Posted on 07/26/2006 8:05:00 AM PDT by goodnesswins
Washington Supreme Court has issued ruling upholding Washington State's BAN on Gay Marriage
"Forty-five states now have either state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or state statutes outlawing same-sex weddings."
This is what is going to be interesting: How will the states who have legalized gay marriage vis-a-vis MA (home of the K boys) going to handle the influx of gays into their states? Health care costs will escalate due to HIV/AIDS. And what will they do when someone wants a polygamous marriage?
Stay tuned...should be fun.
As a resident of USSRW, I was shocked - absolutely shocked, I tell you - that the Supreme Court made a sensible decision. Now all we have to do is vote out the four "justices" who voted against the ban.
I'm inclined to think civil unions should be the way to go. A civil union is a contract, and as such, another state would be pretty much obliged to honor it.
Hell, two gay folks could just write statements giving each other power of attorney. In some cases, I think power of attorney might be a better status than spouse.
Personally, I don't give a rats patootie who or what gay folks do. But I can understand married folks who see and believe that marriage is a special status between man and woman and would be eroded or degraded by anything else.
gay folks can already do what's needed to do to make each other beneficiaries, medical contact/decision maker, etc....in other words.....if they make the effort they can do everything a civil union does, unless I'm mistaken.
As well they should. I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know the Wasghington Initiative Process that well, does it allow for Ammending the Constitution? That would be the best tactic for the gays to try. It would be up front, in keeping with the spirit of how you change laws, allow a full and fair debate, and fail by a wide margin as it has everywhere else it has appeared, including Oregon.
While I disagree with the desired outcome (gay marraige) I support using the processes as designed to change laws. I abhor trying to end-around using courts, which is what they attempted (in a coordinated multi-state attack following the Mass. win). It is a good day for democracy and the rule of law.
Thanks for the ping.
Great post, goodnesswins. Great news.
One local TV newscaster said that 45 states have now enacted similar bans or have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. (Jean Enersen must be gagging. hehe) But the US Senate still refuses to put this forward as a Constitutional amendment.
Oh well, one way or t'other, righteousness is taking hold.
MSNBC's quote of the day:
"The four justices in the minority harshly criticized the ruling, with Justice Mary Fairhurst saying those in the majority had bowed to public opinion by upholding the law."
Gee - imagine a court having the nerve to actually represent public opinion. The Dems must be horrified! They certainly don't want to see the rights of the majority over-ride the special interests the Dems so strongly believe in!
The Washington State Supreme Court upheld a "ban on gay marriage" today, stating that only the legislature has the power to define marriage; e.g. as a union between a man and woman.
I will find a good article on this and post it..
>I don't give a rats patootie what gay folks do. But I can understand married folks who see and believe that marriage is a special status between man and woman and would be eroded or degraded by anything else.<
Spoken like a true atheist. Woman was made for man, the two, as man and wife, to procreate. Anything else erodes family values, the backbone of a wholesome way of life.
Anything else is an abomination to God, and a degrading sin to those who practice homosexuality. With the acceleration of that lifestyle along with the practice of the murder of preborn babies (and the tiny glob contains everything to develop into a human being at conception) it is small wonder that the world has erupted into the roiling wars in which it now finds itself.
The above quote is incredible.
I guess to "Justice" Fairhurst, there is no need for a legislature or executive branch.
She knows best for all(barf).
You don't know if I'm an atheist or not, and unless I chose to speak about it, it's none of your damn business.
LOL! I didn't say you were an atheist, djf. I said you sounded like one, and I could care less what you are. You stated your opinion, and I stated mine. Simple as that.
While I applaud the court's ruling, I point out that we have already conceded far too much in our simple usage of the bogus term "gay marriage".
The mere use of the term is a de facto admission that what is not possible is, nevertheless, a point to be contested; like arguing about the legality of walking on the surface of the Sun. Nobody can 'marry' two individuals of the same sex, it is a physical and psychological impossibility, but that hasn't stopped the terminally absurd from happening; people attepmting to use the Law to force what cannot be done to be done anyway.
Only a male and a female can 'marry'; obviously in the physical sense, and -- though less obviously -- perhaps more importantly, in the psychological sense.
If you oppose so-clled 'gay marriage' then quit using the term; it is utter nonsense, and continued usage can have only deleterious results.
In sum: If it IS 'gay' it ISN'T 'marriage'. Period.
Sounds like they upheld reality in regards to "same-sex marriage." There ain't no such thing.
Could be. I see your King County Vote Counter Bailed out for Los Angeles. What's the skinny on that.?
ping
Technically, this would probably be a Washington State Constitution wins. The Federal Constitution has nothing to do with performing marriages. Only in recognizing documents and contracts issued in other states.
The WA State Constitution cannot be amended by the initiative process. An amendment must go through the Legislature first.
Since the DOMA upheld today was not in the Constitution, and is merely statute law, it can be repealed or modified by the initiative process. The State Legislature can also create laws that need a vote of the people to pass, this is known as referendum.
I would expect that enraged elements in Seattle will have initiative petitions ready for signing within weeks for allowing gay marriage. The right wing would do well to find it in its heart to support civil union instead. Civil unions are not "portable", in other words, a WA (or for that matter, a VT or CT) civil union need not be recognized by another state that does not have civil union law, it stays within the borders of this state. Marriages, on the other hand, do have some portability.
An argument can be made for people in the mushy middle to support a civil unions initiative or referendum, in order to not export gay marriage. There must be some regard given for those homosexual couples who wish to have inheritance rights, bereavement leave, etc. The chestnut of "if we refuse to give any rights to homosexuals, they will go away" doesn't wash here in Wash.! But the electorate can be expected to give each side half a loaf.
Religious conservatives here in WA are breathing a sigh of relief today (I've heard them all over the TV), but they had best beware of a backlash. Those snoozer Supreme Court Justice "races" (often there is only one candidate) will get pretty hot, with a large number of voters failing to even make a choice that far down the ballot, a write-in candidate could succeed. And remember, those of you celebrating should consider that one changed mind today could have meant portable gay marriage across the land.
Washington State has come a ways down the path from its radicalism of the last few decades. The fact that unknown Dino Rossi even got close to well-known Christine Gregoire in a statewide election that she ultimately had to steal should be taken as a sign of progress. This decision will unleash passions on the left that might turn that back, it needs to be diffused, and civil union is probably that path.
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.