Judge rules that same-sex couples can marry in Washington

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/4/04 at 11:04pm

A Glimmer Of Hope -

From TheAdvocate.com

Same-sex couples can be married under Washington State law because denying their right to do so is a violation of their state constitutional rights, a judge ruled Wednesday. "The denial to the plaintiffs of the right to marry constitutes a denial of substantive due process," King County superior court judge William L. Downing said in his ruling.

His decision is stayed until the state supreme court reviews the case, meaning no marriage licenses can be issued until then, said Jennifer Pizer, lead counsel in the case for gay rights advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Judge Downing saw the couples in the courtroom and he's recognized that they are full and equal citizens of Washington. No more and no less," Pizer said.

Washington is one of 38 states with laws defining marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. Under a state high court ruling, Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since May. The Washington State couples challenged the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to one man and one woman.

Arguing for the couples, attorney Bradley Bagshaw told Downing at a hearing last month that the act violates the state constitution by depriving same-sex couples of the same privileges and immunities as other residents and by depriving them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Six couples filed the lawsuit in March after King County refused to grant them marriage licenses, and two other couples later joined the suit.

"This is a huge victory and a historic day," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal. "The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, we are not being treated equally under the law. Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says we're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

A second lawsuit was filed in April by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 11 same-sex couples.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/4/04 at 11:07pm

well, good.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/4/04 at 11:11pm

*DING* Round 2

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/4/04 at 11:15pm

At least this to contrast MO. Of course, he will be labeled "activist" for this. Good for him!!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/4/04 at 11:16pm

he may be labled an activist, but he's just doing his job.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 12:25am

Better activist than bigot.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:35am

amen.

[hawkeyemania]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:40am

Why are people againgt gay marriage anyways, i mean aren't there bigger things to worry about in the world. Plus everybody should get the same rights, i mean it is just CRAZY.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:43am

Because some people are afraid of anything different than they are.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:47am

and how long until washington state is voting on a constitutional amendment like neighbor oregon will be this fall?

if enough states ratify those amendments, you'll see the fma make a triumphant return to congress. only this time instead of it being election year politics it will be coming in with legislators fearing for their seats and voting to appease their states.

people should be focused on defeating the amendments and not celebrating over judgements that can be stricken down as easy as pulling a lever. but even more so, they should be looking for alternatives because this is a losing battle. you can frame it any way you want, but it's still a losing battle.

concentrate on legal recognition of same sex unions, civil union laws any way to change the dynamic of how this argument is being framed. whether you want to admit it the country as a whole is still not ready to accept marriage. find an alternative argument or watch as state after state changes their constitutions. how many will change them not just to outlaw gay marriage but to affirm that the only recognizable partnership union is one of a man and a woman and that other unions have no legal standing whatsoever?

discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:51am

Dammit Papa, it's freezing up down here again. I concur!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 11:58am

That's good. It's just so ridiculous. Some of these same-sex couples have been together for a very long time, may be raising kids together, etc. I find it disturbing that it's quite okay for say, Britney Spears to get married for 3 days, or Jennifer Lopez to get married 3 times. A lot of people turn marriage into a joke, but for the people who really want it, they can't have that right.

Oh and I love when I hear things like "next thing you know a person will be able to marry an animal." Yeah because heterosexuals and homosexuals are SO different. Let's compare a gay person to an animal, that makes sense. Updated On: 8/5/04 at 11:58 AM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 5:21pm

I'm getting very exhausted and bitter about the whole subject...and I am in a long term (11 years) same sex relationship.

It boils down to this...it's between the "haves" and the "have nots," and the "haves" will never want to share.

Sorry to say, I believe, if Bush thought that he would promote legislation shoving Gay and Lesbians back into the closet so he could guarantee his election, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 5:24pm

I am from texas.. Bush's home turf....

it's HALF a heartbeat.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 5:28pm

I'm originally from Lousiana.

I know what you mean.

Updated On: 8/5/04 at 05:28 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 5:32pm

Papa,

Even though I understand your logic, what you are saying is something I can't do. Because, in the end, it would involve me having to admit what my boyfriend and I have is somehow inferior to what you and mrs. mambo have.

And I'm not willing to do that. In any way, shape or form.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 6:04pm

and robbie, i understand why you cannot. i'd prefer we dropped the word "marriage" from the whole legal lexicon and made 'em all civil unions. but i really think that people do not see it as a civil rights issue, nor will they in the immediate future. by pushing for it in the short term it drives the fires up for those who would ban it entirely and forever. i worry that by fighting tooth and nail over a word that enflames people that it brings you not closer to equality, but helps those who'd relegate you to second class citizenship to solidify their arguments and means.

ok, hypothetical time: if walking away from the word marriage was able to get you civil unions and the legal rights inherent in them, would it be worth it? if saying, ok, marriage is between a man and a woman but i can have a civil union which affords me all of the same rights and responsibilities, as plessy v ferguson as that is, would it be a compromise you could accept in the near term to allow the great unwashed masses to see that it's not the end of the world for two men to have a life together that's recognized by the state?

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 9:31pm

ok, hypothetical time:

For me, sure, I have no problem with it...in the short term....provided that there are safeguards which would insure that my relationship would ALWAYS be as legally valid today's current marriages.

but...

reality knocking...

There's serious talk about trying to overturn "Roe vs. Wade."

Until the goverment officials stop kissing a** to the Church in order to get elected, nobody's civil rights are safe at the moment....unless you're White....Christian...and male.

Can you tell I'm a recovering Southern Baptist? Updated On: 8/6/04 at 09:31 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 8/5/04 at 10:31pm

Why are liberalism and religion becoming mutually exclusive? There are religious people with liberal social values, believe it or not. It's just that they don't tend to be the loud obnoxious ones who get news time by trying to censor and condemn everything that doesn't fit their views. And in turn, this causes people with liberal social values to condemn religion.

Religion isn't evil in and of itself- it's how you apply it that counts. Some people like to believe that following Christ means hating the sin rather than the sinner. Others like to focus on hellfire and Armageddon scenarios. What a damn shame that the people who would use religion as a tool to assert their own self-righteous superiority to the unwashed masses get heard more than those who would use religion as a means to understanding themselves and others.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 11:00am

I agree with you about civil unions being for everybody. If you want to be married, have a person of the cloth do it. But that shouldn't be necessary to two people entering a binding, legal contract that provides every last one of the same rights and responsibilities that comes with marriage.

But the problem I have is when I hear civil unions being discussed as giving 'many' of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Not 'all'. THAT I have a problem with.

This issue wouldn't actually even be so intense for me, except for the fact that I'm with someone, and we want to make it permanent and legal and recognized by our friends, family and, yes, the government.

[Bobby457]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 11:27am

I just found out that some friends of mine...straight couple...just registered as domestic partners....while we were congradulating them...someone at the table asked why they dont get married....and my friend says....not until all of you can. It was a table full of gay boys....I thought that was amazing...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 11:34am

They can call it a dingleberrytallywhacker for all I care as long as the rights are equal.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 12:01pm

Bobby,
GREAT friends!

[Bobby457]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 12:03pm

thanks....I thought it was pretty cool too....

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 12:18pm

That is cool of them.