Washington State's marriage decision drags on
Washington State's marriage decision drags on
By DAVID AMMONS
Copyright by The Associated Press
OLYMPIA, Wash.—Washington’s closely watched same-sex marriage case was argued before the state Supreme Court in March 2005, and still the long, long wait for a decision continues. Some court-watchers are now speculating that this hot potato could stay under wraps until after the November election.
Gay issues were on the front-burner in the Washington Legislature this year. After 30 years of hotly contentious debate, state lawmakers finally passed a gay anti-discrimination bill. Legislators were under the impression that the high court would hand down its marriage opinion while they were in session last winter, possibly forcing a huge election-year debate on the touchiest social issue of the day.
But the court didn’t do the expected, and gay rights issues here are fading into the background of the public’s consciousness. Anti-gay activist Tim Eyman says he might not be able to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot this fall repealing the state’s new anti-discrimination law. Water-cooler discussions in Washington are more focused on gas prices or immigration than gay rights or gay marriage.
Still, for those most invested in the pending high court ruling, it’s nail-biting time.
“It’s a combination of dread and anticipation,” says Rep. Jim Moeller (D), one of four openly gay members of the Legislature. “I always get anxious on Wednesday afternoons,” when the court website lists the cases that will come down on Thursday.
“We had obviously hoped we’d have a decision by now. The whole country is watching,” says Jeff Kingsbury, the Olympia city councilman who is anxious to wed his partner of 14 years. With a laugh, he adds “After all, if you plan a traditional summer marriage, it takes time.”
The court, per custom, is mum. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who once said he hoped the court could produce an opinion during the legislative session, now says, “I can safely tell you that the court is aware of the intense public interest in this case. Beyond that, we will rule and then you will know what each and every one of us thinks.”
THE BACKSTORY
On March 8, 2005, the 38 plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage case—19 gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry—asked the high court to throw out the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to heterosexual couples. So far two judges, in King and Thurston counties, have concluded that the state’s ban on gay marriage violates the state constitutional requirement that all citizens be treated equally.
Same-sex marriage advocates are using three constitutional theories, all with the common thread that equality demands open access to marriage, regardless of gender. The state’s position is that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and that lawmakers had a rational and compelling basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
The decision ultimately will hinge on how the justices interpret the constitution and its unusually strong “privileges and immunities clause”—the state’s version of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment and state and federal privacy protections also are invoked.
Scholars say both sides have strong arguments and that it’s no slam-dunk for either position, despite the conventional wisdom that has the court deciding for gay marriage.
Most of the nine justices peppered the lawyers with questions during the oral arguments, but gave few clues about their personal views. Most court-watchers presume it’s a narrowly divided court, 5-4 or possibly 6-3.
“I’m not going to win it 9-0 or lose it 9-0,” says Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who argued the state’s case.
Justice Barbara Madsen, a strong presence in the center of the court, could be the swing vote—and she seemed to dismiss one of the underpinnings of the gays’ case while supporting another of their legal theories, says Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle attorney active in national gay legal circles.
Both sides agree that gay marriage still doesn’t enjoy majority public support, but the proponents of same-sex marriage remain guardedly optimistic—and the foes have generally conceded to the gathering view that the court is prepared to throw out DOMA.
“I personally believe that’s what they’ll do,’’ says Gary Randall of the evangelical group Faith and Freedom Network. “I think the court may be more politicized than any of us realize.”
“It’s a liberal court,’’ says Eyman. “The majority of this court is going to impose same-sex marriage.”
By DAVID AMMONS
Copyright by The Associated Press
OLYMPIA, Wash.—Washington’s closely watched same-sex marriage case was argued before the state Supreme Court in March 2005, and still the long, long wait for a decision continues. Some court-watchers are now speculating that this hot potato could stay under wraps until after the November election.
Gay issues were on the front-burner in the Washington Legislature this year. After 30 years of hotly contentious debate, state lawmakers finally passed a gay anti-discrimination bill. Legislators were under the impression that the high court would hand down its marriage opinion while they were in session last winter, possibly forcing a huge election-year debate on the touchiest social issue of the day.
But the court didn’t do the expected, and gay rights issues here are fading into the background of the public’s consciousness. Anti-gay activist Tim Eyman says he might not be able to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot this fall repealing the state’s new anti-discrimination law. Water-cooler discussions in Washington are more focused on gas prices or immigration than gay rights or gay marriage.
Still, for those most invested in the pending high court ruling, it’s nail-biting time.
“It’s a combination of dread and anticipation,” says Rep. Jim Moeller (D), one of four openly gay members of the Legislature. “I always get anxious on Wednesday afternoons,” when the court website lists the cases that will come down on Thursday.
“We had obviously hoped we’d have a decision by now. The whole country is watching,” says Jeff Kingsbury, the Olympia city councilman who is anxious to wed his partner of 14 years. With a laugh, he adds “After all, if you plan a traditional summer marriage, it takes time.”
The court, per custom, is mum. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who once said he hoped the court could produce an opinion during the legislative session, now says, “I can safely tell you that the court is aware of the intense public interest in this case. Beyond that, we will rule and then you will know what each and every one of us thinks.”
THE BACKSTORY
On March 8, 2005, the 38 plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage case—19 gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry—asked the high court to throw out the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to heterosexual couples. So far two judges, in King and Thurston counties, have concluded that the state’s ban on gay marriage violates the state constitutional requirement that all citizens be treated equally.
Same-sex marriage advocates are using three constitutional theories, all with the common thread that equality demands open access to marriage, regardless of gender. The state’s position is that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and that lawmakers had a rational and compelling basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
The decision ultimately will hinge on how the justices interpret the constitution and its unusually strong “privileges and immunities clause”—the state’s version of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment and state and federal privacy protections also are invoked.
Scholars say both sides have strong arguments and that it’s no slam-dunk for either position, despite the conventional wisdom that has the court deciding for gay marriage.
Most of the nine justices peppered the lawyers with questions during the oral arguments, but gave few clues about their personal views. Most court-watchers presume it’s a narrowly divided court, 5-4 or possibly 6-3.
“I’m not going to win it 9-0 or lose it 9-0,” says Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who argued the state’s case.
Justice Barbara Madsen, a strong presence in the center of the court, could be the swing vote—and she seemed to dismiss one of the underpinnings of the gays’ case while supporting another of their legal theories, says Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle attorney active in national gay legal circles.
Both sides agree that gay marriage still doesn’t enjoy majority public support, but the proponents of same-sex marriage remain guardedly optimistic—and the foes have generally conceded to the gathering view that the court is prepared to throw out DOMA.
“I personally believe that’s what they’ll do,’’ says Gary Randall of the evangelical group Faith and Freedom Network. “I think the court may be more politicized than any of us realize.”
“It’s a liberal court,’’ says Eyman. “The majority of this court is going to impose same-sex marriage.”
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home