With the 5-4 decision of the Washington State Supreme Court upholding the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, it looks like the gay marriage issue will move to an accommodation of gay partnerships and not the redefinition of marriage that the high court in Massachusetts mandated back in 2003.
The court’s majority decision (here and here) was split between three justices (Barbara A. Madsen, writing for Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander and Charles W. Johnson) who said, hey, it is up to the legislature to redefine marriage and two more conservative justices (James M. Johnson and Richard B. Sanders) who argued a more forceful defense of heterosexual marriage, arguing that there is “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage.” On the other hand,
"I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry," wrote Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, who was joined by Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Bobbe J. Bridge [in dissent].
Since six states, Connecticut, Georgia, Nebraska, Massachusetts, New York and Tennessee, recently upheld traditional marriage, it appears that a consensus is developing to require gay activists to go through the legislature for relief rather than the courts. That’s probably a good idea because there are, in fact, a host of issues around marriage, including government benefits, safety, fertility, adoption, that really should not be decided under duress after an activist court decision.
Three of the Washington State justices are up for reelection in the fall. They are Justices Alexander (voting in the majority) and Justices Chambers and Owens (dissenting).
No comments:
Post a Comment