On
a 5–4 vote, the Washington State supreme court
upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage, it was
revealed Wednesday morning. The majority ruled
that the Defense of Marriage Act restricting marriage to a
man and a woman, which the legislature enacted in 1998, does
not violate the state's constitution, noting that any
change to the law must be made by the legislature.
"The two cases before us require us to decide
whether the legislature has the power to limit
marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples,"
Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the majority. "The
state constitution and controlling case law compel us to
answer 'yes,' and we therefore reverse the trial
courts. In reaching this conclusion, we have engaged
in an exhaustive constitutional inquiry and have deferred
to the legislative branch as required by our tripartite form
of government. Our decision accords with the
substantial weight of authority from courts
considering similar constitutional claims."
She added: "We see no reason, however, why the
legislature or the people acting through the
initiative process would be foreclosed from extending
the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in
Washington." Indeed, she wrote, alluding to remarks made by
dissenting justices that marriage equality will eventually
come to pass, "while same-sex marriage may be the law
at a future time, it will be because the people
declare it to be, not because five members of this
court have dictated it."
The long-awaited decision in the
case—oral arguments were first heard in March
2005—was a crushing blow to the gay rights movement,
which weathered a similar ruling by New York's highest
court earlier this month as well as a defeat in
Georgia's highest court regarding a ballot measure
banning same-sex marriage. The case before the supreme court
joined two separate marriage-equality cases, one
against the state and one against a county; and
encompassed 19 plaintiff couples, who argued that the ban
violated the constitution's "privileges and immunities"
clause mandating that any privilege offered to one
group of people, like marriage, be offered to all.
Initial reaction to the court's ruling was
harsh. "The American family is strengthened when the
legal responsibilities of marriage, which protect
children, stabilize homes, and secure relationships, are
provided equally to all couples," Jo Wyrick, National
Stonewall Democrats executive director, said in a
statement. "Washington State has an economic and
social interest in promoting the stability of the family,
and it is stunning that the Washington State supreme court
would base its ruling on personal opinion rather than
on law."
“The decision from Washington State is
disappointing," Marc Solomon, campaign director for
MassEquality, said in a statement. "Our thoughts are
with those couples in Washington who have made a loving
commitment to one another and deserve full, equal protection
under the law. We’ve always known that the path
to equality would be marked by victories and setbacks.
Today we experienced a setback, but we are confident
that equality is a true American value that will eventually prevail.”
With the Washington court's decision,
Massachusetts remains the only state in the country to
offer full marriage rights to its gay and lesbian
citizens. (The Advocate)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Career Opportunities | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
