A state court in Seattle struck down as unconstitutional Washington State's defense of marriage act that restricted marriage to a man and a woman. The August 4 ruling will be stayed pending appeal to the state supreme court.
King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing outlined the role of the courts in reviewing legislation; the legal principles behind the few cases on marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided; and just about every major argument opponents have raised in objecting to same-sex marriage. The opinion was remarkable in its clarity in explaining the legal process and the rationale for his decision in terms understandable to the average citizen.
'When the court is asked to sit in judgment of a law, it is not to consider whether, in its view, the law is wise or consistent with sound policy...but to apply a consistent, principled and reasoned analysis in evaluating the statute's constitutionality,' he wrote.
'Through this brilliant design, the constitutions empower the courts to ensure both that no group is singled out for special privileges and also that no minority is deprived of rights to which its members should be entitled. At the same time, respect for democratic lawmaking is maintained.'
Downing asked, 'Should the Court focus on the broad right to marry or should it, instead, focus on the more narrowly drawn right to marry someone of the same sex?' He turned to the key 'right to marry' cases decided by the US Supreme Court.
'There was no deeply rooted tradition of interracial marriage' in 1967, yet in Loving v. Virginia 'the Court analyzed the issue of their constitutionality in terms of the broad right to marry and found that right to have been infringed.' The same broad principle was applied to questions of whether a person behind in child support had a right to marry, and of prisoners' rights to marry.
He dismissed the plea of tradition in marriage saying, 'Serving tradition, for the sake of tradition alone, is not a compelling state interest.'
Downing acknowledged that the institution of marriage is threatened, and he pointed the finger at heterosexuals. 'It is not difficult to identify both the causes of the present situation and the primary threat. They come from inside the institution, not outside of it. Not to be too harsh, but they are the shortage of commitment and an excess of selfishness.'
'The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.'
'The Court is inclined to offer this perhaps gratuitous observation. If there is indeed any outside threat to the institution of marriage, it could well lie in legislative tinkering with the creation of alternative species of quasi-marriage. With the creation of 'civil unions,' 'domestic partnerships,' or other variations on the theme...there could be real danger.'
He issued no remedy but stayed the decision pending review by the Washington Supreme Court.
In his closing remarks Downing said, 'The characteristics embodied by these plaintiffs are ones that our society and the institution of marriage need more of, not less. Let the plaintiffs stand as an inspiration for all those citizens, homosexual and heterosexual, who may follow their path.'
Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, called it 'a huge victory and a historic day. 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.'
Lambda played a leading role in bringing the case and it will continue to do so in the appeal to the Washington Supreme Court. It is involved with ongoing same-sex marriage suits in several other states.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said, 'Today's ruling reaffirms the important role that an independent judiciary plays in American democracy. It is a decision like this that underscores the purpose of courts and constitutions as the ultimate safeguard of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority.'
