Posted on 07/26/2006 7:16:20 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
A single vote kept Washington from becoming the first state in which same-sex couples could come from anywhere in the U.S. to obtain a marriage license.
The state Supreme Court today decided 5-4 that Washington's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the state constitution.
The court dealt a "devastating setback to same-sex marriage proponents," asserted Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of the public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel.
The decision is very significant, he said, because, unlike Massachusetts – which in 2003 became the only state to establish same-sex marriage – Washington does not have a residency requirement for marriage licenses.
"Same-sex couples would be able to obtain marriage licenses without having to be residents of Washington," Staver said. "Also, same-sex marriage advocates thought they could win in the more liberal state of Washington."
Defenders of the marriage law contended the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, 19 same-sex couples, argued the ban violates a constitutional prohibition against granting privileges to one group of citizens but not another.
"This is a very sad day but it is not the last day," Lisa Stone, co-counsel and executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "For today, for now, the courthouse avenue to justice is foreclosed. But that doesn't mean every end and every avenue is closed. And we will not give up."
The Seattle paper said Beth Reis, one of the plaintiffs, and her partner of 29 years, Barbara Steele, had planned to apply for a marriage license today and be married in a ceremony Sunday.
"We are reeling today," Reis said, as she stood surrounded by her family.
But Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called it a "great day for marriage, for the family, and for America."
"Nevertheless, we must remain mindful that this battle is far from over, and we must be ready to defend marriage anywhere, anytime, and at all costs," he said.
Recent decisions in New York, Georgia and Connecticut also upheld traditional marriage. Forty-five states have passed laws that bar same-sex marriage, but Congress recently rejected a proposal for a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
The Washington case came to the high court after a lower court ruled the state's Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in August 2004. That court stayed its ruling until the state Supreme Court could hear the matter.
The couples filed the lawsuit after King County officials denied them marriage licenses.
Fahling contrasted Washington's Supreme Court with the Massachusetts high court that introduced same-sex marriage to the country.
"The (Washington) court is to be applauded for exercising restraint and leaving determinations about life's most fundamental institution in the hands of the people," he said.
Attorney Steve O'Ban, who defended the state marriage law before the high court, said the judges simply followed the law.
"They've recognized that the proper role of the judiciary is to apply the law, not create the law," said O'Ban, who represented African-American clergy, state lawmakers and others in the case.
In its opinion today, the Washington court observed, "Although marriage has evolved, it has not included a history and tradition of same-sex marriage in this nation or in Washington State. … It cannot be overemphasized that our state constitution provides for a representative democracy and that the people, who have consented to be governed, speak through their elected representatives. When no fundamental right or suspect class exists, the public consensus, as evidenced by legislation adopted after robust debate, must be given great deference."
In dissent, Justice Bobbe Bridge complained, "what we have done is permit the religious and moral strains of DOMA to justify the state's intrusion [upon the rights of same-sex partners]."
Fahling implied the outcome may have been influenced by the fact three of the nine Washington state Supreme Court justices are up for election this year. It's the same court, he noted, that in a 7-2 decision placed the parental rights of a homosexual partner who help to raise a child on par with the rights of the child's biological parents.
Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Arizona-based legal group Alliance Defense Fund, said marriage "has become an emotional issue because political special interests are trying to reduce it to nothing more than a benefits system for loving couples."
"Legally, marriage is about much more than that," he said. "Marriage licenses don't certify one person's love for another person; they provide a legal framework to protect the children that result from the marriage."
BTTT
Victory for our republic. The court has said if changes are to be mandated it must come from the legisltive process not by judge shopping.
"...argued the ban violates a constitutional prohibition against granting privileges to one group of citizens but not another"
Not so. Homosexuals have the exact same right to marry somebody of the opposite sex as anybody else; their refusal to exercise that right is on them only.
What a shame.
Instead of getting married, she's left to go pick up a pizza and batteries.
"We're reeling. We were going to get married today." Well, run it by the courts again, but by then you all will be off with new partners. And it still will not be legal.
I must be wired wrong. I can't fathom, no matter how hard I try, to understand how opposite sexes can be attracted to each other. I view this as a perversion.
Five-to-four: an awfully close call! But that's New York, Georgia, and now Washington state in the last three weeks.
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
Uh, possibly, at it's most basic of instincts, it propgates the continuation of the species. Whereas homosexuality propogates nothing but a log of STD's and strange looks.
I agree in spirit, and in fact, but he's being a bit dramatic with the language there...
OOOOOOOOPS........... I meant SAME SEX. Now I'm red in the face. BTW, sans my screw-up, my post was serious. Thanks for catching it (I think?).
You cannot accuse the proponents of "gay marriage" of being too logical.
"The court dealt a "devastating setback to same-sex marriage proponents," asserted Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of the public-interest legal group Liberty Counsel."
Big giant grin!
:-]
Just think, 35 years ago marriage was pushed as being irrelivant in a relationship. Now it is important to be married.
But ONLY if you are GAY.
Oh, please excuse my excruciatingly bad spelling. I let you figure it out.
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.