Everett Herald: Editorial--After high court's ruling, pursue greater fairness
July 31, 2006
The Everett Herald, July 30, 2006
Editorial: After high court's ruling, pursue greater fairness
...steps toward greater fairness can and should be taken, with the goal of ensuring that committed same-sex couples are afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples, even if marriage remains out of bounds. Many advocates of gay marriage object to civil unions as unequal treatment, but having them in Washington would be an important step in the right direction.
. . .
One's sexual orientation shouldn't be the basis for denying basic rights. The debate over that point of view will be around for awhile. May it be a civil, respectful one.
[Read complete item . . .]
Editorial: After high court's ruling, pursue greater fairness
...steps toward greater fairness can and should be taken, with the goal of ensuring that committed same-sex couples are afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples, even if marriage remains out of bounds. Many advocates of gay marriage object to civil unions as unequal treatment, but having them in Washington would be an important step in the right direction.
. . .
One's sexual orientation shouldn't be the basis for denying basic rights. The debate over that point of view will be around for awhile. May it be a civil, respectful one.
[Read complete item . . .]
Tacoma News Tribune: Editorial--Time for calm talk about gay rights
Tacoma News Tribune, July 28, 2006
Editorial: Time for calm talk about gay rights
No one should be too discouraged--or relieved--by this week's state Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. It's far from the final word.
The court, in closing the door on a judicial remedy for gay couples seeking the right to marry, has set the debate on a better course. By deferring to the Legislature, the court has sent the clear message that the question of fairness is one that Washingtonians will have to answer themselves.
. . .
The law often trails public opinion, and gay rights are no different. The case decided by the state Supreme Court could be a turning point. It has put a face--many faces actually--on the struggles experienced by gay couples. Now that the possibility of judicial fiat is erased, Washingtonians have the chance to turn down the temperature on this debate and think about it in terms of real people who deserve fairer treatment than they now receive.
Let that conversation begin.
[Read complete item . . .]Seattle P-I: Decision takes state a step backward
July 30, 2006
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 31, 2006
Decision takes state a step backward
CURTIS CRAWFORD
GUEST COLUMNISTWe can live and work, pay taxes and contribute to society, we can fall in love and live together, but we cannot enjoy equal protection in marriage, divorce, adoption of a spouse's children, inheritance, pensions, Social Security, hospital visitation and decision making and more than 1,000 special rights and privileges granted to heterosexuals as a special class of privileged Washingtonians -- and denied to homosexuals en masse.
Decision takes state a step backward
CURTIS CRAWFORD
GUEST COLUMNISTWe can live and work, pay taxes and contribute to society, we can fall in love and live together, but we cannot enjoy equal protection in marriage, divorce, adoption of a spouse's children, inheritance, pensions, Social Security, hospital visitation and decision making and more than 1,000 special rights and privileges granted to heterosexuals as a special class of privileged Washingtonians -- and denied to homosexuals en masse.
Five of the nine state justices took our state a step backward in civil rights and equality by agreeing that the Legislature can discriminate without concern or influence of the state constitution. Same-sex marriages (and divorces) are banned in Washington, but not yet punishable by jail terms or by banishment, so I guess we "gays" should be grateful to be second-class citizens in such a genteel state.
New York Times: Dan Savage--Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing
The New York Times, July 30, 2006
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WINS BY LOSING
by DAN SAVAGE
These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a
silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between
heterosexual sex and human reproduction are the best arguments
opponents of same-sex marriage can muster, I can't help but feel that
our side must be winning. Insulting heterosexuals and discriminating
against children with same-sex parents may score the other side a few
runs, but these strategies won't win the game.
[Read complete item . . .]
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WINS BY LOSING
by DAN SAVAGE
These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a
silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between
heterosexual sex and human reproduction are the best arguments
opponents of same-sex marriage can muster, I can't help but feel that
our side must be winning. Insulting heterosexuals and discriminating
against children with same-sex parents may score the other side a few
runs, but these strategies won't win the game.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times: Gay-marriage advocates grapple with their next course of action
Seattle Times, WA, July 30, 2006
Gay-marriage advocates grapple with their next course of action
By Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times staff reporter
"Too often we've seen legislatures hide behind the courts in the hope
that the courts will extend the kind of fairness and equality" they
can't or won't extend, he said.
Spindelman, the Ohio State professor of law, said he sees reason for
hope in the Washington decision.
"If the court decision is a ruling for today, it leaves open the
possibility, and in a sense highlights the prospects, that in time it
will reverse itself."
And Julie Shapiro, law professor and constitutional expert at Seattle
University, said gays, as part of an overall strategy to educate the
public, can capitalize on the feeling among some in the straight
community that justice has not been served.
"These issues will come down to the work of organizing and outreach
and of working within communities and neighborhoods and synagogues and
all that," she said.
"The fact that more people are aware of it and angry about it is
something they can work with."
[Read complete item . . .]
Gay-marriage advocates grapple with their next course of action
By Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times staff reporter
"Too often we've seen legislatures hide behind the courts in the hope
that the courts will extend the kind of fairness and equality" they
can't or won't extend, he said.
Spindelman, the Ohio State professor of law, said he sees reason for
hope in the Washington decision.
"If the court decision is a ruling for today, it leaves open the
possibility, and in a sense highlights the prospects, that in time it
will reverse itself."
And Julie Shapiro, law professor and constitutional expert at Seattle
University, said gays, as part of an overall strategy to educate the
public, can capitalize on the feeling among some in the straight
community that justice has not been served.
"These issues will come down to the work of organizing and outreach
and of working within communities and neighborhoods and synagogues and
all that," she said.
"The fact that more people are aware of it and angry about it is
something they can work with."
[Read complete item . . .]
Ellensburg Daily Record: Commentary--Supreme Court Decides; How Does a Community Respond?
July 29, 2006
Ellensburg Daily Record, July 28, 2006
(Available online by subscription only; text provided by author.)
Supreme Court Decides--How Does a Community Respond?
By Michelle Adams
I find myself tense, and sad, not hopeful the way I thought I would feel. I wish I were numb. Today I received an email saying the Washington State Supreme Court is going to post their decision on same sex marriage tomorrow morning. The news brought immediate tears to my eyes--and dread--not excitement.
So tonight I am turning to an old friend--writing--to help me sort all that is running through my heart and mind. I am becoming raw and vulnerable so that my community can see this isn't about people in Seattle, or big cities…it is about families, people, you know right here in Ellensburg.
My partner and I were one of the eight couples (that we know of) from Ellensburg who married in Portland, Oregon in March of 2004. We knew soaring joy as we signed our marriage license. Coming back to read a letter to the editor mocking our marriage and knowing that some people we counted as friends couldn't express so much as a "have a good trip" didn't rescind our joy, but yes, it hurt. Later, we reeled with sorrow when those licenses were "invalidated" a year later by the Oregon courts. That sorrow was compounded and intensified in great measure by the celebrations by those who believe they should have the right to "redefine" MY marriage, to say that our families do not deserve protection, that our families are not "real."
Both when we married, and when our license was taken away, we read letters to the editor about our families, and about our faith. A Baptist minister denounced other ministers who identify as Christians who perform weddings for same gender couples. I had heard such denouncements before, growing up in church. Only then it wasn't about gays and lesbians...it was about Mormons (we were mainstream protestants) being cults, and not Christians. About Catholics being "deceived" and "worshipping Mary." About Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists. We studied in Sunday School about other people who didn't realize they were in cults--we had books on why they weren't "real" Christians and how they didn't follow the Bible. One of the reasons I found myself not taking it personally when someone condemned me as a lesbian was because I eventually realized that no matter what you believe, what church you attend, someone else believes you are wrong, deceived, and not a "real" Christian. I realized I didn't want God's job, I would just keep my eyes on Him and let Him sort out who was "real."
However, with all those classes teaching "the truth in love" about other churches, never in all the years that I attended my particular denomination--in three different cities--never once did I ever read a letter to an editor written by a minister telling why none of those other people were Christians. Such sentiments might be expressed in church, but no minister would think of writing such things to an editor or as a guest column in a newspaper.
Over the last couple of years I have watched my family become a political tool, the hammer to drive out "their base." They claim my family is "attacking families" because I want to protect my children and my spouse--that we are "out to redefine marriage" because my spouse and I want to legally and spiritually define our relationship and hope to secure our lives and estate we have worked so hard to build together. Those who have been swept up in the "defense of families" propaganda don't realize that it is based on attacking MY family...and the politicians don't seem to care what that does to us, or to our children. Most people don't realize that the desired result is the actual break up of our family. I don't think most people understand it, or probably even want it. Yet that is what it boils down to. The redefinition--the break up of OUR families.
So tonight, on the eve of an announcement that win or lose, will have a profound impact on my family, I don't feel hope or excitement. If I give in to the emotion that is rising within, if I allow myself more than protective numbness, I feel trepidation and incredible sadness because as sure as our Ellensburg breezes, the rhetoric will run its course through our community again. People who will experience NO impact, win or lose, will celebrate tomorrow, or they will be angry at me and my family. If we win, people will speak of amendments, and "activist judges" who don't let strangers vote on whether or not my family is real, or valuable or deserving. If we lose, they will revel with surprised joy that once again our country has been saved from my family. In this profound moment, I come to my community with only one hope--no matter what the decision is in the morning, let your hearts be gentle. I try to understand that most people don't really hate my family, and I hope others understand, whether we agree or not, that my family is real. It is a part of this community. The children in all the gay and lesbian families (and there are more than most realize) in Ellensburg hear your words, and their hearts are not numb. Neither is my own--even if numb would be better.
(Available online by subscription only; text provided by author.)
Supreme Court Decides--How Does a Community Respond?
By Michelle Adams
I find myself tense, and sad, not hopeful the way I thought I would feel. I wish I were numb. Today I received an email saying the Washington State Supreme Court is going to post their decision on same sex marriage tomorrow morning. The news brought immediate tears to my eyes--and dread--not excitement.
So tonight I am turning to an old friend--writing--to help me sort all that is running through my heart and mind. I am becoming raw and vulnerable so that my community can see this isn't about people in Seattle, or big cities…it is about families, people, you know right here in Ellensburg.
My partner and I were one of the eight couples (that we know of) from Ellensburg who married in Portland, Oregon in March of 2004. We knew soaring joy as we signed our marriage license. Coming back to read a letter to the editor mocking our marriage and knowing that some people we counted as friends couldn't express so much as a "have a good trip" didn't rescind our joy, but yes, it hurt. Later, we reeled with sorrow when those licenses were "invalidated" a year later by the Oregon courts. That sorrow was compounded and intensified in great measure by the celebrations by those who believe they should have the right to "redefine" MY marriage, to say that our families do not deserve protection, that our families are not "real."
Both when we married, and when our license was taken away, we read letters to the editor about our families, and about our faith. A Baptist minister denounced other ministers who identify as Christians who perform weddings for same gender couples. I had heard such denouncements before, growing up in church. Only then it wasn't about gays and lesbians...it was about Mormons (we were mainstream protestants) being cults, and not Christians. About Catholics being "deceived" and "worshipping Mary." About Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists. We studied in Sunday School about other people who didn't realize they were in cults--we had books on why they weren't "real" Christians and how they didn't follow the Bible. One of the reasons I found myself not taking it personally when someone condemned me as a lesbian was because I eventually realized that no matter what you believe, what church you attend, someone else believes you are wrong, deceived, and not a "real" Christian. I realized I didn't want God's job, I would just keep my eyes on Him and let Him sort out who was "real."
However, with all those classes teaching "the truth in love" about other churches, never in all the years that I attended my particular denomination--in three different cities--never once did I ever read a letter to an editor written by a minister telling why none of those other people were Christians. Such sentiments might be expressed in church, but no minister would think of writing such things to an editor or as a guest column in a newspaper.
Over the last couple of years I have watched my family become a political tool, the hammer to drive out "their base." They claim my family is "attacking families" because I want to protect my children and my spouse--that we are "out to redefine marriage" because my spouse and I want to legally and spiritually define our relationship and hope to secure our lives and estate we have worked so hard to build together. Those who have been swept up in the "defense of families" propaganda don't realize that it is based on attacking MY family...and the politicians don't seem to care what that does to us, or to our children. Most people don't realize that the desired result is the actual break up of our family. I don't think most people understand it, or probably even want it. Yet that is what it boils down to. The redefinition--the break up of OUR families.
So tonight, on the eve of an announcement that win or lose, will have a profound impact on my family, I don't feel hope or excitement. If I give in to the emotion that is rising within, if I allow myself more than protective numbness, I feel trepidation and incredible sadness because as sure as our Ellensburg breezes, the rhetoric will run its course through our community again. People who will experience NO impact, win or lose, will celebrate tomorrow, or they will be angry at me and my family. If we win, people will speak of amendments, and "activist judges" who don't let strangers vote on whether or not my family is real, or valuable or deserving. If we lose, they will revel with surprised joy that once again our country has been saved from my family. In this profound moment, I come to my community with only one hope--no matter what the decision is in the morning, let your hearts be gentle. I try to understand that most people don't really hate my family, and I hope others understand, whether we agree or not, that my family is real. It is a part of this community. The children in all the gay and lesbian families (and there are more than most realize) in Ellensburg hear your words, and their hearts are not numb. Neither is my own--even if numb would be better.
The Olympian: Same-sex couples gather, find solace in their faith
The Olympian, July 29, 2006
Same-sex couples gather, find solace in their faith
By Heather Woodward
The Olympian
OLYMPIA - Barbara Gibson, 76, and Carol McKinley, 66, made a promise to each other five years ago.
Same-sex couples gather, find solace in their faith
By Heather Woodward
The Olympian
OLYMPIA - Barbara Gibson, 76, and Carol McKinley, 66, made a promise to each other five years ago.
Standing before two ministers in a local church, the Olympia women exchanged rings and vowed to love and care for each other as best they could for the rest of their lives. Gibson and McKinley have called each other "wife" ever since and have four children, four grandchildren and one great-grandchild between them from prior marriages.
They hope that someday, their relationship will be recognized by the state of Washington as well.
"I think it will happen," said McKinley, a community minister affiliated with the Olympia Unitarian Universalist Congregation. "I believe that. I'm very optimistic, and I hope that it will be in our lifetimes."
. . ."The point is acceptance and recognition in our own home state," said Gibson, who belongs to the Community for Interfaith Celebration.
She said it's important to her to be surrounded by other worshipers who accept her same-sex relationship.
"I am partly a woman who is married to another woman," Gibson said. "If you love me, you will love that part of me, too, because it's such an important part of who I am."
AP: Gay marriage court case started with a very unusual phone call
Associated Press, July 29, 2006
Gay marriage court case started with a very unusual phone call
By CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press
With the far-off peal of wedding bells for gay couples growing louder and pressure mounting in early 2004, Ron Sims found himself in a legal bind.
As King County executive, Sims felt he couldn't just ignore a state ban on gay nuptials — no matter how much he wanted to issue marriage licenses. But, Sims reasoned, he could try to get the law thrown out.
That's when gay-marriage advocate Lisa Stone got a very unusual phone call from an intermediary. Her question: Would you please sue Ron Sims?
"I said 'Probably. We will probably do that. When was he thinking?'" Stone recalled last week. "She said, 'Oh, immediately.'"
A flurry of all-day, all-night legal work followed, including an extensive vetting of possible plaintiffs that winnowed the field to 16 people willing to be public examples.
"We talked a lot over the weekend, because it was a big debate within the gay and lesbian community whether this was the appropriate time, whether this was the appropriate strategy," Sims said.
"I kept saying, 'We need to bring this action.' And it was great — other people began to join," he said.
. . .
A positive spin on such court losses, other gay-marriage supporters said, is the likelihood that people previously unconcerned with the issue will get involved.
"It has, perhaps, woken up some people who didn't care or were mildly opposed to marriage equality," Stone said.
"I do believe that a lot of people don't realize the implications of not being able to marry, and if they did, they would say, 'Oh, that's not fair,'" said Jeff Kingsbury, who with his partner Alan Fuller was a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Sims, who opened the doors to couples seeking marriage licenses back in 2004, sees change coming in the aftermath of the court's ruling.
"This decision will not be one, historically, that people will note with any sense of respect," he says.
[Read complete item . . .]
Gay marriage court case started with a very unusual phone call
By CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press
With the far-off peal of wedding bells for gay couples growing louder and pressure mounting in early 2004, Ron Sims found himself in a legal bind.
As King County executive, Sims felt he couldn't just ignore a state ban on gay nuptials — no matter how much he wanted to issue marriage licenses. But, Sims reasoned, he could try to get the law thrown out.
That's when gay-marriage advocate Lisa Stone got a very unusual phone call from an intermediary. Her question: Would you please sue Ron Sims?
"I said 'Probably. We will probably do that. When was he thinking?'" Stone recalled last week. "She said, 'Oh, immediately.'"
A flurry of all-day, all-night legal work followed, including an extensive vetting of possible plaintiffs that winnowed the field to 16 people willing to be public examples.
"We talked a lot over the weekend, because it was a big debate within the gay and lesbian community whether this was the appropriate time, whether this was the appropriate strategy," Sims said.
"I kept saying, 'We need to bring this action.' And it was great — other people began to join," he said.
. . .
A positive spin on such court losses, other gay-marriage supporters said, is the likelihood that people previously unconcerned with the issue will get involved.
"It has, perhaps, woken up some people who didn't care or were mildly opposed to marriage equality," Stone said.
"I do believe that a lot of people don't realize the implications of not being able to marry, and if they did, they would say, 'Oh, that's not fair,'" said Jeff Kingsbury, who with his partner Alan Fuller was a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Sims, who opened the doors to couples seeking marriage licenses back in 2004, sees change coming in the aftermath of the court's ruling.
"This decision will not be one, historically, that people will note with any sense of respect," he says.
[Read complete item . . .]
The Stranger: Evan Wolfson--The Court Stumbled, but the Movement for Justice Continues
The Stranger, July 27, 2006
(Text provided by author.)
Stay in the Fight
The Court Stumbled, but the Movement for Justice Continues
BY EVAN WOLFSON
In 1790 George Washington declared, “As Mankind becomes more liberal,
they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves
as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the
protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the
foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
In its sharply divided 5-4 ruling last week, the State Supreme Court
fell short of Washington’s principle of fairness, failing, for now, to
end the exclusion of committed gay couples and their kids from
marriage, with all its protections, security, and meaning.
What’s to be said about the court’s ruling?
It was a splintered court—four justices joined powerful dissents
(Justice Bridge’s and Justice Fairhurst’s dissents are must-reads.) A
three-justice plurality applying the wrong standard of review—one that
was undeservedly, hopelessly, and self-fulfillingly deferential—was
joined by two justices in a fiery anti-gay concurrence, making up the
margin of defeat.
Although the plurality opinion contains several silver linings
(notably a plea to the legislature to address what the authors
acknowledge are the deep hardships gay couples and their kids face
through the denial of marriage), it is deeply flawed for several
reasons:
First, given the stakes, the importance of marriage, and the
importance of treating all people in Washington equally, it was a
fatal error for the plurality to apply what they themselves conceded
was the lowest possible level of scrutiny to the state’s
discriminatory action. Real scrutiny is warranted when there is a
discriminatory classification such as exclusion based on sex or sexual
orientation, or the denial of a fundamental right such as the freedom
to marry, but the plurality chose to apply instead a rubberstamp
requiring virtually no showing of a substantial, or even real,
justification by the government. If marriage is a fundamental right
for non-gay couples, why not for committed gay couples?
Under this inappropriate minimal review, the plurality said that the
exclusion from marriage does not violate the constitution because of
now-familiar but unsubstantiated “rationales” related to procreation
and parenting. “The legislature could have found that encouraging
marriage for opposite-sex couples who may have relationships that
result in children is preferable to having children raised by
unmarried parents,” conjectured the plurality. “Children tend to
thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their
biological children,” they wrote.
Never mind that marriage, clearly, is not just for the procreative,
and that even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has repudiated
these particular “rational bases” as sufficient justification for
denying marriage to same-sex couples. Never mind that that the
interest in supporting kids and promoting stability for families in
fact also applies to gay couples and to the kids that happen to have
gay parents—and that the expert consensus on gay parents and the best
interest of their kids is overwhelming and unrefuted. Less than a
month ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in once again
with an authoritative statement titled “The Effects of Marriage, Civil
Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of
Children.” The nation’s kids’ doctors know best—and here’s what they
said:
“There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender
parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More
than 25 years of research have documented that there is no
relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a
child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data
have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a
family with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing
adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can
be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil
marriage can further strengthen these families.”
Moreover, even if it were true that there were some rationale in favor
of marriage for the procreative, and even were it true that somehow
different-sex parents were “better,” how does keeping gay couples and
their kids out of marriage promote anything? Allowing opposite-sex
couples to marry may be in the best interests of children with
heterosexual parents, but, as the dissent put it, “denying same-sex
couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those
interests,” and, in fact, only punishes the kids of gay parents for
having the “wrong” parents.
The illogic of the rationales—the lack of connection between the
purported end and the discriminatory means—alone should have
established the ban’s unconstitutionality even more solidly than the
weakness of the rationales themselves. Add to that the double standard
(marriage is so important, a fundamental right even, when it comes to
heterosexuals, but the denial of marriage to gay people is somehow
trivial and warrants minimal, indeed no, scrutiny) and what results is
no more than a refusal to enforce the constitutional safeguards
against the unfair treatment of some. Finally, as the dissent pointed
out, the plurality (let alone the more extreme concurring justices)
turned a willfully blind eye to the animus beneath this exclusion and
the discrimination it inflicts and perpetuates, as manifested by the
anti-gay campaign to shove the so-called “defense of marriage” ban
into law.
The court’s decision means that the pointless exclusion from marriage
will continue to be an obstacle in the lives of numerous families,
even as the struggle to end discrimination in Washington now shifts to
the legislature and the court of public opinion.
By 5-4, these judges failed to do their job. Now the legislators and
governor must do theirs, acting to end this discrimination, while we
do ours, speaking out about who gay families are and why marriage
matters. I have previously written about how to make the case for
ending marriage discrimination (“Just Say No to Civil Union,” Oct 20),
and more resources can be found at www.equalrightswashington.org and
www.freedomtomarry.org. It is crucial that we put names and faces on
the families the court let down, and connect the dots clearly to
marriage, so that the politicians understand the need to end
discrimination. After all, even the plurality noted the hardships the
exclusion from marriage causes couples in Washington—and urged the
legislature to act.
The close but ultimately disappointing ruling from the WA Supreme
Court was just the latest in a barrage of blows over the past few
weeks, and our march to fairness is no doubt treading through a
particularly rocky patch. Quite understandably, people are beginning
to feel, in Tom Lehrer’s words, “like a Christian Scientist with
appendicitis.” But as I say in my book Why Marriage Matters, the
classic American pattern of civil rights advance is patchwork, and
social justice movements go through periods of creeping as well as
leaping. When we look past the rocky patch to where we’ve come from,
and look ahead to the advances still to come, there is ample reason
for hope and equal reason for redoubled determination.
Think about it: We went from zero votes the last time Washington
couples seeking marriage appeared before the state supreme court to
5-4 now. An end to marriage discrimination shimmers close within reach
in states such New Jersey and California—and meanwhile we continue to
advance in the court of public opinion, even as our opponents use
against us everything they have—a president, a pope, Rovian bands of
attackers state by state, and millions of dollars from the anti-gay
industry aligned too closely with large parts of a political party’s
apparatus. With some notable exceptions—voices such as those of Mayor
Greg Nickels, County Executive Ron Sims, some clergy, some civic
groups, family experts—too many allies and elected officials, too many
people of good will, have so far remained silent (or taken refuge in
evasions that they know make no sense). Silence and evasions not only
disserve the state and gay families, but also politicians’
self-interest; they will never be anti-gay enough to satisfy the
opposition, and might as well stand up for what’s right and earn the
respect of the reachable middle. Don’t bargain against yourself;
rather, make the case for fairness and families. After all, the
court’s opinion showed that there is no good reason (even if it found
a rubberstampable one) for denying committed couples and their kids
the legal commitment of marriage.
We cannot accept the right’s invitation (or that of some of our
“friends”) to declare our fight over and slink away. And we should not
let our politicians off the hook by saying it can’t happen here in
Washington or that it will take forever; you don’t rally people to
action or hold politicians accountable by declaring at the outset that
your goal is beyond your reach. The work ahead will entail
organization, outreach, lobbying, education, and supporting candidates
who are for marriage (and replacing those who are not).
Judges and politicians who don’t do the right thing now will feel deep
shame at their abdication in this moment of history. So will we—unless
we move now to nudge past 5-4 to a full victory, ending the exclusion
from marriage and creating a community of equality, liberty, and
justice for all, just as Washington envisioned.
Evan Wolfson is executive director of Freedom to Marry, the gay and
non-gay partnership working to end marriage discrimination nationwide,
and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay
People’s Right to Marry.
(Text provided by author.)
Stay in the Fight
The Court Stumbled, but the Movement for Justice Continues
BY EVAN WOLFSON
In 1790 George Washington declared, “As Mankind becomes more liberal,
they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves
as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the
protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the
foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
In its sharply divided 5-4 ruling last week, the State Supreme Court
fell short of Washington’s principle of fairness, failing, for now, to
end the exclusion of committed gay couples and their kids from
marriage, with all its protections, security, and meaning.
What’s to be said about the court’s ruling?
It was a splintered court—four justices joined powerful dissents
(Justice Bridge’s and Justice Fairhurst’s dissents are must-reads.) A
three-justice plurality applying the wrong standard of review—one that
was undeservedly, hopelessly, and self-fulfillingly deferential—was
joined by two justices in a fiery anti-gay concurrence, making up the
margin of defeat.
Although the plurality opinion contains several silver linings
(notably a plea to the legislature to address what the authors
acknowledge are the deep hardships gay couples and their kids face
through the denial of marriage), it is deeply flawed for several
reasons:
First, given the stakes, the importance of marriage, and the
importance of treating all people in Washington equally, it was a
fatal error for the plurality to apply what they themselves conceded
was the lowest possible level of scrutiny to the state’s
discriminatory action. Real scrutiny is warranted when there is a
discriminatory classification such as exclusion based on sex or sexual
orientation, or the denial of a fundamental right such as the freedom
to marry, but the plurality chose to apply instead a rubberstamp
requiring virtually no showing of a substantial, or even real,
justification by the government. If marriage is a fundamental right
for non-gay couples, why not for committed gay couples?
Under this inappropriate minimal review, the plurality said that the
exclusion from marriage does not violate the constitution because of
now-familiar but unsubstantiated “rationales” related to procreation
and parenting. “The legislature could have found that encouraging
marriage for opposite-sex couples who may have relationships that
result in children is preferable to having children raised by
unmarried parents,” conjectured the plurality. “Children tend to
thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their
biological children,” they wrote.
Never mind that marriage, clearly, is not just for the procreative,
and that even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has repudiated
these particular “rational bases” as sufficient justification for
denying marriage to same-sex couples. Never mind that that the
interest in supporting kids and promoting stability for families in
fact also applies to gay couples and to the kids that happen to have
gay parents—and that the expert consensus on gay parents and the best
interest of their kids is overwhelming and unrefuted. Less than a
month ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in once again
with an authoritative statement titled “The Effects of Marriage, Civil
Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of
Children.” The nation’s kids’ doctors know best—and here’s what they
said:
“There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender
parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More
than 25 years of research have documented that there is no
relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a
child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data
have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a
family with one or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing
adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can
be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil
marriage can further strengthen these families.”
Moreover, even if it were true that there were some rationale in favor
of marriage for the procreative, and even were it true that somehow
different-sex parents were “better,” how does keeping gay couples and
their kids out of marriage promote anything? Allowing opposite-sex
couples to marry may be in the best interests of children with
heterosexual parents, but, as the dissent put it, “denying same-sex
couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those
interests,” and, in fact, only punishes the kids of gay parents for
having the “wrong” parents.
The illogic of the rationales—the lack of connection between the
purported end and the discriminatory means—alone should have
established the ban’s unconstitutionality even more solidly than the
weakness of the rationales themselves. Add to that the double standard
(marriage is so important, a fundamental right even, when it comes to
heterosexuals, but the denial of marriage to gay people is somehow
trivial and warrants minimal, indeed no, scrutiny) and what results is
no more than a refusal to enforce the constitutional safeguards
against the unfair treatment of some. Finally, as the dissent pointed
out, the plurality (let alone the more extreme concurring justices)
turned a willfully blind eye to the animus beneath this exclusion and
the discrimination it inflicts and perpetuates, as manifested by the
anti-gay campaign to shove the so-called “defense of marriage” ban
into law.
The court’s decision means that the pointless exclusion from marriage
will continue to be an obstacle in the lives of numerous families,
even as the struggle to end discrimination in Washington now shifts to
the legislature and the court of public opinion.
By 5-4, these judges failed to do their job. Now the legislators and
governor must do theirs, acting to end this discrimination, while we
do ours, speaking out about who gay families are and why marriage
matters. I have previously written about how to make the case for
ending marriage discrimination (“Just Say No to Civil Union,” Oct 20),
and more resources can be found at www.equalrightswashington.org and
www.freedomtomarry.org. It is crucial that we put names and faces on
the families the court let down, and connect the dots clearly to
marriage, so that the politicians understand the need to end
discrimination. After all, even the plurality noted the hardships the
exclusion from marriage causes couples in Washington—and urged the
legislature to act.
The close but ultimately disappointing ruling from the WA Supreme
Court was just the latest in a barrage of blows over the past few
weeks, and our march to fairness is no doubt treading through a
particularly rocky patch. Quite understandably, people are beginning
to feel, in Tom Lehrer’s words, “like a Christian Scientist with
appendicitis.” But as I say in my book Why Marriage Matters, the
classic American pattern of civil rights advance is patchwork, and
social justice movements go through periods of creeping as well as
leaping. When we look past the rocky patch to where we’ve come from,
and look ahead to the advances still to come, there is ample reason
for hope and equal reason for redoubled determination.
Think about it: We went from zero votes the last time Washington
couples seeking marriage appeared before the state supreme court to
5-4 now. An end to marriage discrimination shimmers close within reach
in states such New Jersey and California—and meanwhile we continue to
advance in the court of public opinion, even as our opponents use
against us everything they have—a president, a pope, Rovian bands of
attackers state by state, and millions of dollars from the anti-gay
industry aligned too closely with large parts of a political party’s
apparatus. With some notable exceptions—voices such as those of Mayor
Greg Nickels, County Executive Ron Sims, some clergy, some civic
groups, family experts—too many allies and elected officials, too many
people of good will, have so far remained silent (or taken refuge in
evasions that they know make no sense). Silence and evasions not only
disserve the state and gay families, but also politicians’
self-interest; they will never be anti-gay enough to satisfy the
opposition, and might as well stand up for what’s right and earn the
respect of the reachable middle. Don’t bargain against yourself;
rather, make the case for fairness and families. After all, the
court’s opinion showed that there is no good reason (even if it found
a rubberstampable one) for denying committed couples and their kids
the legal commitment of marriage.
We cannot accept the right’s invitation (or that of some of our
“friends”) to declare our fight over and slink away. And we should not
let our politicians off the hook by saying it can’t happen here in
Washington or that it will take forever; you don’t rally people to
action or hold politicians accountable by declaring at the outset that
your goal is beyond your reach. The work ahead will entail
organization, outreach, lobbying, education, and supporting candidates
who are for marriage (and replacing those who are not).
Judges and politicians who don’t do the right thing now will feel deep
shame at their abdication in this moment of history. So will we—unless
we move now to nudge past 5-4 to a full victory, ending the exclusion
from marriage and creating a community of equality, liberty, and
justice for all, just as Washington envisioned.
Evan Wolfson is executive director of Freedom to Marry, the gay and
non-gay partnership working to end marriage discrimination nationwide,
and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay
People’s Right to Marry.
The Olympian: Capitol Chat transcript--State legislators Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, on gay marriage
July 28, 2006
The Olympian, July 28, 2006
Capitol Chat transcript: State legislators Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, on gay marriage
THE OLYMPIAN
Moderator: Welcome to The Olympian's Capitol Chat. I'm your moderator, Political Editor Brad Shannon. Our guests today are state Sen. Dan Swecker, a Republican from Rochester, and state Rep. Ed Murray, a Democrat from Seattle. Today's topic is Wednesday's State Supreme Court ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.
Moderator: Could each of you start by telling us a little about yourselves and your history with this debate?
Swecker: I'd be glad to. My district covers part of Thurston County and all of Lewis County. In 1998, the Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act -- I was the floor leader on it for the Senate Republican caucus -- with a significant majority. It was vetoed immediately by Gov. Gary Locke, and within about five hours, we overturned that veto with a two-third majority in both houses. It's been the law since that time. Perhaps Ed can explain the gist of the lawsuit better than I can, but there was a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, it went to the Supreme Court, and they found the Legislature can define marriage, that there was compelling interest to define it as it did, and that the law wasn't discrimination. A secondary benefit in my mind is that it maintains the traditional definition of marriage, as we've all known it for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Murray: During my first session in 1996, the anti-gay marriage bill was introduced and it took three years to pass. I was not part of the lawsuit, the group of families that sued the state for equal treatment for all families in Washington. I am also a gay man.
[Read complete item . . .]
Capitol Chat transcript: State legislators Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, on gay marriage
THE OLYMPIAN
Moderator: Welcome to The Olympian's Capitol Chat. I'm your moderator, Political Editor Brad Shannon. Our guests today are state Sen. Dan Swecker, a Republican from Rochester, and state Rep. Ed Murray, a Democrat from Seattle. Today's topic is Wednesday's State Supreme Court ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.
Moderator: Could each of you start by telling us a little about yourselves and your history with this debate?
Swecker: I'd be glad to. My district covers part of Thurston County and all of Lewis County. In 1998, the Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act -- I was the floor leader on it for the Senate Republican caucus -- with a significant majority. It was vetoed immediately by Gov. Gary Locke, and within about five hours, we overturned that veto with a two-third majority in both houses. It's been the law since that time. Perhaps Ed can explain the gist of the lawsuit better than I can, but there was a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, it went to the Supreme Court, and they found the Legislature can define marriage, that there was compelling interest to define it as it did, and that the law wasn't discrimination. A secondary benefit in my mind is that it maintains the traditional definition of marriage, as we've all known it for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Murray: During my first session in 1996, the anti-gay marriage bill was introduced and it took three years to pass. I was not part of the lawsuit, the group of families that sued the state for equal treatment for all families in Washington. I am also a gay man.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times: Opinion--A modest victory, at best
Seattle Times, July 28, 2006
A modest victory, at best
By David Klinghoffer
Special to The Times
Conservatives are celebrating Wednesday's state Supreme Court decision, upholding Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as an apparent defeat for gay matrimony. The celebration, however, is out of proportion to what is at best a modest victory. For traditionalists, there is as much to be dismayed about as there is to applaud.
. . .
Nothing in the tableau of two particular men or two women getting married in itself threatens a particular traditional family. But every cultural development that changes the definition of marriage weakens the concept of marriage with children as a set, fixed ideal. It threatens to speed up the process of cultural breakdown that seems headed in the direction of making marriage an anachronism.
In that sense, Wednesday's court ruling is far from being a victory for tradition. While protecting one tradition-friendly law, its overall message favors the novelty of gay marriage.
From this perspective, the decision itself looks like another broken window on a city street. While posing no danger on its own, it may hasten the coming of more significant mischief.
[Read complete item . . .]
A modest victory, at best
By David Klinghoffer
Special to The Times
Conservatives are celebrating Wednesday's state Supreme Court decision, upholding Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as an apparent defeat for gay matrimony. The celebration, however, is out of proportion to what is at best a modest victory. For traditionalists, there is as much to be dismayed about as there is to applaud.
. . .
Nothing in the tableau of two particular men or two women getting married in itself threatens a particular traditional family. But every cultural development that changes the definition of marriage weakens the concept of marriage with children as a set, fixed ideal. It threatens to speed up the process of cultural breakdown that seems headed in the direction of making marriage an anachronism.
In that sense, Wednesday's court ruling is far from being a victory for tradition. While protecting one tradition-friendly law, its overall message favors the novelty of gay marriage.
From this perspective, the decision itself looks like another broken window on a city street. While posing no danger on its own, it may hasten the coming of more significant mischief.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times: Upholding gay-marriage ban may put new spin on court races
Seattle Times, July 28, 2006
Upholding gay-marriage ban may put new spin on court races
By Ralph Thomas, Seattle Times Olympia bureau
OLYMPIA — Good luck trying to read the political reverberations from the state Supreme Court's decision this week upholding Washington's gay-marriage ban.
Chambers, meanwhile, said he hasn't thought about whether his support for gay marriage will hurt his election chances.
Upholding gay-marriage ban may put new spin on court races
By Ralph Thomas, Seattle Times Olympia bureau
OLYMPIA — Good luck trying to read the political reverberations from the state Supreme Court's decision this week upholding Washington's gay-marriage ban.
Theories abound about how the long-awaited ruling will affect the three justices who are up for re-election this year.
Many observers say Justice Tom Chambers, who so far is unopposed, will likely draw a conservative opponent because of his minority opinion that the gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional.
Justice Susan Owens, who concurred in Chambers' opinion, is already taking heat from religious conservatives in her re-election race against Republican state Sen. Steve Johnson.
Meanwhile, there are rumors that activists in the gay and lesbian community are trying to recruit someone to run against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who voted to uphold the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But others say Alexander's vote in the case could help him in his race against challenger John Groen, a prominent property-rights attorney from Bellevue.
. . .Chambers, meanwhile, said he hasn't thought about whether his support for gay marriage will hurt his election chances.
He said the justices make "politically sensitive" decisions all the time. "If you spend any time at all thinking, 'Gee, I wonder what the political fallout is going to be,' you wouldn't get anything done," Chambers said.
Chambers added that the court's paramount duty is to protect individual rights.
"When we do our best work, we are making unpopular decisions," he said.
[Read complete item . . .]Seattle P-I: Commentary--Order in the court? Hardly
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 28, 2006
Order in the court? Hardly
By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter
This week's splintered Supreme Court opinions on gay marriage showed justices willing to bow to the whims of bigoted public opinion and overstep proper judicial review to legislate from the bench.
The opinions also were, in parts, incoherent, paranoid and Orwellian. Those aren't my words. That's what the justices said about each other in the six opinions issued Wednesday that resulted in the state's gay-marriage ban being upheld.
...
If judges worry that the public doesn't understand how they operate, and that opponents are trying to politicize the court, they might want to avoid words that would look at home on a piece of negative campaign mail.
Justice Susan Owens told me that gay marriage is a tough issue that splits society, adding, "I don't know why our court should be any different."
Because it's supposed to be?
[Read complete item . . .]
Order in the court? Hardly
By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter
This week's splintered Supreme Court opinions on gay marriage showed justices willing to bow to the whims of bigoted public opinion and overstep proper judicial review to legislate from the bench.
The opinions also were, in parts, incoherent, paranoid and Orwellian. Those aren't my words. That's what the justices said about each other in the six opinions issued Wednesday that resulted in the state's gay-marriage ban being upheld.
...
If judges worry that the public doesn't understand how they operate, and that opponents are trying to politicize the court, they might want to avoid words that would look at home on a piece of negative campaign mail.
Justice Susan Owens told me that gay marriage is a tough issue that splits society, adding, "I don't know why our court should be any different."
Because it's supposed to be?
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle P-I: State justices talk about their roles in gay marriage ruling
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 28, 2006
State justices talk about their roles in gay marriage ruling
By TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER
At least one state Supreme Court justice who sided with same-sex couples this week says he initially voted, in a closed-door conference last year, to uphold the law that prevents them from marrying.Another justice who listened to his colleagues' discussion at the same conference quickly resolved to write his own opinion in the case.
State justices talk about their roles in gay marriage ruling
By TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER
At least one state Supreme Court justice who sided with same-sex couples this week says he initially voted, in a closed-door conference last year, to uphold the law that prevents them from marrying.Another justice who listened to his colleagues' discussion at the same conference quickly resolved to write his own opinion in the case.
Thursday, a day after the court upheld Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, six justices shared limited details about their roles in the decision and what went on behind the scenes at the Temple of Justice.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Commentary--Meet the couples who can't marry here
July 27, 2006
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 28, 2006
Meet the couples who can't marry here
By SUSAN PAYNTER, P-I COLUMNIST
These are the people we're afraid of if we felt reassured by this week's state Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage.
These are the people the Defense of Marriage Act protects us against.
They're the dangerous types who are threatening the institution by trying to get in on this thing we male-female couples must keep for ourselves.
. . .
Now that won't happen any time soon. And it must be a relief to those bent on guarding against these barbarians at the gates of marital legitimacy that, at least so far, none of these couples has children.
According to this week's court opinion, "promoting procreation and encouraging stable families" is what our state's marriage law is all about. And, obviously, with only a total of 35 years of commitment between them, these folks could hardly be seen as stable.
[Read complete item . . .]
Meet the couples who can't marry here
By SUSAN PAYNTER, P-I COLUMNIST
These are the people we're afraid of if we felt reassured by this week's state Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage.
These are the people the Defense of Marriage Act protects us against.
They're the dangerous types who are threatening the institution by trying to get in on this thing we male-female couples must keep for ourselves.
. . .
Now that won't happen any time soon. And it must be a relief to those bent on guarding against these barbarians at the gates of marital legitimacy that, at least so far, none of these couples has children.
According to this week's court opinion, "promoting procreation and encouraging stable families" is what our state's marriage law is all about. And, obviously, with only a total of 35 years of commitment between them, these folks could hardly be seen as stable.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times: Opinion--A tenuous decision on gay marriage
Seattle Times, July 27, 2006
A tenuous decision on gay marriage
By HUGH SPITZER
Special to The Times
A tenuous decision on gay marriage
By HUGH SPITZER
Special to The Times
The lead opinion signed by justices Barbara Madsen, Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold a gay-marriage ban treads water from a state constitutional law standpoint.
. . .
Because the lead opinion was signed by only three judges, it is difficult to say how much long-term effect this rather cautious decision will have in terms of the development of state constitutional law. All three of the judges who signed the lead opinion tend to be advocates of interpreting Washington's constitution differently than the federal courts interpret the U.S. Constitution.
[Read complete item . . .]Seattle P-I Editorial--Supreme Court: I do's to do
It took the state Legislature decades to enact this year's law protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in matters of employment, housing, insurance and credit. The timeline for a civil union measure ought to run in months, not years. The bipartisan gay rights law represented a sea change toward reason and away from the fear in the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. Legislators and the governor will need great political courage to support civil unions. But a referendum campaign's failure to gather enough signatures to put the 2006 anti-gay rights measure on the ballot suggests good judgment among state residents. This is a case where Washington needs the law to be as good as its people.
[Read complete item . . .]
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times: Commentary--Bizarre rationale for bias
Seattle Times, July 27, 2006
Bizarre rationale for bias
By Danny Westneat
Sound far-fetched? One of the justices, Jim Johnson, wrote that the "binary biological nature of marriage" gives it an "exclusive link" with "responsible child rearing." If a kid didn't spring from your loins, you have no business raising it.
As long as we're giving biological litmus tests, why stop with gays? Ban all adoptions. Ban step-parenting. Ban any family that isn't tidily nuclear.
Of course none of that will happen. We're only putting gays and lesbians in this box. Not because of this blarney about procreation and parenting. We're doing it because they're different. And because we're the majority, so we can.
That's classic discrimination. The kind that usually can be fixed only by the courts.
One of the justices said someday we'll look back at this period with regret and shame. There's no reason to wait.
[Read complete item . . .]
Bizarre rationale for bias
By Danny Westneat
Sound far-fetched? One of the justices, Jim Johnson, wrote that the "binary biological nature of marriage" gives it an "exclusive link" with "responsible child rearing." If a kid didn't spring from your loins, you have no business raising it.
As long as we're giving biological litmus tests, why stop with gays? Ban all adoptions. Ban step-parenting. Ban any family that isn't tidily nuclear.
Of course none of that will happen. We're only putting gays and lesbians in this box. Not because of this blarney about procreation and parenting. We're doing it because they're different. And because we're the majority, so we can.
That's classic discrimination. The kind that usually can be fixed only by the courts.
One of the justices said someday we'll look back at this period with regret and shame. There's no reason to wait.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Times Editorial: A missed opportunity on state Supreme Court
The Seattle Times, July 27, 2006
Editorial: A missed opportunity on state Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court should have invalidated the state Defense of Marriage Act. Its 5-4 ruling upholding DOMA misses a dramatic opportunity.
. . .
The Defense of Marriage Act is a denial of legal support for these families. As Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote, " 'Defense of Marriage' — 'defense' from what? Against whom? The DOMA ought to be recognized for the discriminatory enactment it is."
The court had a chance to do that yesterday, and Justices Chambers, Bridge, Susan Owens and Mary Fairhurst voted to take it. Alas, it was one vote short.
Same-sex marriage is not dead. It will continue to come up until it prevails.
[Read complete item . . .]
Editorial: A missed opportunity on state Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court should have invalidated the state Defense of Marriage Act. Its 5-4 ruling upholding DOMA misses a dramatic opportunity.
. . .
The Defense of Marriage Act is a denial of legal support for these families. As Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote, " 'Defense of Marriage' — 'defense' from what? Against whom? The DOMA ought to be recognized for the discriminatory enactment it is."
The court had a chance to do that yesterday, and Justices Chambers, Bridge, Susan Owens and Mary Fairhurst voted to take it. Alas, it was one vote short.
Same-sex marriage is not dead. It will continue to come up until it prevails.
[Read complete item . . .]
Slate: Rational Lampoon; How to make a thorny constitutional question disappear.
July 26, 2006
Slate.com, July 26, 2006
Rational Lampoon; How to make a thorny constitutional question disappear.
by Dahlia Lithwick
. . .
Even the most deferential review should grapple with whether banning gay marriage really encourages straight marriage; whether there is something about marriage that magically lures heterosexual parents into its grasp—something that would evaporate if it were also extended to gay parents. Even deferential review that was also deaf, dumb, and blind would do more than just assert that gay marriage is illegal because kids "thrive" in straight homes. That claim is not just slightly over- or underinclusive, as the majority would have it. It's nonresponsive. Or, as the dissenters put it, better than I have: "denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."
To get to a just answer on the question of gay marriage one need not—and perhaps should not—go as far as the Massachusetts court went when it said that, "The history of constitutional law is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." It would have been enough for the Washington justices to say that when irrational laws are justified with irrational reasons, the courts should be brave enough to label them as such.
[Read complete item . . .]
Rational Lampoon; How to make a thorny constitutional question disappear.
by Dahlia Lithwick
. . .
Even the most deferential review should grapple with whether banning gay marriage really encourages straight marriage; whether there is something about marriage that magically lures heterosexual parents into its grasp—something that would evaporate if it were also extended to gay parents. Even deferential review that was also deaf, dumb, and blind would do more than just assert that gay marriage is illegal because kids "thrive" in straight homes. That claim is not just slightly over- or underinclusive, as the majority would have it. It's nonresponsive. Or, as the dissenters put it, better than I have: "denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."
To get to a just answer on the question of gay marriage one need not—and perhaps should not—go as far as the Massachusetts court went when it said that, "The history of constitutional law is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." It would have been enough for the Washington justices to say that when irrational laws are justified with irrational reasons, the courts should be brave enough to label them as such.
[Read complete item . . .]
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Same-sex split is as public as marriage
July 25, 2006
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 26, 2006
Same-sex split is as public as marriage
By EILEEN MCNAMARA, GUEST COLUMNIST
Same-sex split is as public as marriage
By EILEEN MCNAMARA, GUEST COLUMNIST
No married couple is meant to live under a microscope. Not Brad and Jen, not Charles and Diana, not Julie and Hillary Goodridge.
The separation of the Boston couple would be a private family matter had the Goodridges not lent their name to the lawsuit that led to the state Supreme Judicial Court's landmark decision legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts.
...
Their long-established relationship insulates them from the inevitable ugliness that comes in the wake of their separation when gay marriage is again on the public agenda as opponents work to place a constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot that would outlaw same-sex unions in Massachusetts. "The timing of the split is causing many to wonder if their 'love' at the time of the lawsuit was a sham," sneered the haters at MassNews.com, a right-wing Web site.
Honorable people know better. Their separation, as much as their marriage, underscores how similar the Goodridges are to the heterosexuals next door.
[Read complete item . . .]
Associated Press--Seattle archbishop steps into gay marriage case
Overturning the state's gay marriage ban would set up "an inevitable collision with religion," Seattle's Roman Catholic archbishop said as he waded into the court battle over same-sex unions.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed July 20, Archbishop Alexander Brunett argued that legalizing gay marriage could bring improper government infringement on religious freedom.
...Jennifer Pizer, an attorney opposing the gay marriage ban for Lambda Legal, said she was surprised by the archdiocese's late filing - particularly since the church's opposition to gay marriage is nothing new.
"It's puzzling why the Catholic Church would not have figured out two years ago that it would want to oppose this case," Pizer said.
[Read complete item . . .]Seattle P-I Editorial--Same-sex Marriage: Tradition or law?
July 24, 2006
(Publication date: Sunday, July 9, 2006)
The [New York] court's chief judge, Judith Kaye, argued for law over tradition in her dissent: "A history or tradition of discrimination -- no matter how entrenched -- does not make the discrimination constitutional."
The marriage license is issued by the state. We trust, then, that our justices have focused their deliberations on the simple question of whether Washingtonians will receive equal treatment under the law.
[Read complete item . . .]
The [New York] court's chief judge, Judith Kaye, argued for law over tradition in her dissent: "A history or tradition of discrimination -- no matter how entrenched -- does not make the discrimination constitutional."
The marriage license is issued by the state. We trust, then, that our justices have focused their deliberations on the simple question of whether Washingtonians will receive equal treatment under the law.
[Read complete item . . .]
