The Big Gay Marrige Debate Merged!!!! PART ONE

[monosphere]

I just saw this moments ago and wanted to share with the rest of you. Looks like Bush might not have such an easy battle on his hands here.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's election-year bid to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage headed toward a lopsided defeat on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

While two thirds of the 100-member Senate would be needed to pass the measure, Republican backers scrambled to get even a simple majority.

They conceded they did not have the 60 votes needed to survive a procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday, meaning the measure will likely be dead for the year.

Republicans, accused by Democrats of seeking the proposed amendment to rally their socially conservative base, vowed to try again.

"This issue is not going away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

"I'm hoping we get some 45 (votes)," said Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, another member of the Republican leadership. "If we get close to 50 that would be great."

Steve Fisher of Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights group, said, "If we hold them to under 50 votes it would send an extraordinary message that playing politics with discrimination will fail."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, charged the Republican leadership with bringing up the proposal for "pure politics."

"They're hoping to use the issue to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage," he said.

Republicans say gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children.

Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage but are split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe other issues are more important -- such as health care, education and national security.

Republicans forced consideration of the proposed amendment two weeks before John Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, will receive his party's presidential nomination at the Democratic national convention in Boston.

Massachusetts in May became the first U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage.

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same sex-marriage but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer. They say it should be left up to the states to define marriage.

Despite claims to the contrary by proponents, some critics also argue that the measure could undermine existing state and local domestic partnership laws, which provide couples some financial and legal protections.


KERRY OPPOSES AMENDMENT


At a fund-raiser in Boston on Monday, Kerry alluded to the gay marriage debate as a symbol of what he characterized as a divisive Republican president.

"Values aren't talking about peoples' rights and opening the door of opportunity, and then you turn around and for political purposes in the middle of a campaign, you bring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States just to divide America," Kerry said.

For a proposed constitutional amendment to become law, it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, then ratified by 38 of the 50 states.

The House is to consider a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in September, but it is also expected to fall far short of the needed votes.

Bush in February called on the U.S. Congress to approve such an amendment after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

These actions helped spawn lawsuits across the nation, including ones calling on other states to recognize same-sex marriage. (Additional reporting by David Morgan)

[Defence_mechanism]

thats really good news!

not only for you guys in America, but for us in Australia too, coz John Howard seems to follow Bush in everything he does. if he sees that Bush is failing he might back down a bit.

Howard is trying to do the same thing as Bush - amend the constitution.

[SageDreamer]

The Reuters quote says it all. From what I've seen on the Net and in the papers, there are lots of Democrats and Republicans who would prefer not to vote on the issue at all for a variety of reasons.

I don't have anyone in my life I want to marry, but I do want to have the choice to do so.

If you take a step back and look at it logically--I know, I know, very few people will--there's no compelling reason not to let same-sex couples marry. Yes, it would "change" marriage, but that's not the first time marriage has been changed. We used to have laws in this country forbidding interracial marriage. The country didn't topple, and there were no plagues of locusts.

I think we'll eventually see same-sex marriage legally recognized everywhere or nearly everywhere, but it just won't come to pass during an election year. I plan to vote against Bush by voting for Kerry, and encourage all progressive Americans to do likewise.

[peaceful420]

Bush is unbelievable. That's great to hear though. Go to johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. I so wis I could vote, because I'm so sick of Bush and his asshole-ness. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is entitled to everyone, and marriage is included in the pursuit of our happiness. It cannot be forbidden because of your gender.

[monosphere]

Senate Blocks Bush Move to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Bush on Wednesday failed in his attempt to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage when a divided U.S. Senate blocked the measure, virtually killing it for at least this election year.

On a 48-to-50 vote, six Republicans broke ranks as proponents of a proposed amendment fell 12 votes short of the needed 60 to end a Democratic procedural hurdle.

White House hopeful John Kerry and fellow Senate Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the proposal merely to rally their conservative base for the November presidential and congressional elections.

Democrats also charged that four days of Senate debate on it could have been better spent on such issues as health care and national security.

"The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes," Kerry said in a statement.

Bush expressed regret that the Republican-led Senate blocked the proposal, which would define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman, and urged the Republican-led House of Representatives to pass it. "It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue," he said.

But the House is also expected to fall far short of the needed votes when it takes up the measure, likely in September.

THREE-QUARTERS OF STATES

For a proposed constitutional amendment to become law, it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by 38 of the 50 states.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, rejected complaints that the proposal is discriminatory, saying, "Gays have a right to live the way they want."

"But they should not have the right to change the definition of traditional marriage. That is where we draw the line," he added.

Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but are split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe many other issues are more important.

Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same-sex marriage, but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer. Like most Democratic lawmakers, they say states should have the power to define marriage.

Bush in February called on the U.S. Congress to approve an amendment after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This helped trigger a crush of lawsuits, some challenging the right of one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage that was licensed in another.

Even in defeat, Senate Republicans obtained at least two goals: They got a debate on the issue and put senators on the record.

"It's been a good debate," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. "We will be back again and again" pushing a proposed constitutional amendment.

"And it will become law," Sessions said.

Republicans contend gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children.

Kerry and Edwards were the only senators who did not vote on the procedural hurdle. Both said they would have interrupted their campaigns and been in the Senate, however, if there had been a vote on passage of the measure.

Three of 48 Democrats ended up voting to end their party's procedural hurdle, while six of 51 Republicans voted to maintain it after a number of Republicans disagreed earlier this week over the wording of the proposed amendment.

"This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans," said Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights group.

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith)

Well, we won this battle, but we still have a long way to go. Let's keep up the good fight!

[GGSagen]

It is rather interesting to see how far the Republican's misjudged this issue. The truth behind it all, IMHO, is not as much about gay marriage to many of them. It is also about state rights. Because of the recent court rulings, this issue has been set up to run in the state sphere of control. Congress hates giving anything to state control, and especially the republicans. As a result, the Senate has issued this as a challenge to State Rights as much as a ban on Gay Marriages.

With this said, however, I am very interested in the whole idea that gay marriage will destroy the institution. Look around. The institution is already in a pretty sad state of affairs. Affairs being one of the key words. My parents generation was very much into the idea of "Till death do us part." Now adays, however, most people getting married hope they will get past 5 years.

Here, however, is what I wonder about. Where do they think we came from? Were we imaculate conceptions? We have parents. We have mothers and fathers who were married. Does anyone truly believe that our parents don't want us to be able to marry? Do our parents think that we would destroy the institution of marriage? Heck, anyone who would want to get married has probably already introduced their lover to their parents, and hopefully the parents like their son- or daughter-in-law to be.

It is rather strange, actually. Most of the time we think of the gay community as only being 10% of the population...not enough to swing any vote, but here is the thing. We aren't just 10%. We aren't just gay men and lesbians. The gay community, in truth, is far larger. It is our Brothers and Sisters, our Fathers and friends, and, probably most importantly, our mothers. I've seen the look of murder in my mothers eyes when someone threatens her baby boy. Who is truly insane enough to face a mob of angry mothers protecting and fighting for their child?

Let them bring it on. My mother will teach them a lesson.

[monosphere]

Unfortunately, my mother is one of the people attending these "sanctity of marriage" rallies while I'm outside waving protest signs. I wish all mothers would fight as hard for their kids as your mom does for you.

[staples420]

Bush is unbelievable. That's great to hear though. Go to johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. I so wis I could vote, because I'm so sick of Bush and his asshole-ness. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is entitled to everyone, and marriage is included in the pursuit of our happiness. It cannot be forbidden because of your gender.
Exactly!

Bush is such a fucking asshole. Oh man that pisses me off that he tries shit like that. Oh well, good news for now!

[Taylor]

In New Zealand there is a big debate about the concpet of Civil Unions at the moment. A Bill has been put before parliament and has had its first reading and is currently under review by a select committee. (it has to survive two more readings and votes).

There is a party in parliament called United Future, the head of which is Peter Dunne. United Future oppose civil unions... they get support from the Christian Heritage party and are very big on "families" which they define as "a man and woman with their kids" (not a direct quote but quite an accurate summation).

There are two bills up for discussion at the moment. the Civil Unions Bill introduces the concept and institution of a civil union and the relationships (statutory references) bill changes existing legislation to include civil union-ised couples.

This is an email a group of us have written to the honorouble Peter Dunne about his attitude towards the Civil Unions Bill and the Relationship (Statutory
References) Bill. We just thought you guys might be interested.

I'll post the rest of the correspondence next.


-Tamsyn

--- Tamsyn **** <pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au (http://nz.f528.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au&YY=8143&order=down&sort=date&pos=0)>
wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:07:53 +1200 (NZST)
> From: Tamsyn ****
> <pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au (http://nz.f528.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pulsating_bung_eye@yahoo.com.au&YY=8143&order=down&sort=date&pos=0)>
> Subject: Re: Civil Union Bill
> To: peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz (http://nz.f528.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz&YY=8143&order=down&sort=date&pos=0)
>
Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of a group of concerned New Zealand youth who are worried about your stance on the Civil Unions Bill and Relationships (Statutory
References) Bill.

We were reading through a copy of the Listener (May 15, 2004) and read your advertisement stating your opinion on the Civil Unions Bill.

You said:

"That the governement rates this issue ahead of more pressing social and economic concerns speaks volumes about its sense of priority."

In this particular case we completely agree with you. It does speak volumes about the governments sense of priority. The government is finally taking democracy and equal rights seriously.

Over ten years ago, when the government changed the Human Rights Bill to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, they committed themselves to finally giving people who do not fit into your definition of what the social norm should be, equal rights and recognition. The Civil Unions Bill is the first step to these equal rights and recognising that everyone has a place in our society.

Another quote from your advertisement is:

"...a government that imposes its prejudices on New Zealanders..."

Correct me if I am wrong but United Future is part of the government, yes? If so, are you not trying to impose your party's prejudices on the rest of New
Zealand? While New Zealand has Christian roots in its Pakeha history, this should not influence the governing of the country. New Zealand does not
combine church and state and the religious implications of "the sancitity of marriage" inflicts religious principles onto a society that is both democratic
and multi-cultural.


After looking at your website, we found an interesting point which we'd like to bring up with you.

Your website says that some of United Future's key principles are as follows:

"4.1.5. A modern multicultural society which encourages social harmony and unity through respect for individual differences and cultural diversity
and...
4.1.5.2. Which encourages responsible citizenship based on mutual respect;
4.1.5.3. Where the framework and rule of law applies equally to all."

Excuse us, Mr Dunne, but doesn't your opposition to the Civil Unions bill contradict your party's principles?

Furthermore, again in response to your advertisement in the Listener, about "community demand for the legal recognition of civil unions", the following
statistics show that there is in fact strong support for equal rights and recognition in New Zealand.

A One News/Colmar Brunton poll had 46% of New Zealanders supporting Civil Unions and just 34% against.

A 3 News poll had over 50% of respondents supporting Civil Unions.

An AC Neilsen poll of 1000 voters had 68% of New Zealanders supporting Civil Unions, and just 30% against.

A Stuff (stuff.co.nz) poll of over 4000 people had over 50% supporting Civil Unions.

Thus the firm community support for the Civil Unions Bill is clear.

Please, Mr Dunne, take seriously your responsibility to the people of this country as just one representative in our democracy.

Please join us in opposing the silliness that is opposing the Civil Unions Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill.

Yours Sincerely

Tamsyn ***
Danielle ***
Gary ****
Jessica ****
Hikurangi ****
Rachel ****
Josh ****
Tamara ****

[Taylor]

This is his reply and my reply to him. I love how he didn't address any of the issues that I brought up.... though I kinda did the same thing. :p I am yet to receive any reply to my reply to his reply... I use the word reply too often...

*****


--- Peter Dunne <Peter.Dunne@parliament.govt.nz (http://nz.f528.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Peter.Dunne@parliament.govt.nz&YY=89508&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b)>
wrote:
> Dear Tamsyn Clemerson,
>
> I am afraid you have not done your homework all that
> well.
>
> It is certainly true that I oppose the Civil Unions
> bill, and intend to continue opposing it as
> dishonest and unnecessary. But it is not true that I
> oppose the Relationships Bill, which I voted for and
> intend to continue supporting.
>
> My reasons are simple. I have long fought against
> discrimination in all its forms and see the
> Relationships Bill in many senses as the culmination
> of the Consistency 2000 project that began in the
> mid 1990s. I think it is very difficult, if not
> impossible, to argue credibly against that, and I
> will certainly not be attempting to do so. When you
> take the time to talk to people about what they are
> seeking in this area, it is clear that they want the
> removal of discrimination.
>
> The Civil Unions Bill is different. It is the
> Marriage Act in all but name, and therefore
> introduces effective same-sex marriage. The
> dishonesty is that its proponents claims (i) that is
> not not same-sex marriage, when the legislation is
> in fact identical and (ii) that ii is necessary to
> remove discriminations against non-married couples
> when in fact that is what the Relationships Bill
> does. Thus, it is not a human rights issue.
>
> I think the best outcome for all New Zealanders
> would be for the Relationships Bill to pass and the
> Civil Unions Bill to be defeated.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> Hon Peter Dunne
> MP for Ohariu Belmont
> Leader, United Future
>
> UNITED FUTURE - FOCUSING ON FAMILIES
> More information at www.unitedfuture.org.nz (http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/)
>
>


My Reply:

Dear Mr Dunne

If your main issue with the Civil Unions bill is that
it is dishonest (and that is the message that I have
understood from your email), would you support a Bill
which introduced marriage for everyone, irrespective
of gender, so that discrimination in our society would
cease?

Thank you

Tamsyn Clemerson

[Sunburst]

Yes! I kjust read in this week's paper: Nova Scotia has joined Manitoba, the Yukon, BC, Ontario, and Quebec in allowing same-sex marriage in the province!:DYess! We're gettin there, Canada!

[skywhirl]

Sweet!!

Didn't know Manitoba had joined....
Well, half of the provinces (and territories) down and 1/2 to go;) !

[Taylor]

YAY GO CANADiA. :P

Lets hope the rest of the world takes note.

[SelfControl]

Spain did this too. Yay them. But yay Canada too. I guess it might distract from the whole moosefucking thing for a bit if nothing else.

[gertie]

yet another issue the US can't seem to make head nor tails of, while other countries nearby (whether in geography and/or society) are working towards equality.

[kidicarus]

So did Saskatchewan!

[Roar73]

I wonder how long it will take the United States?

[txbarefooter]

Roar, I doubt it'll happen in this century in the US. Since bush took office, the US seems to be going backwards in lots of things compared to the rest of the world.

[issablue]

In Wisconsin an amendment is being pushed through congress that would ban not only same sex marriage but also civil unions. I met today with staff of both my district representatives, rep. Sheryl Albers and Rep. Dale Schultz. I urge any of you from Wisconsin to do the same. Look up their phone number. All that you have to say is, "I do not support the amendment that bans marriage equality." Do not think that a staff member is any different then speaking directly to the representative. They take notes on everything and will document the call.

Jonathan Dedering
www.savewisconsin.org (http://www.savewisconsin.org)

[LordInsanity]

i personally don't care if it passes or not...bur i do like the fact..that religious org will not be forced to marry them if they choose not too...by saying these it wipes out alot of the right wing religious argument..that there religious belifs are being violated

[SkeeterVT]

i personally don't care if it passes or not...bur i do like the fact..that religious org will not be forced to marry them if they choose not too...by saying these it wipes out alot of the right wing religious argument..that there religious belifs are being violated
It also will transform the gay-marriage debate in the U.S. into an inevitable battle over the constitutional separation of church and state. The existing Defense of Marriage Act, its 38 state counterparts and the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment are all illegal under the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment. They all constitute a government endorsement of an anti-gay religious doctrine.

Particularly since the Supreme Court struck down the nation's last remaining anti-sodomy laws in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), the only justification left to ban gay marriage is religious -- and that justification cannot be used without violating the First Amendment. Even arch-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia admitted as much in his biting dissent in the Lawrence decision.

So it's no longer a question of IF gay marriage will be legal nationwide in the U.S., but WHEN.

-- Skeeter

[daniel]

i personally don't care if it passes or not...
I do care! We are normal and everything should be the same for people. Of course it's not actually realistic..

[nimh]

So it's no longer a question of IF gay marriage will be legal nationwide in the U.S., but WHEN.

-- Skeeter

and yet, you still dont use the metric system

:p

[SkeeterVT]

and yet, you still dont use the metric system

:p
Touche!

-- Skeeter

[LordInsanity]

Sorry i mis-spoke......what i mean is Canada has already said gay marrige is legal in Canada...it's all this political bull going on that i don't care about.....In canada when you're Courts say what is legal(like gay marrige) then Canadains take it at face value....when politicans talk about making bills and passing it at all most Canadains don't care.....Gay marrige was made legal by the Supreme Court of CANADA last year so all's they are doing is playing catch-up with the courts

[akbal]

Currently in Kansas the Senate has approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. I believe the House has as well, which means that Kansas voters will see this issue on the ballot in April. The problem is that even though only 20-30% (depending on which poll you listen too, and ignoring the ones done by anti-gay organizations) of Kansans want this ban to pass, they are the ones that vote. Most of the younger people do not want this ban to go through, but very few of that demographic vote, either because they are too lazy or because they feel their vote doesn't count (and perhaps it truly doesn't count out here in the Bible belt). Oklahoma has already passed a constitutional ban. This doesn't mean the sane won't continue to fight this. However, I think in the end it will come down to the US Supreme Court. We can't remain in the Dark Ages forever. Gay people will not go away because they've been forbidden to legally marry, nor will they take over the country if allowed to.

[SkeeterVT]

Sorry i mis-spoke......what i mean is Canada has already said gay marrige is legal in Canada...it's all this political bull going on that i don't care about.....In canada when you're Courts say what is legal(like gay marrige) then Canadains take it at face value....when politicans talk about making bills and passing it at all most Canadains don't care.....Gay marrige was made legal by the Supreme Court of CANADA last year so all's they are doing is playing catch-up with the courts
My boyfriend of nearly 20 years is Canadian. We live 100 miles apart, with he in Montreal, Quebec and I in Burlington, Vermont. I have to admit that as an American, I've grown increasingly envious of Canada's social progressivism.

Canada isn't cursed with a determinedly power-hungry Religious Right movement, either.

You might woinder why, after nearly two decades together, I haven't "popped the question" to my significant other. Simply put, I'm not only bisexual, but I'm also polyamorous, and it wouldn't be fair to my other partners if I were to marry, since you can't marry more than one person at a time. Plus, neither my boyfriend nor I are willing to surrender our financial independence -- the biggest legal drawback to marriage.

-- Skeeter

[YES I CANNABIS]

if they truly love each other, that's all that matters
love has no sex, colour, size, age..
i find it ridiculous that they won't let people who love eachother to get married!
i hope they will allow gay marriage

[Duncan]

They're not even a real country anyway!



Blame Canada Lyrics

Artist: South Park Parents (http://www.lyricsxp.com/artist/s/south_park_parents.html)



Buy South Park Parents's CDhttp://www.lyricsxp.com/images/musicnote.gif (http://www.lyricsxp.com/service/buy/?mode=music&tag=elyrics&Go=Go&keyword=South Park Parents)
Blame Canada
South Park Parents

Times have changed,
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents,
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government, or blame society,
or should we blame the images on tv?
No!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada

With all their beady little eyes,
their flapping heads so full of lies
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
We need to form a full assault,
it's Canada's fault!

Don't blame me,
for my son Stan,
He saw the darn cartoon,
and now he's off to join the klan!
And my boy Eric once, had my picture on his shelf,
but now when I see him, he tells me to fuck myself

Well, Blame Canada!

It seems that everything's gone wrong since
Canada came along
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country anyway.

My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer, it's a true,
Instead he burned up like a piggie on a barbecue
Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctor who allowed him to expire? Heck no!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
With all their hockey hubaloo
and that bitch Anne Murray too. Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada!

The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!

Buy South Park (http://www.lyricsxp.com/service/buy/?mode=music&tag=elyrics&Go=Go&keyword=South Park Parents)

[YES I CANNABIS]

the U.S badmouthing canada..:rolleyes:

one word: BUSH

[SkeeterVT]

They're not even a real country anyway!

That's what the Quebec separatists have been saying about English Canada for years. My Quebecois boyfriend and I didn't speak to each other for a year after I found out he voted "yes" in Quebec's 1995 independence referendum.

-- Skeeter

[SkeeterVT]

In Wisconsin an amendment is being pushed through congress that would ban not only same sex marriage but also civil unions. I met today with staff of both my district representatives, rep. Sheryl Albers and Rep. Dale Schultz. I urge any of you from Wisconsin to do the same. Look up their phone number. All that you have to say is, "I do not support the amendment that bans marriage equality." Do not think that a staff member is any different then speaking directly to the representative. They take notes on everything and will document the call.

Jonathan Dedering
www.savewisconsin.org (http://www.savewisconsin.org/)I've got a better suggestion. Copy my LiveJournal blog on gay marriage and distribute it to every member of the Wisconsin Legislature. Although it's almost a year old (It was posted on March 19, 2004), it's still relevant.

-- Skeeter

http://www.livejournal.com/users/skeeter_2004/

[BogeyMeister]

Thank God! It's good to be in Wisconsin! http://hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/icon14.gif

[monosphere]

So, an interesting way to celebrate my birthday is finding out whether or not the Supreme court in my home state will allow or ban gay marriages. Here's the story from Seattle Weekly...

The United States' first great civil-rights struggle of the 21st century has arrived in Washington. On March 8, the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the legality of gay marriage. A few brave Supreme Court justices in other states have allowed us to glimpse the freedom to love—in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The resulting backlash has been frightening, both for the depth of its virulence and the vastness of the contagion. Since 1996, when President Bill Clinton and the U.S. Congress started the hate train rolling with their gleeful codification of discrimination against people based on whom they love, 38 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), including Washington in 1998 (the Legislature had to override former Gov. Gary Locke's veto to do so). Last November, President Bush and his Republican allies skillfully exploited deeply held prejudices against same-sex couples by passing, in 11 states including Oregon, a constitutional amendment outlawing the freedom to marry. The resulting election turnout by social conservatives helped assure Bush of victory in the key swing state of Ohio.

Since American voters are so determined to outlaw committed love, the best hope for freedom lies with the courts. Unfortunately, the legal system isn't set up to deliver justice 100 percent of the time. Just ask Dred Scott.

In 2004, two Superior Court judges, King County's William Downing and Thurston County's Richard Hicks, found Washington's Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Those cases—Andersen et al. v. King County and Castle v. the State of Washington—have since been combined into one, and the state government must now defend the law before the state Supreme Court. The plaintiffs challenging DOMA are 19 gay and lesbian couples. They are asking the nine justices of the state Supreme Court to affirm the lower courts' decisions.

That's a lot of power to invest in nine of our fellow citizens. When you further consider that we elect these justices—and, yet, most of us could not name a single one—the situation becomes at once ludicrous and frightening.

The state's highest court is housed in the Temple of Justice, across from the state Capitol Building on the Capitol Campus in Olympia. Asked to consider around 1,000 cases a year, the state Supreme Court usually agrees to consider around 135. Each year, in three three-month sessions, the court hears oral arguments and reads thousands of pages of legal argument.

The combination of the temple's grand Roman architecture and its setting on a hill overlooking Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains is stunning. The building and the court's rituals are designed to present nine elected officials stripped of individuality, instead embodying justice as one. The vastness of the temple, with its huge marble Doric columns, soaring ceilings, and carved-wood wainscoting, makes people seem small, almost inconsequential. The court follows strict ritual: The justices enter the courtroom in order of seniority, to the sound of a gavel being struck loudly over and over. They sit in the same proscribed places during each oral argument. They wear simple black robes that erase any distinctions of dress. Yet once the justices begin firing questions at the attorneys, their individuality asserts itself over and over, not only in the style and manner of questioning but in the substance of the issues raised as well. The relationship between the state constitution and laws, which are fixed and written down, and the individuals who must interpret them makes for a dynamic that gives life to law. It is a living, changing thing.

Court watchers, law professors, lawyers who argue before the court, and even sitting justices say this particular Supreme Court is unpredictable. Some argue its unpredictability is a failure attributable to the way the court organizes its work; others think it's a virtue, because it means that the court decides each case based on its own merits.

Each case that comes before the court is assigned to a justice, randomly through a drawing. The identity of that "assignment judge" is kept secret. After all the justices have read the legal briefs submitted by both sides and have listened to an hour or so of oral argument, the justices meet in their chambers. The junior justice (currently Jim Johnson) closes the door, and the assignment justice for that case lays out his or her argument for how the case should be decided. If the assignment justice can secure the votes of a majority of the court, he or she will write the opinion. If another member can attract five or more votes to his or her point of view, that justice ends up writing the decision. There is no time limit on debate among the justices, nor do they have to deliver their decisions according to any set schedule.

The random nature of the case assignment makes for an unpredictable court, contends noted criminal appellate attorney Tim Ford, who clerked for the state Supreme Court after law school. "No one is getting consistent assignments in areas and developing jurisprudence," he says. "It's a disincentive to both the boldness and the coherence."

Justice Bobbe Bridge, a legal centrist, says the court's unpredictability is a tribute to its fairness. "We approach each case with fresh eyes and an open mind," she says.

In the gay-marriage case, therefore, the fact that two Superior Court judges have already ruled DOMA unconstitutional is not supposed to matter. The justices are supposed to consider the case "de novo" (anew), explains William Collins, senior assistant attorney general. "No weight is given to the lower-court decisions," says Collins. The court will be asked to consider the arguments presented by both sides on their own merits.

The plaintiffs have a three-pronged attack on DOMA: that the state has no rational reason for the law and that the statute violates the state constitution in a couple of ways.

Does the state have a good reason for outlawing same-sex marriage? Defenders for any law facing a constitutional challenge must be able to argue effectively that the statute in question can pass the so-called "rational review" test (see "The Rationale for Love," Jan. 19). In defending DOMA, according to legal briefs already submitted to the high court, the state and its allies rely on the need to protect children as justification for the gay-marriage ban. Says attorney Glenn Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal foundation: "The social-science evidence is overwhelming that kids need a mom and a dad."

The problem for the state is that there are thousands of kids in Washington who already have two moms or two dads. The state allows gays and lesbians to be parents, so it's no help to children to stop their parents from getting married, argues Jenny Pfizer, senior counsel of Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group representing some of the plaintiffs. "Thousands of children have the parents they have," she says. Prohibiting same-sex marriage, she says, simply ensures that those children will have less legal stability. "It's harming children in the name of protecting them," she says.

This case, however, goes far beyond the rational-review test. It digs deep into issues of state constitutional law.
Washington's constitution gives greater liberty to state residents than the U.S. Constitution. There is no argument about that, although when former Supreme Court Justice Robert Utter joined the court in 1971, independent interpretation of state constitutions—seeing them as potentially affording rights not declared in the federal Constitution—was in its infancy. Says Utter, now retired and living in Olympia: "When I first went on the court, there was not a majority that understood the importance of approaching state constitutional issues in a jurisprudential way."

Utter changed that. Over the course of his 24 years of service on the court, Utter was a pioneer in the use of the state constitution to extend the rights and liberties of Washingtonians. For example, he authored a ruling that Washington law-enforcement officials cannot set up roadblocks and engage in random stops of drivers, as is routinely done in other states, because our state constitution spells out our right to privacy. Article I, Section 7 of the state constitution reads: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." On account of the roadblock decision and others like it, the Washington Constitution is now widely acknowledged to protect us against search and seizures that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit. The gay-marriage case is an attempt to extend freedom under the state constitution in a way never done before. Article I, Section 12 is called the privileges and immunities clause and says: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations."

Attorneys for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs argue that their clients cannot be denied marriage because that would violate the privileges and immunities clause. "The Washington Constitution is more protective than the federal Constitution of the right to be equal under the law," explains Lambda Legal's Pfizer. "Our clients want the same right that heterosexuals have. It's not a different right, it's the same right."

Assistant AG Collins says the privileges and immunities clause provides no more protection than the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, and there is no federal court ruling that grants gays and lesbians the right to marry. "For over 100 years, the [state] Supreme Court has interpreted the privileges or immunities clause to be the same as the federal equal protection clause."

Both Collins and Pfizer agree that in 2004 the state Supreme Court did extend the rights of Washingtonians under the privileges and immunities clause, in a case regarding annexations by municipalities. Essentially, Pfizer says, that earlier ruling opened the door, and her clients should walk through. Collins says the court merely opened the door for the specific set of circumstances in the annexation case.

While former Justice Utter is not familiar with the briefs in the gay-marriage case, he is enthusiastic about the use of the privileges and immunities clause in general. "The federal equal protection clause talks about treating people equally," Utter says. "The privileges and immunities clause talks about not giving people rights that other people don't have. For a long time, judges didn't make a distinction between the two—that was trouble. I'm not sure the court has it totally right yet, but they are dealing with the difference."

While the sitting justices never comment on cases before them, several recognize that, in general, the independent interpretation of the state constitution continues to be a very lively subject, and the privileges and immunities clause will become a focus of some debate because of their 2004 annexation decision.

Justice Richard Sanders, a passionate libertarian, says the privileges and immunities clause "is an underused clause of the constitution often confused with the federal equal protection clause." Sanders predicts that conservative groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Institute for Justice will use the clause in future cases. Justice Bridge agrees: "You are going to see more privileges and immunities issues coming before us. It is different and in some sense offers more protection" than the federal Constitution.

If the justices do not find that the privileges and immunities clause overturns the prohibition against gay marriage, Lambda's Pfizer hopes that the state's most famous constitutional amendment will persuade them: The Equal Rights Amendment outlaws discrimination based on gender. "A rule that restricts by sex is not justifiable," says Pfizer. Lawyers representing conservative Christian intervenors in the gay-marriage case point out that the Washington courts have already rejected this argument. In 1974, the state Court of Appeals ruled in Singer v. Hara that a ban on gay marriage did not violate the state's Equal Rights Amendment because it applied equally to both sexes.

[monosphere]

This same-sex marriage case, however, will be the first in which a Washington court with as many as four female justices considers the application of the ERA. Feminism runs deep among these women: Justice Bridge used to lobby on behalf of the Northwest Women's Law Center, one of the groups arguing on behalf of gay marriage; Justice Barbara Madsen was inspired to run for the high court by the shoddy treatment that Anita Hill received from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee when she testified that U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas, later confirmed, had sexually harassed her on the job; Justice Mary Fairhurst was president of the Washington State Bar Association, an organization whose bylaws now forbid discrimination on the basis of not only gender but also sexual orientation; and Justice Susan Owens never dreamed the state Supreme Court would have more than one woman, let alone four. (From 2003 to 2004, the court had five female justices.) How will their personal experience as women affect their interpretation of the legal issues? After all, one of the foundations for the contemporary gay-rights movement, including the right to marry, is the earlier women's liberation cause.

Justice Owens attaches a great deal of importance to the presence of women on the court. "The strength of our court is its diversity," she says. "It reflects the way the world really is." Justice Madsen says, "The conversation changes when you mix genders. It's the difference between a men's locker room and a cocktail party."

At the same time, Owens says she can't allow her personal opinions about feminism or anything else to affect her legal judgment. "You can't be an advocate when you're a judge. How do you put your opinions aside? Your legal training, your judicial training. I've been a judge for a long time. I've learned how to think like a judge."

All the judges believe that they do their best to follow the rules of the law, properly interpret the state constitution, and pay attention to previous decisions by former state Supreme Courts without regard to their personal views on matters. It is the one thing they all wish the public would understand better (and that the media would explain better when reporting on controversial cases).

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander says, "We try as best we can to approach a case without preconceived notions—let the facts and the law take us where we ought to go." Justices say that isn't always easy. Says Tom Chambers: "I haven't met a statute yet that I didn't want to rewrite or at least tinker with, but I don't get to do that."

Yet people on both sides of gay marriage think personal beliefs might influence the decision more than justices are willing to admit.

Seattle University law professor Julie Shapiro, a same-sex marriage supporter, says, "The individual judge's visceral reaction to the justice of the claim will determine which way they vote, but how they write the opinion depends on lots of things. We are all human. We are not purely rational." She says that justices do sometimes tear their hair and say, "I cannot help but reach a conclusion other than what my heart dictates," but that isn't the norm. "Opinions are rarely compelled because the law is so vast," Shapiro says.

Pastor Joseph Fuiten of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, a group that has intervened in the case to defend DOMA, says, "We have these cowboy judges remaking the West in their own image." Fuiten believes there could not possibly be any legal basis for gay marriage; therefore, if the justices find the law unconstitutional, they will just be making it up. "It will be their opinion imposed on the state of Washington," he says.

The justices refute this view of their decision making with a couple of recent high-profile cases: the "upskirt" photography issue and the "snoopy mom" case. In the former, the justices found that the Legislature's law against voyeurism did not ban men from secretly snapping photos up women's skirts in public places. Chief Justice Alexander says, "What they did was reprehensible, but it was not covered by this statute." The court unanimously overturned the men's convictions, and subsequently the Legislature rewrote the law to outlaw the practice.

In the snoopy mom case, a woman listened in on her teenager's conversation with her boyfriend, during which the young man provided clues to his involvement in a robbery. The mother later testified against the young man, and he was convicted. The high court unanimously overturned the conviction because the mother had violated the daughter's privacy rights by eavesdropping. Says Alexander, "The snoopy mom case was not close legally, but it's tough to explain to your barber." He says that one night after the decision, he was surfing cable channels and came upon Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who was calling the justices "pinheads" for their decision. "I'm a big boy, I can take it," laughs Alexander.

In both of these cases, in any event, the court clearly ruled against the personal feelings of the justices and in favor of the law.

Some say it's not so much personal feeling as political machinations that enter into high court calculus.

Probate attorney Theresa Schrempp, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Concerned Women of America supporting the ban on same-sex marriage, thinks politics sway the court. "Judges are like everybody else," Schrempp says. "Judges are influenced by popular opinion sometimes." In this case, Schrempp says, a lot of social conservatives like her think it's the popular opinion of liberal King County that will sway the court. "It doesn't make any difference what we do, King County's values are going to win," she says. "Courts are making decisions way outside the mainstream. It's aggravating."

Well-known trial attorney, Democratic political activist, and gay-marriage supporter Franklin Shoichet also believes politics shape judicial opinions. He quotes satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional bartender, Martin T. Dooley, on the behavior of justices: "The Supreme Court, they follow the election returns." Says Shoichet: "Judges take guide from the public mood. Are they going to be spooked by what happened around the country in November?" Shoichet thinks the November passage of 11 state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex matrimony might heavily influence the outcome of the case here. "It's going to come down to how much do these people on the court think they are too far out in front of the public. They may duck the issue," Shoichet says.

Asked to respond to that assessment, Justice Charles Johnson, the court's senior member, says the issue boils down to a simple question and answer: "Do we have courage? Yes. Public reaction we can never predict. We follow and apply the law the best we can."

University of Washington adjunct law professor Hugh Spitzer, who filed an amicus brief in support of gay marriage, agrees. "They are not afraid of the voters," he says. "They have rendered many unpopular decisions, and they will continue to do so."

The other thing the justices stress is that political terms like liberal and conservative, or Democrat and Republican, don't enter into deliberations or their understanding of the job. Chief Justice Alexander says, "I don't know the politics of my colleagues. There are four or five of them—I don't even have an inkling."

Court watchers like to talk about conservative and liberal courts, however. In that context, liberal courts, like the U.S. Supreme Court under former Chief Justice Earl Warren, are known for jurisprudence that extends rights and liberties beyond what is specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Conservative courts, like the current U.S. Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, more closely adhere to the actual language of the U.S. Constitution. Within that framework, the Washington Supreme Court is considered middle of the road. Says Seattle University law professor John Strait: "It's generally a pretty centrist court. No one has carved out a strong ideology except [Richard] Sanders. The decisions don't tend to be very far outside the mainstream."

Given all that we know about these justices and the gay-marriage case before them, how might they rule? Few experts will make a prediction. But former state Court of Appeals judge and noted appellate attorney Charlie Wiggins says the high court will uphold DOMA. "It's going to be a hard case," he says. "How often do they strike down social statutes on constitutional grounds?" He thinks the key to the plaintiffs' argument is that the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause is more expansive than the federal equal protection clause. His study of the Washington State Constitutional Convention shows the privileges and immunities clause was not discussed at all, weakening any contention that the drafters meant it to grant more rights. "The discussion of the privileges and immunities clause in 1889 certainly didn't include gay rights," he says.

Gonzaga Law School professor Mary Pat Treuthart thinks the court will toss out the prohibition against same-sex marriage. "I'm the Catholic schoolgirl, eternal optimist," admits Treuthart, but there's more to her argument than that. She believes the plaintiffs will win because the state doesn't have a strong defense. "What are the compelling justifications to prohibit same-sex marriage?" She doesn't think the state's arguments about protecting children are strong, because the evidence doesn't show any harm to kids from same-sex parenting. Moreover, she argues, the state hasn't presented any strong evidence that there would be real harm to the institution of matrimony by allowing same-sex marriage. She says the anti-same-sex-marriage people know their legal cases are weak. "The opponents to same-sex marriage are now trying to avoid the courts," Treuthart says. "They are more comfortable trying to take this to the body politic—going the [constitutional] amendment route."

Fortunately, it's hard to amend Washington's constitution. First, you need a vote of two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature. After that, an amendment goes before the voters. If the state Supreme Court does overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, the opponents of gay marriage will try to push a constitutional amendment, but it won't be easy.

For anyone favoring gay marriage, it's hard not to foresee a time when its prohibition is viewed as archaic and appalling—as appalling as the old laws against miscegenation seem today, part of a shameful past. But that is not the world we live in now, and nine elected judges in Olympia, if they are true to their word, are not approaching the gay-marriage decision that way, with that or any other bias. They will read the state constitution, read the state law, hear the arguments, and decide, with detachment, how state law should regard love—in the abstract, without emotion, as though no one dear to them is affected. It sounds humanly impossible. But that is what the law expects of them.

[monosphere]

Sorry about that. Long story. But it's not just hitting "close" to home anymore for me. This IS my home. Either way their decision goes, I'm getting drunk that night. Either to celebrate or to numb me. Let's hope it's the former of the two.

[shadowd_dreamr]

Now gay/lezbian couples can get married Anywhere in Canada!! :D.

Canada is the fourth Country to make gay and lezbian marriages legal :)..

[TheMistress]

They did?? Do you have any news links??

[Shaitan]

cbc.ca or canoe.ca

It's passed the Senate and is good as law as of right now.

Mind you - this refers to marraige as a civil construct. You cannot sue a Roman Catholic Church because it refuses to perform the ceremony. The law does NOT mandate that anyone HAS to marry anyone to anyone else - just that if two people want to enter into a civil marraige contract that is valid.

[TheMistress]

:)Im happy now.

[ihmurria]

what are the other three countries? :) yay, the gov't finally did something good for a change

[vimmeroony]

Spain and Netherlands? and Belgium? I think

[Cold_Phusion85]

cool

[Jorma's Branches]

I think Spain decided the same recently as well.

[SageDreamer]

With any luck, this will put some pressure on other countries (are you listening, United States of America?) to do likewise.

[TheRealPamela]

I am sure you all have heard of this nonsense. It is basically just homophobes trying to get discrimination written INTO the Constitution. Rick Santorum and Bill Frist are at the forefront of this bs. It is thinly veiled as having fathers more involved with their children, etc.

This isn't about marriage. It is about basic American rights. The glbt community pays taxes, votes, cares about issues- but is being treated like a group of sub-humans. It seems these politicians would rather have kids grow up in an abusive woman/man household than have them adopted by a loving g/l/b/t couple. I cannot see how anyone says this is NOT discrimination.

http://hrc.org/

How can we get the message out? How do you feel about this issue?

[lutsko67]

Thank U 4 the info and the link. Very informative. I use 2 live in West Palm Beach Fl. and the laws 4 non-str8s suck. I moved back 2 the state where I grew up in ;(Pa. )at least here we can be foster parents and adopt kids. As long as u can open ur heart and give a kid a home, it should not matter if the peeps there r str8s or gay/lez. Here at least, If u r willing, 2 share ur heart and ur home, there are plenty of children who need us.

[TheRealPamela]

I am really surprised more people in the Gay Forum haven't commented on it. Maybe it is old news in the Gay Community. I know they (Republican Religious "Right") have been at it for some time, I think it is just recently being more aggresively approached....

[mushie18]

Obviously, I oppose this.


However, I don't think there is much I can do. I don't vote for too many republicans, and the ones I do are moderate on gay issues. We don't really have much say as to what goes on in D.C.. Just have to wait it out, and vote for politicians that represent my beliefs...