade got overturned). While the initiatives have shown some conservatism, its fiscal conservatism only. Remember the "Hands off Washington" campaign regarding gay rights? That one passed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I said the federal government has no jurisdiction over whether or not marriages can be PERFORMED.

Also not true... It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Here is the law... pay attention to the bold typeface.

Article IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Only Congress can define the effect by law... Article I says nothing about Congress...

[djf]

I posted that segment because it specifically mentions a "fundamental right" to abortion, yet fails to mention a right to travel where you wish, or work at whatever occupation you wish, or acquire and enjoy property.

Like I said before, the decision was a cliffhanger. Over and over they mention the "rational basis" for beleiveing the legislature had cause and authority to enact the legislation.
That's a GOOD thing!

They also mention that the tests for overturning legislation must be very strict. Absent any evidence that there is a true, concrete, provable loss in fundamental liberties, the plaintiffs have not met their burden.
This is also a GOOD thing.

They also recognize (and begrudginly seem to encourage) the people, acting through the legislature or initiative process, to enact the tyoes and kinds of legislation they want and or need to face the situation.
Another good thing.

A random poll conducted last night by the locals news station showed the results: 55 percent agreed, 41 percent disagreed.

And as I said, I don't care what they do, as long as they stay away from me!
But they can't re-define the English language, ir willy nilly obscure and eradicate tens of thousands of years of human history.


The decision surprises me, because Washington (I live here) specifically has an Article in the Constitution about privacy:

Article One, Declaration of Rights
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED.
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
In fact there have been a number of court cases that have been tossed because of this very article.

But this deals with PRIVATE things, not PUBLIC things. And a while a marriage is a PRIVATE thing between two people, it is also a PUBLIC thing in regards to it's sanction by the state.

The States never should have gotten involved in marriage. Prior to about 1920, they weren't.

[djf]

Dude, Article One starts:

Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Thanks? But I didn't need a primer. I know both sides of the debate. I asked because I'm surprised that Freepers would fall for this next dialectic trick from the handbook of 60's liberalism. Of course, that may be from the libertarian crowd, which would explain the gap.

Do you really believe that a government-recognized paper bond between two people will result in less anonymous, promiscuous sex? You've got to be kidding. I'm sure that the thought process going on for every gay guy out there hooking up in a public restroom is, "Gee. If only they'd let me have a civil union, I wouldn't need to do this." Ever read the personals on Craig's list? You should so that you'd know what is going on out there. People who engage in this behavior are obsessed or demented.

The other assaults on marriage you mention -- all of which can be traced back to the attack on "the establishment" -- are all weakening marriage. But your argument is that if you take 3/10 of the bricks out of the foundation of a building and it still hasn't fallen completely, why not take a few more? Unbelievable.

There are two aspects of marriage. One is the religious aspect. You're right in that the government has no business interfering with this. In Washington state, they don't. Anyone can perform the "marriage ceremony" and it is recognized by the State.

The other aspect is that of keeping accurate records, which the state and populace do have an interest in maintaining in order to keep track of procreation. The people have the right to define what they recognize as a legal marriage in this regard. All other unions can be established by contracts and living wills, as much paper as anyone needs to make a relationship legal.

Divorce, out-of-wedlock babies, deadbeat dads, welfare queens -- they all weaken marriage and the family. I think we can all agree on the harmful effects of these changes to the traditional definition of marriage. Redefining marriage a bit further is not going to help.

[GOPologist]

They can always move to messichoosits.

[old republic]

I know that the Supreme Court has said that in the past, but that doesn't make it the "correct" decision. It may be the law of the land for the time being, but that doesn't make it what the Constitution says.

The concept of precedent is fairly incompatible with a written constitution. Precedents are a system that are more suited for situations that involve common law so that you have something to go on, but when you have a statutory text to go on you should stick with the source when you make a decision.

[proudpapa]

He's up for re-election in November.

[newfarm4000n]

To be fair the dems only really control the inner cities. Most suburban areas of large cities are about evenly split don't you think ?

[Paperdoll]

>we never get a Republican, even a RINO, ever again in statewide office<

Welcome back to Washington! If I understand you correctly, you hold very little hope for a Republican win in the state. I did note a slight move in the conservative direction in the last Clark County election. However, as the old saying goes, it's not the votes, but the vote counters that matter! I prefer going to the polls rather than vote by mail, and hand counting rather than computer counting of ballots.

[Libertina]

Make certain to vote for Groen. Gerry Alexander has been a disaster.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What you cited said nothing about Congress and referred exclusively to the states...

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

United States Constitution, Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 1

Here is the law... pay attention to the red typeface.

Article IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Only Congress can define the effect by law (e.g., statute)...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Here is the law... pay attention to the red typeface.

Article IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Only Congress can define the effect by law (e.g., statute)...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices...

[old republic]

You brought up a point that I believe that I have already acknowledged. Yes you are right that the Congress may regulate the manner that valid documents may be prooven and what those documents may be used for. However, I did not say that Congress may not regualte the manner in which records are recognized and their effect. I said that Congress does have the authority to regulate the EFFECT of documents/licenses etc., but Congress may not however authorize the PERFORMANCE of any marriages that are not under federal jurisdiction, because that goes beyond giving effect to a document to actually usurping authority of the states.

Just because the Supreme Court declared it constitutional does not make it right. There is enough contradicting case law to proove anything. (There are plenty of contradicting landmark cases out there. e.g. Plessy v. Fergusson/Brown v. Board etc.) What I am trying to say is that just because the Supreme Court made something a precedent does not mean that it was correct/constitutional. It simply how the Judicial branch has chosen to apply the law for all practical intents and purposes.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Congress may not however authorize the PERFORMANCE of any marriages that are not under federal jurisdiction, because that goes beyond giving effect to a document to actually usurping authority of the states.

No, the Constitution says... "the Congress may by general Laws prescribe ... the Effect thereof."

If Congress were to pass a statute declaring such said contracts null and void, they would be null and void for all intents and purposes of Law...

[old republic]

That power would not make contracts null and void. Congress only has power to to make regulations prescribing what EFFECT shall be given to documents. In other words, what the documents can be used for. The government can nullify the effect of gay marriage licenses in one state through this power, by making it of no effect in another state, but it cannot nullify the validity of that license within that state in which it was issued.

[URist]

Susan Owens needs to be voted out. We should get behind
Stephen Johnson for Justice Position #2. Jeanette Burrage has filed to run against Tom Chambers in position #9. Although, she is a former King County Superior Court Judge, she has a conservative history as a former Republican state representative and a property rights advocate. She caused some controversy in 1999 when as Superior Court Judge she asked woman lawyers to wear skirts in her courtroom. Her chances seem slim because the MSM would ridicule her, but she would be a much better judge than Chambers.

[goodnesswins]

You're right....Stephen Johnson for Position 2, and Jeanette Burrage for Position #9.....noted.

[URist]

In the Seattle P-I, the GLBT crowd tried to get a judge of their liking to run against Gerry Alexander and John Groen. The filing deadline has passed and the GLBTers failed to get a judge of their liking to run for the position. I expect some of the GLBTers to abstain on the race, others will probably hold their noses and vote for Alexander because most conservatives that vote on this race will back Groen (including myself), and the homosexual rights advocates don't want to give the conservatives another victory.