More on the
"Wedlock Deadlock"
I'll admit that the silliness of the name of this thread had turned me off to it, but I think I'm over that now, and when I happened to find the Honorable Judge William Downing of King County Superior Court in Seattle refer to the situation as "Wedlock Deadlock" I just had to grin and report the situation. I suppose that I'll just have to accept that this is a domestic issue that rhymes well for whatever reason.
Anyhow, getting on to the point, the phrase mentioned earlier was used in Judge Downing's recent Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgement, on the case of Andersen and Christian V. King County, the full text of which can be found here:
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Andersen v. Sims.pdf
It's a bit long, so I'll sumerise the case, as it's relatively simple. This is a test case set up by several gay couples to challenge Washington's laws, claiming that certain laws, those which spacificaly prohibit same sex unions, are in violation of Washington's state constitution.
As a more recent historic development, record-keeping regarding the
solemnizing of marriages and of their ongoing status has become a government function. Such state recognition of a marriage is known as “civil marriage” and it is the right to marry in this third sense that the plaintiffs now seek.
Finally, plaintiffs contend
that the challenged laws make an unjustifiable distinction based upon gender in
violation of Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment (Constitution, Article XXXI).
Fairly straight forward. The plaintiffs say that the state has no right to deny them the equal protection that they're guaranteed under the state constitution.
Primarily within the past century, many legal rights and responsibilities
have become tied into a person’s marital status. Under Washington’s community
property laws (R.C.W. 26.16), for example, ownership of property and rights to
income are determined with reference to marital status. Rights to inherit property
may similarly be keyed into marital status (R.C.W. 11.04 and 11.28). When a
civil marriage is dissolved, there is a right to court oversight to provide an orderly
and equitable distribution of assets and obligations and to protect the best
interests of any children involved (R.C.W. 26.09). The laws provide married
people with benefits in the areas of employment (e.g., R.C.W. 77.65 which allows
a surviving spouse to renew a deceased’s commercial fishing license), insurance
(R.C.W. 48.44), retirement benefits (R.C.W. 41.40) and state taxes (R.C.W.
82.45) as well as rights to bring wrongful death actions (R.C.W. 4.20) and assert
the spousal testimonial privilege in court (R.C.W. 5.60.060). These are but a few
of the many instances where marital status, under Washington law, has a
substantial effect on an individual’s rights and responsibilities. Plaintiffs’ counsel
claims to have counted over 300 rights and responsibilities legally attached to the
status of being civilly married and no one has offered any quibble over that
figure.
These rights are what are being fought over, real tangible legal rights. No one can stop homosexuals from living together in marriage, if they want to do it, then they'll do it, but of course some people feel it necessary to go out of their way to deny them certain privileges and considerations that go along with that decision.
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.
Well good for Washington, I say, even if there really isn't much of an alternative conclusion to reach.
The mechanism of this remedy could take different
forms (i.e., marriage or a newly created “civil union” status) so long as the
plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, were receiving precisely the same
benefits under the law that marriage makes available.
Imagine that, people must be allowed to exercise the rights that they are guaranteed! If only we had some sort of national document which guaranteed such rights as liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equal protection, just as the state of Washington does. This whole same-sex marriage battle would seem rather silly if that were the case!
It should be noted that Judge Downing notes in this same document that Civil Unions wouldn't really be able to convey
all of the privileges of marriage, even if they were cleverly designed to make a good attempt at it, it's simply the way the law is written; There are guarantees for those who are married, and for spouses, not for civil partners. He carries that idea out a little farther and makes a good point about the social implications, as well.
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.
Or in other words, the real danger to marriage is not in letting people who love and are committed to one another to marry, but in trying to create dumbed down versions, or a sort of "Marriage Lite" if you will. I honestly don't know if I agree with that, but it's an interesting perspective at the least, and I certainly do hate talk of civil unions.
Judgment shall be deemed entered for the plaintiffs, on the terms outlined
in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the matter shall be certified under
Civil Rule 54(b) for immediate appeal.
DATED this 4th day of August 2004.
Well, there you have it. Next I believe that it's off to the Washington State Supreme Court for review/appeal. I must say that this case, just as the well known ruling in Massachusetts, are beginning to set a very progressive precedent which, to a degree was already there, but people still need to open their eyes too; If law doesn't prohibit it, then it is legal!
So, short of some new legislation in Washington, or a racially different interpretation by the State Supreme Court, it seems that same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Washington.
I've got to admit that reading about this case has given me new perspective on how one might go about challenging state laws. At the moment I'm helping a friend to see about launching a campaign to get an initiative on the ballot to repeal Arizona's prohibition on same-sex marriage. He's the one who pointed me to this case just tonight, in fact, and I really regret that he had to run off to work, I'm looking forward to discussing this with him.