Washblog

From Washington Courts. Defense of Marriage Act does not violate constitution.

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. 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 tri-partite form of government. Our decision accords with the substantial weight of authority from courts considering similar constitutional claims. 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.

by noemie maxwell on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 08:10:29 AM PST

---

I see this decision as disappointing in the short term, but neither inherently anti-gay, nor a long-term derailment of human rights.

It is a technical decision we are dealing with here. The language of the decision demonstrates to me that the judge/s who wrote it are not agreeing with the reasoning of the DOMA supporters, but are upholding the legal right for that reasoning to be enshrined in our state law.

In this decision, everything seems to hinge on the court's determination that sexual orientation is not a "suspect classification" I didn't know what suspect classification was, so I looked it up:

From Answer.com :

The suspect classification doctrine holds that laws classifying people according to race, ethnicity, and religion are inherently suspect and are subject to the "strict scrutiny" test of judicial review. Strict scrutiny forces the state to provide a compelling state interest for the challenged law and demonstrate that the law has been narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.

If a suspect classification is not involved, the Court will apply the "rational basis" test, which requires the state to provide any reasonable ground for the legislation.

Under strict scrutiny, the government has a difficult burden to meet, while under rational basis, most laws will be upheld.

OK, so our Supreme Court has decided, as quoted below, that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. Therefore, the legislature has to show only that in passing DOMA they had reasonable grounds. Not correct grounds, not wonderful grounds, but .. just reasonable. Here's the court's language:

Although times are changing, the plaintiffs have not established that as of today sexual orientation is a suspect classification or that a person has a fundamental right to a same-sex marriage. Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. Under this highly deferential standard, any conceivable state of facts providing a rational basis for the classification may be considered. The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.

What really interests me in this passage is that .. well, I didn't know that the state has a legitimate interest in procreation... hm. I have to think about that one. Also, I like the use of the word, conceivable in here. Like the judges had to think really hard in order to discern the rationality of DOMA...

This decision is likely to energize the supporters of gay marriage and is not likely to enrage its opponents. DOMA passed because Republicans were in charge. Keeping our Democratic majority in 06 is the best thing we can do for gay rights. Therefore, although it is a disappointment, I see it as setting the foundation for good results in the long term.

Human rights related to sexuality are basic. It's worth taking the time to get it right. I'll be interested to see legal analysis of this as it unfolds.

Another interesting section of the decision, setting the stage for good legislation:

The plaintiffs and their amici have clearly demonstrated that many day-to-day decisions that are routine for married couples are more complex, more agonizing, and more costly for same-sex couples, unlike married couples who automatically have the advantages and rights provided to them in a myriad of laws and policies such as those surrounding medical conditions (e.g., the right to be present in the hospital and to help make difficult decisions), probate (e.g., the right to inherit property), and health insurance (e.g., the ability to obtain coverage for a spouse through employment policies).

by noemie maxwell on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 09:14:49 AM PST

---

I appreciate the discussion that I've been reading here and yesterday morning I thought that civil unions was what we should settle for. By last night, after the meeting at Seattle lst Baptist Church, I returned to my original position of not settling for the counterpart of separate but equal. Civil unions are not recognized outside of the state in which they were issued. Granted, often states will confer the same statewide rights/responsibilities on civil unions as they do marriage.

Certainly there are differences of opinion among the GLBT communities r/t civil union vs. marriage. Much the same as many heterosexual couples are bypassing marriage, often because of their own histories of growing up in families where they saw and perhaps experienced first hand the pain of failed marriages.

My partner and I had a commitment ceremony years ago. Her company offers domestic partnership benefits should I need it. We have met with an attorney and updated our legal paperwork so that we are covered.

In 2004 we traveled to Portland, Ore. and had a traditional wedding, witnessed by many of our friends and family members, and facilitated by our minister, Rev. James Kubal-Komoto. While Oregon since cancelled out that law and returned our license fee, we still very much consider ourselves married. Our friends and family and church consider us married. We live out our lives being faithful to the promises we made publicly to each other.

Personally I don't want to go back to a civil union. I want our marriage recognized. So do the plaintiff couples who, since the state of washington wouldn't affirm their marriages, made public declarations of their love and faithfulness to each other during the meeting at Seattle 1st Baptist Church.

I will continue to work for full equality and will not be satisfied with anything less. I will go to Olympia in support of Ed Murray's Marriage Equality legislation, just as I did the civil rights legislation. I am very realistic that, at 60 years of age, I may not live to see this become reality. However, I have been an activist for more than 35 years now, and expediency has never been the hallmark of the issues for which I have stood tall and along side so many others.

by patpb on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:06:02 PM PST

---

It strikes me that a court decision, rather than a legislative victory (followed up by an expected referendum victory) would be the preferred avenue, because it would be a more solid win. Court decisions don't tend to solve anything, rather the parties have to come together eventually to see how they're going to live with the ruling.

Both sides of this debate continue to debate. Its time they came to the table and found something they can both live with.

________________
I blog here.

by emmettoconnell on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 06:57:29 AM PST

---

This is off of Noemie's comment that our congregation (Saltwater) was not listed in the list at the office of gay and bisexual concerns of the UUA. Actually it is, although the way I got to it was through the main UUA website (www.UUA.org) which on the front page has a beautiful public statement our UUA president, Bill Sinkford, issued in response to the Washington State Supreme Court's decision yesterday.

by patpb on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 07:26:33 PM PST

---