Posted on 07/26/2006 9:22:55 AM PDT by lilylangtree
The state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.
The 5-4 decision leaves Massachusetts as the only state to grant full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. It was the latest in a series of significant court rulings favoring gay marriage opponents.
Nineteen gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry had challenged the constitutionality of Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act law, which limits marriage to heterosexual couples. Judges in King and Thurston counties overturned it in 2004, citing the state constitution's "privileges and immunities."
The state appealed, arguing that it has a legitimate interest in regulating relationships that produce children.
Forty-five states have laws banning gay marriage or limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.
In other recent rulings on the issue, courts reinstated voter-approved bans on gay marriage in Nebraska and Georgia, and Tennessee's Supreme Court ruled that voters there should have a say on allowing gay marriage.
Massachusetts' high court — the same court that issued the historic ruling that has allowed more than 8,000 same-sex couples since 2004 to marry in that state — ruled a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could go on the ballot if approved by the Legislature.
In Connecticut, a judge found gay and lesbian couples had not been harmed by that state's decision to grant them civil unions but not marriage. Vermont also allows civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
Congress recently rebuffed a move to get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Maybe it wasn't backwards.
Most remarkable when one considers how liberal the Wash St Supreme court is.
I don't see how they could rule any other way, considering the
Revised Code of Wa says that marriage is between a male and female:
RCW 26.04.010
Marriage contract — Void marriages.
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable...
The code would need to be changed to rule otherwise. There doesn't seem to be much room for ambiguity (or bending over to the gay lobby) when the code itself says "male and female."
As you know, the SCof Wa does strange things, RCW's, State Constitution or not.
The SECOND best thing about a 5-4 decision like this is to make very clear which 4 judges should be removed from the court at the earliest opportunity!
Absofrigginlutely!
WA Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Another propaganda premised misleading headline -how odd?
LOL
Actually, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution. People ban themselves from marriage when they choose not to marry or instead choose to simulate marriage by engaging in some other bizarre arrangement all together...
- Washington: On July 26, 2006 the state Supreme Court ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act" does not violate the state constitution stating that "the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes."
- Massachusetts: On on November 18th, 2003, in a 4/3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed homosexual "marriage" upon the citizens of Massachusetts. Conservative citizens have responded to the activist judiciary with a Constitutional Amendment referendum effort now at the stage of requiring approval by 25% of the legislature, or 50 members, in two successive sessions before it goes to the ballot in 2008. A simple majority of citizens voting in support of the referendum will make it an amendment to the state constitution and end the imposed homosexual "marriage" social experiment into the realm of delusion.
- New Jersey: The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Feb. 15; it's unclear when the court might rule.
- New York: On July 6, 2006 the state Court of Appeals, held the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," the appeals court said in its 70-page ruling. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."
- Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously on July 6, 2006 that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures.
- California: A state court last year ruled that barring same-sex marriage is against the state Constitution. An appeals court heard the case on July 10, 2006. The three-judge panel has 90 days to rule. Any decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
- Nebraska: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14, 2006 reversed an U.S. District ruling by Judge Bataillon, who ruled last year that a marriage amendment was too broad and deprived homosexuals of participation in the political process. In ruling, The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
- Maryland: A judge on January 20 struck down a 1973 state ban on same-sex marriages. The state has appealed the ruling.
- Connecticut: On July 12, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins ruled against eight same-sex couples who filed suit against the state in August 2004 after being denied marriage licenses. The eight Connecticut couples have said they intend to appeal the Superior Court ruling.
- Iowa: A trial in a gay marriage lawsuit is scheduled before a state judge for Oct. 23, 2006.
- Tennessee: On July 14, 2006, The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a legal effort by the ACLU to block the will of the people to vote on a State Constitutional Amendment in November.
Please ping me with any updates and or corrections to this.
Good news. Seems as though there's been a number of cheering news articles lately.
Using the "ban on gay marriage" is nothing but propaganda. How can there be a ban on something that doesn't exist?
;-)
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.