The state Supreme Court today upheld Washington's law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, rejecting the argument of 19 same-sex couples that they've been unfairly denied the right to wed.

In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

She wrote that the same-sex couples failed to prove that they had a fundamental right to marry, or that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling -- signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson -- also noted a hardship for same-sex couples, however, and suggested that the legislature "may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

Concurring in the outcome were Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders.

There were a total of six opinions, including one dissent each from Justices Mary Fairhurst, Bobbe Bridge and Tom Chambers. Justice Susan Owens signed both Fairhurst's and Chambers's dissents.

Justice Fairhust said the plurality and concurring options "... condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

The decision came on a case the Justices heard on March 8, 2005, when attorneys made constitutional arguments inside the Temple of Justice as thousands of people rallied outside.

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 can marry should be left to the Legislature.

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 it still 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 who sued for the right to wed.

Today's ruling decides the fate of the 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 King and Thurston counties struck down the law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in 2004.

More than 40 states have a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and about 20 have written that definition into their constitution.

Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that 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.

With Washington's ruling, Massachusetts remains the only state to allow same-sex marriage; it did so under a state Supreme Court ruling in May 2004.

via SeattlePI.com

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 8:36 AM. Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.