Washington's gay marriage ban upheld

[im10ashus]

OLYMPIA, Washington (AP) -- 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.

cont'd...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/26/gaymarriage.wash.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[BR_Parkway]

1. So dissolve the marriage if they fail to produce kids - if not, they are

unfairly getting benefits from the state that single childless people aren't getting - blatant discrimination

[ThomCat]

3. That seems obvious, but clearly the courts

are only looking for an excuse, not an actual rational reason to discriminate.

[Cerridwen]

2. "a legitimate interest in regulating relationships that produce children"

Huh, oh, that's got abuse of power written all over it. In what other ways can government "regulate relationships that produce children"? Can they force production of children? How about non-married "relationships that produce children"?

Yowee! The mind boggles at how that precedent can be applied.

[sgxnk]

4. here is the case

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

you can also find the concurrences and dissents at the www.courts.wa.gov right next to the above decision

[BR_Parkway]

5. 3 of the judges upholding are up for re-elect and try to claim

that they aren't saying SSM couldn't be done by legislation

Of the 5 justices who decided to uphold DOMA, 3 are up for re-election this year (Madsen, J. Johnson, Sanders), 2 (Alexander, C. Johnson) are not.

None of the 4 dissenting justices are up for re-election.

Once again, we're tossed aside for other's political ambitions. And those up for re-election try to straddle a fence and have it both ways.

[WA98296]

6. Judges did their job. And they set the stage for BETTER legislation....

From Justics Madsen's decision:

Quote:

"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."

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an
independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

_____________

We have an initiative process here in Washington. Easy enough to get this concept to the voters and let democracy speak to the issue.

[pnwmom]

7. I haven't read the whole 62 page decision, but it appears a door was left

open for another challenge on different grounds. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd welcome input from anybody who is one.

The opinion says that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were members of a "suspect class" because they failed to include studies or other evidence that homosexuality is an immutable trait.

It appears to me that -- perhaps -- the decision may have been different IF the plaintiffs' lawyers had provided this evidence.