What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Washington State upholds ban on gay marriage

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
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
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Things are looking up all over.
At stake was the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act

OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington Supreme Court ruled against gay marriage Wednesday, upholding the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

The 38 plaintiffs in the case — 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry — challenged the constitutionality of the 1998 law, which limits marriage to heterosexual couples.

Judges in King and Thurston counties overturned the law in 2004, citing the state constitution’s “privileges and immunities” section. The state appealed, and the cases were consolidated for state Supreme Court review.

In their arguments before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said the gay marriage ban violates a constitutional prohibition against granting privileges to one group of citizens but not another. They also argued the ban violated the state’s Equal Rights Amendment.

Attorneys defending the marriage law said the state has a legitimate interest in regulating relationships that produce children.

Setback for proponents
The decision is just the latest in a series of significant court rulings on the issue in recent weeks, most falling in favor of opponents.

Courts reinstated voter-approved bans on gay marriage in Nebraska and Georgia earlier this month. 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.

In all, 45 states have passed laws banning gay marriage or limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. Congress recently rebuffed a move to get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12549069/
 
OP
GotZoom

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
9,990
Reaction score
543
Points
48
Location
Puyallup, WA
OP
GotZoom

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
5stringJeff said:
Los hilos de rosca fueron combinados, como usted pidió. ¡De nada!

Molto Grazie'. Salute!

:beer:

Deve giocare nei cespugli con George.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
OP
GotZoom

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
ScreamingEagle said:
lo siento zoomo


Nessun problema.

Le menti grandi pensano egualmente.
 

jimnyc

...
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
16,030
Reaction score
260
Points
83
Location
New York
:clap: to the Washington Supreme Court

:finger3: to the poor souls with this sick, filthy, abnormal disease.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
748
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
Best line of the decision:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • $washingtonDOMA.jpg
    $washingtonDOMA.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 74

Abbey Normal

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
393
Points
48
Location
Mid-Atlantic region

Hagbard Celine

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,756
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Location
Atlanta, GA
jimnyc said:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Perfect wording. The people spoke and the court upheld their wishes.
Not in reference to this particular court decision, but your idea of how the judicial system works is skewed. The courts are not here to uphold the people's wishes. That's what the representatives are for. The courts are here to enforce the law according to the Constitution. The people, a.k.a., the unwashed hordes may "wish" many things. The courts are here to protect the rest of us from the people's "wishes."

Say it with me kids, "I wish I may, I wish I might. Ban a minority's rights tonight. Social progress is something I fear. After subjugating homos, who will I smear?"
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
748
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
Hagbard Celine said:
Not in reference to this particular court decision, but your idea of how the judicial system works is skewed. The courts are not here to uphold the people's wishes. That's what the representatives are for. The courts are here to enforce the law according to the Constitution. The people, a.k.a., the unwashed hordes may "wish" many things. The courts are here to protect the rest of us from the people's "wishes."

Say it with me kids, "I wish I may, I wish I might. Ban a minority's rights tonight. Social progress is something I fear. After subjugating homos, who will I smear?"


Been to school?

"People" make laws. Courts Enforce Laws.
 
OP
GotZoom

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
Hagbard Celine said:
The Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional genius.

Hey Skippy...read the first sentence of the first post:

The Washington Supreme Court today upheld the state's 1998 ban on same-sex marriage.

Looks like the Washington Surpreme Court did just that.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
748
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
Hagbard Celine said:
The Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional genius.

I'm not a genius, I'm just very very smart. I'm glad you re-stating what I said makes you feel smarter.
 

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,406
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
Looks like someone finally noticed that banning same-sex marriage does NOT "withdraw privileges from one group that are granted to another". Heteros and homosexuals are both permitted to marry - members of the opposite sex. And both are forbidden to marry members of the same sex. And both are forbidden to marry various others - close relations, multiple partners, underage etc. How much more equal can your "rights" get?

Maybe a few have different DESIRES... but what has that got to do with their rights?

The homosexual advocates are doing their best to ignore the fact that humans are a species with two sexes, and that very strong emotions exist as a result: some emotions that attract one sex to the other, and some that repel one sex from the same sex. Both are very strong, part of our fundamental makeup, both have no "logical" basis, and both derive from the same source. The former creates a liking of the idea of relations between opposite sexes. And the latter creates a dislike for the idea of relations between members of the same sex.

The advocates have taken it upon themselves to stamp out, or at least repress, half of these powerful emotions in every human they can reach. They seem to present their agenda in terms like "There's no reason why anyone should be upset about same-sex relations, "marriage" etc. - after all, it isn't hurting them!" ...as though emotions this strong were somehow to be restricted by logic and reason. But for every human they seem to succeed with, hundreds more are born with the same emotions still intact.

Sweeping back the tide would be easier.
 

Abbey Normal

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
393
Points
48
Location
Mid-Atlantic region
Little-Acorn said:
Looks like someone finally noticed that banning same-sex marriage does NOT "withdraw privileges from one group that are granted to another". Heteros and homosexuals are both permitted to marry - members of the opposite sex. And both are forbidden to marry members of the same sex. And both are forbidden to marry various others - close relations, multiple partners, underage etc. How much more equal can your "rights" get?

Maybe a few have different DESIRES... but what has that got to do with their rights?

The homosexual advocates are doing their best to ignore the fact that humans are a species with two sexes, and that very strong emotions exist as a result: some emotions that attract one sex to the other, and some that repel one sex from the same sex. Both are very strong, part of our fundamental makeup, both have no "logical" basis, and both derive from the same source. The former creates a liking of the idea of relations between opposite sexes. And the latter creates a dislike for the idea of relations between members of the same sex.

The advocates have taken it upon themselves to stamp out, or at least repress, half of these powerful emotions in every human they can reach. They seem to present their agenda in terms like "There's no reason why anyone should be upset about same-sex relations, "marriage" etc. - after all, it isn't hurting them!" ...as though emotions this strong were somehow to be restricted by logic and reason. But for every human they seem to succeed with, hundreds more are born with the same emotions still intact.

Sweeping back the tide would be easier.

Wow. Apart from the sentiments in your first paragraph, I've never heard anyone put it this way. I'm impressed with your logic and writing skills.
 

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
9,990
Reaction score
543
Points
48
Location
Puyallup, WA
Hagbard Celine said:
The Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional genius.

And the WA State Supreme Court decided that the DOMA was, indeed, constitutional.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$180.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top