Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I thought Washington was a blue state?
Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban’s effect on same-sex couples.
“Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,” wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.
The two other justices in the majority, James Johnson and Richard Sanders, agreed with the outcome but more actively opposed gay marriage.
Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”
So, would now be the time for same-sex allies in Washington to be petitioning for a change of laws? And what's this bit about promoting marriage for the children? Gay people don't have children? Really? That'll be news to the lesbian/gay families I know!
The sad part is the article mentions that there are 45 states that have gay-marriage bans on the books. Most of those statues have never been challenged. So, really, this is even sadder. So far, Mass. is the only sane state in the nation, but it's kind expensive to live there.
I know some people make the arguement that pushing for gay marriage is too polarizing going into an election, particularly one we really need to win to have any chance of stopping this free fall President Frat Boy has put us in. There's some merit to that line of thought, but. . .it's like suffrage, really. If we wait until the "right time" to push for it, we'll be waiting forever. Although, at the moment, I don't think there are any more court challenges going on, so having this happen now, instead of on the eve of the November elections, is probably a good thing. I'd hate to give the neo-cons any more reason to get their people to the polls.
As I've said before, I'm not really a marrying sort of girl myself. At least, I don't think I am. Who knows, that could change later. But denying someone the right to marry because they want to marry someone of their own gender? That's clear discrimination and shows an utter lack of knowledge of the actually history of marriage.