GotZoom
Senior Member
The Washington Supreme Court today upheld the state's 1998 ban on same-sex marriage a ruling decried by gay activists but heralded by supporters of traditional marriage.
The decision came as a sobering defeat for gays and their advocates, who'd hoped the court would strike down the so-named Defense of Marriage Act DOMA which restricts marriage to one man and one woman.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said DOMA is constitutional because in establishing DOMA "the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents."
As such, DOMA does not violate the state Constitution's privileges and immunities clause of the state Constitution, which requires that any benefit granted to one group must be granted equally to all. "Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes," she wrote.
Although the ruling was the judiciary's final word on gay marriage, it seemed to suggest that the legislature could act to provide civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples. The justices said given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in the lawsuit, the legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.
Madsen was joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson. Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders joined the majority in a separate concurrence. Justices Bobbe Bridge, Mary Fairhurst, Susan Owens and Tom Chambers dissented.
Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that gays are members of a suspect class a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of characteristics such as race or that there is a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, the Legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage is a "rational basis" for the Defense of Marriage Act.
DOMA, the majority found, also does not violate the due process clause of the state Constitution, which states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
"The people of Washington have not had in the past, nor at this time are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to marry a person of the same sex," Madsen wrote.
Additionally, the court wrote, DOMA does not violate the state's Equal Rights Amendment, so-called ERA, because the law treats men and women equally in denying both the right to marry someone of the same sex.
More at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html
The decision came as a sobering defeat for gays and their advocates, who'd hoped the court would strike down the so-named Defense of Marriage Act DOMA which restricts marriage to one man and one woman.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said DOMA is constitutional because in establishing DOMA "the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents."
As such, DOMA does not violate the state Constitution's privileges and immunities clause of the state Constitution, which requires that any benefit granted to one group must be granted equally to all. "Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes," she wrote.
Although the ruling was the judiciary's final word on gay marriage, it seemed to suggest that the legislature could act to provide civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples. The justices said given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in the lawsuit, the legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.
Madsen was joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson. Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders joined the majority in a separate concurrence. Justices Bobbe Bridge, Mary Fairhurst, Susan Owens and Tom Chambers dissented.
Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that gays are members of a suspect class a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of characteristics such as race or that there is a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, the Legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage is a "rational basis" for the Defense of Marriage Act.
DOMA, the majority found, also does not violate the due process clause of the state Constitution, which states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
"The people of Washington have not had in the past, nor at this time are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to marry a person of the same sex," Madsen wrote.
Additionally, the court wrote, DOMA does not violate the state's Equal Rights Amendment, so-called ERA, because the law treats men and women equally in denying both the right to marry someone of the same sex.
More at:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html
to the Washington Supreme Court
to the poor souls with this sick, filthy, abnormal disease.
