Washington Supreme Court to announce same-sex marriage decision
The state Supreme Court is set to announce tomorrow whether Washington will become the second state to let same-sex couples marry -- a controversial issue that's left people on both sides waiting more than a year for an answer.
In a case that some have called the court's most significant in years, justices could decide Washington's law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, opening the door for same-sex couples to tie the knot.
A notice of the pending decision was posted today on the court's Web site.
Justices could also uphold the law, preventing same-sex couples from marrying, or strike it down while leaving it up to state lawmakers to decide what to do.
Either way, attorneys have been anxiously speculating on what the delay might mean. Some have wondered if justices were waiting until after the election, when three justices are running to keep their seats on the high bench, though that apparently isn't the case.
Some think the case prompted more than a couple justices to put their opinions to paper and circulate them through the justices' chambers, a process that takes back-and-forth debate, revisions and time.
It could also lead to a number of concurring and dissenting opinions.
"There could well be three or four or five," attorney Phil Talmadge, a former Supreme Court justice, guessed recently.
Hugh Spitzer, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Washington and filed a written argument supporting the same-sex couples, said he thinks justices had probably been passing around several opinions for quite a while.
The state's highest court heard the case on March 8, 2005. Attorneys gave technical, constitutional arguments inside the Temple of Justice as thousands of people rallied under clear skies outside.
Many covered the lawn of the capitol with signs that read, Marriage: one man, one woman. Others rallied for diversity and gay rights.
In court and in writing, attorneys for the state and King County -- as well as a group of state lawmakers and religious leaders opposing same-sex marriage -- argued that the question of who should be allowed to marry should be left to state lawmakers.
They said lawmakers had a rational reason for limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex: Only those couples are biologically capable of having children, and keeping them together is generally best for those children.
But attorneys for the same-sex couples -- whose case was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Northwest Women's Law Center and Lambda Legal -- say the law discriminates against loving couples.
They argued that keeping same-sex couples from marrying makes it more difficult for them to raise their children, though at the same time it accomplishes nothing for the kids who are being raised by a mother and a father.
The case was an appeal from two lawsuits, one in King County and one in Thurston County, filed by 19 same-sex couples raising the momentous social question of who can marry.
Justices must decide the fate of state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. The law, passed by an overwhelming majority of lawmakers over Gov. Gary Locke's veto, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Superior Court judges in both counties struck down the law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in 2004.
King County Judge William Downing ruled that there's no logical way that banning same-sex marriage encourages procreation -- a similar position taken by courts in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex couples to marry.
Downing said the couples had a fundamental right to wed, and Thurston County Judge Richard Hicks reached the same conclusion.
More than 40 states have a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and roughly 20 have written that definition into their constitution.
But challenges are pending in a number of states.
Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that its law preventing gay couples from marrying did not violate the state constitution - a blow to same-sex couples, who had high hopes that the case would go their way.
via SeattlePI.com
In a case that some have called the court's most significant in years, justices could decide Washington's law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, opening the door for same-sex couples to tie the knot.
A notice of the pending decision was posted today on the court's Web site.
Justices could also uphold the law, preventing same-sex couples from marrying, or strike it down while leaving it up to state lawmakers to decide what to do.
Either way, attorneys have been anxiously speculating on what the delay might mean. Some have wondered if justices were waiting until after the election, when three justices are running to keep their seats on the high bench, though that apparently isn't the case.
Some think the case prompted more than a couple justices to put their opinions to paper and circulate them through the justices' chambers, a process that takes back-and-forth debate, revisions and time.
It could also lead to a number of concurring and dissenting opinions.
"There could well be three or four or five," attorney Phil Talmadge, a former Supreme Court justice, guessed recently.
Hugh Spitzer, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Washington and filed a written argument supporting the same-sex couples, said he thinks justices had probably been passing around several opinions for quite a while.
The state's highest court heard the case on March 8, 2005. Attorneys gave technical, constitutional arguments inside the Temple of Justice as thousands of people rallied under clear skies outside.
Many covered the lawn of the capitol with signs that read, Marriage: one man, one woman. Others rallied for diversity and gay rights.
In court and in writing, attorneys for the state and King County -- as well as a group of state lawmakers and religious leaders opposing same-sex marriage -- argued that the question of who should be allowed to marry should be left to state lawmakers.
They said lawmakers had a rational reason for limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex: Only those couples are biologically capable of having children, and keeping them together is generally best for those children.
But attorneys for the same-sex couples -- whose case was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Northwest Women's Law Center and Lambda Legal -- say the law discriminates against loving couples.
They argued that keeping same-sex couples from marrying makes it more difficult for them to raise their children, though at the same time it accomplishes nothing for the kids who are being raised by a mother and a father.
The case was an appeal from two lawsuits, one in King County and one in Thurston County, filed by 19 same-sex couples raising the momentous social question of who can marry.
Justices must decide the fate of state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. The law, passed by an overwhelming majority of lawmakers over Gov. Gary Locke's veto, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Superior Court judges in both counties struck down the law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in 2004.
King County Judge William Downing ruled that there's no logical way that banning same-sex marriage encourages procreation -- a similar position taken by courts in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex couples to marry.
Downing said the couples had a fundamental right to wed, and Thurston County Judge Richard Hicks reached the same conclusion.
More than 40 states have a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and roughly 20 have written that definition into their constitution.
But challenges are pending in a number of states.
Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that its law preventing gay couples from marrying did not violate the state constitution - a blow to same-sex couples, who had high hopes that the case would go their way.
via SeattlePI.com
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 1:08 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
» Post a Comment