

In the wake of
the Washington State supreme court decision Wednesday to
uphold the state's same-sex marriage ban, one of the state's
gay legislators vowed to introduce a marriage-equality
bill. But a dispirited state representative, Seattle
Democrat Ed Murray, said he wasn't optimistic it would
pass anytime soon, the Associated Press reports.
"I'll introduce a marriage equality bill,"
Murray, the senior of the state's four openly gay
legislators, said, "but I don't expect it to pass next
session or for many sessions." In its sharply divided
5–4 ruling, the court left open the possibility that
the legislature could reverse its 1998 Defense of
Marriage Act and legalize same-sex marriage.
Although Washington is known for being a
progressive state, public-opinion polls show a
majority of voters there oppose same-sex marriage, and
many politicians, including Democratic governor Chris
Gregoire, remain leery of the issue. "The sacrament of
marriage is between two people and their faith,"
Gregoire told the AP, adding that she's open to
offering more marriage-like benefits to gay couples.
"It is not the business of the state."
Except that it is the business of the state,
which is why the 19 gay and lesbian couples in the
case before the supreme court were suing. "I believe
that our constitution should treat all of its citizens the
same, and in this case the court was willing to treat
my family differently than other families," Brenda
Bauer of Seattle, who sued along with her longtime
partner, Celia Castle, told the AP. "Today's a
pretty sad day for our family."
Meanwhile, more gay rights groups and
supporters denounced the court's decision.
"Today's ruling makes no sense," the Reverend Mike
Schuenemeyer, national minister for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender concerns for the United Church of
Christ, said in a statement Wednesday. "The court has
apparently chosen not to rely on the state's
constitution but on one particular religious view of marriage."
He added: "In this decision, the majority failed
to respect the freedom of religion, equal protection
under the law, and the right to privacy. They have
denied justice and placed couples and their families
seeking the right to marry in harm's way."
"America is built on the values of fairness and
equality, and the long march toward realizing that
dream continues," said Human Rights Campaign president
Joe Solmonese in a statement. "While Washington
families will continue to be denied basic fairness under the
law, millions of fair-minded citizens will continue to
press on for full equality. Working with Equal Rights
Washington and leaders in the state, we'll now work to
ensure their voices are heard in the legislature as
this now moves to the statehouse."
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to
Marry, said, "If, as our society believes, marriage is
so important for nongay families and a fundamental
right under the constitution, why isn't that true for gay
couples? Why, when gay couples are involved, does the
freedom to marry become so trivial that their
exclusion only warrants the lowest level of 'highly
deferential' review? By 5–4, these judges failed to
do their job. Now the legislators must do their job,
acting to end this discrimination, while we do ours,
speaking out about who gay families are and why
marriage matters." (The Advocate)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.