Washington State high court set to rule on gay rights

[davidinalameda]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/03/MNGSJGGJ2I1.DTL

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to marry same-sex couples -- a defiant act two years ago that soon was emulated in Portland, Ore., and New Paltz, N.Y. -- gay rights supporters in Seattle demanded that their elected officials do the same.

Instead, King County Executive Ron Sims placed an unusual phone call.

"He said, 'I don't want to break the law. Will you please sue me to strike down the law?' " said Lisa M. Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center. "That's not a call we get very often."

The Washington State Supreme Court is expected to rule any day in the case that resulted and a second, related lawsuit. Not since the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts in 2003 ordered that state's legislature to legalize same-sex marriage has a gay marriage case drawn as much attention. Legal experts say the rulings may serve as a gauge of the national mood and could prompt another battle in Congress over a federal marriage amendment.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. I've given up holding my breath

In fact, I am putting together an ad blitz and several open letters that will go out if (when?) the State Supreme Court has failed to issue a verdict by March 8, 2006, one year after it heard oral arguments.

[jonolover]

2. Yes, the court could do that.

Not issue any ruling whatsoever. In that case, lower courts of King and Thurston counties which did rule DOMA unconstitutional (but rulings were stayed because of the pending High Court case) could reinstate their decisions which would make gay marriages in those counties valid and legal.

Someone, correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I asked about this very situation a few months ago

The consensus is that since the state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments, the matter is on hold until an opinion is issued. There is no mandate for the Court to rule, and any attempt to force the issue would result back in the hands of the State Supreme Court, who could continue to shelf the issue indefinitely. Ultimately, the Court could sit on the issue until Hell freezes over and no one could do squat about it. Except take advantage of the fact that, in Washington, judges are elected.

That, I think, is the chief reason why a ruling is taking so long. No matter what the decision is, it will royally piss off close to half the state and all of the Supreme Court judges will face very stiff, vitriolic competition in the normally sedate judicial races this fall.

Personally, I think the best we can hope for is that the Court will punt to the Legislature in the same way the Vermont Court did, probably just after the lawmakers complete their session at the end of March*. That would shift voter anger away from the judges and, IMO, all but guarantee a new Court come December.


* The Washington Constitution establishes that each Legislature convenes twice each biennium, first in a "long" session of 105 days each odd numbered year and then in a "short" session of 60 days each even numbered year. The extra time is for the creation of the state's biennial budget. The governor can call special sessions (which has tended to happen more often than not) but only to complete unfinished business; with each special session, the governor must set forth an agenda and no other business is permitted to be raised. In 2006, the session begins on January 9th and will end on or before March 31.