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

[ShandaLear]

Excellent! Such good news today!

[bigfootbob]

Take a look at the Seattle PI. The Seattle sissies are freaking out. They have an on-line poll running. 62.5% pissed at the ruling, 32.8% approve.

We are gonna see and hear some interesting things in the next few weeks. Suburban Republican leg. candidates were just handed a campaign issue they'll be able to win on.

Can you hear me now, cybercowboy777?

[polymuser]

IOW, "Keep on fighting, Q warriors. We're sorry, but had no choice on this one, or we'd get in real trouble ourselves. Hope you understand. Hugs & kisses."

[redfog]

Note that the ban was upheld by the smallest of margins: a 5-4 vote.

Another reminder of the importance of electing conservatives judges or electing representatives who will appoint conservative judges.

[Soul Seeker]

I'm shocked.

Pleasantly, but I'd about given up on the Court to do the right thing here.

[Captain Rhino]

Applying the current case law that governs our decision and the narrow issues on which the plaintiffs requested we rule, we hold that the plaintiffs HAVE NOT established that the Washington State Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the state privileges and immunities clause, article I, section 12, the state due process clause, article I, section 3, the state constitution’s privacy 61 No. 75934-1 (consol. w/75956-1) provision, article I, section 7, or the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, article XXXI, section 1. We reverse the decision of the King County Superior Court in Andersen and the decision of the Thurston County Superior Court in Castle. Justice Barbara A. Madsen AUTHOR: WE CONCUR: Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander Justice Charles W. Johnson

The critical portion of the ruling(emphasis added). The justices seem to have foreclosed multiple avenues of reattack by gay marriage activists in broadly ruling that the DOMA is within current case in state privileges and immunities, state due process, state privacy, and the state’s Equal Rights Amendment.

[ShandaLear]

Me too. I was hoping they'd make the right decision, but wasn't confident.

[djf]

Not surprised. Reading the analysis, it goes back and forth.

Here's an interesting tidbit...

A “‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” is required, and the Court has noted that “[b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field . . . .’”.

Fundamental liberty interests include the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion.

[hsalaw]

Wasn't Washington one of the states which enacted a gay marriage ban in 2004? Or was that Oregon? There were 11 or 12 states which enacted such bans by initiative in 2004, and I can't recall if Washington was one of them.

[TheConservator]

The real surprise here is that Alexander voted with the majority to uphold DOMA.

[Notwithstanding]

IOW, we aint' gonna pee all over the people like the Massah-chews-its Spleen Quart did.

[Sacajaweau]

I don't think Hillary has said "boo" on the subject and she hasn't said much about abortion either.

Like the Dems said after the last election....Morals??....They won the election on morals?? Don't people know that "It's the Economy, stupid?"

The Pendulum swings!! Promoting homosexuality in the schools was probably the straw that broke the camels back.

[Lancey Howard]

Sanity BUMP!

[Lancey Howard]

5 - 4 decision.
By the hair of their chinny-chin-chins.

[Spunky]

HIP! HIP! HOORAY!

[hunter112]

It was Oregon, but only by about 55 percent. I'd say in about ten years, Oregon could repeal it, but certainly not now. The end run to the courts produced a LOT of constitutional bans that would not have existed had the MA Supreme Court not made its ruling.

I could see WA or OR (probably both) enacting some sort of civil union statute by the initiative process, however. No doubt that, or a gay marriage initiative, will appear soon, but its way too late for this year's ballot.

[Paperdoll]

>I honestly believe that had the gays gone for civil unions instead of gay marriage there would now be a majority of states permitting civil unions.<

For those wanting to preserve the sanctity of one man - one woman marriage, I believe that if they had gone for civil unions, they would have been provided with the slippery slope eventually arriving at the gay marriage now banned in Washington State.

[beelzepug]

These individual opinions are well worth reading as they paint a pretty good picture of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of our state justices.
While the fact that three of the four dissenting were women may or may not mean anything, the two (Bridge and Fairhurst) who wrote opinions show that there was a lot of "feeling" going on but not much thinking. Fairhurst's writing, in particular, is just a mess. It starts out with the erroneous statement that heterosexuals in Washington have the right to mary anyone they choose and goes down hill from there.
We're lucky to have managed a 5-4 decision.

[T Ruth]

it is the end of the line for the 19 gay couples 38 homosexuals involved

[Spok]

It's an election year and there are some consrvatives challenging liberal incumbents on the court. Politics as usual.