advertising
Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times Politics
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events

E-mail David   /  About   /  From the archive

All blogs and discussions ››

January 9, 2007

Gay marriage debate to return to Olympia

Posted by David Postman at 8:34 AM

The Legislature's five openly gay members are taking up the state Supreme Court's many hints that lawmakers could craft a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Thursday, the five Democrats — Sen. Ed Murray and Reps. Joe McDermott, Jim Moeller, Jamie Pedersen and Rep. Dave Upthegrove — will hold a press conference in Olympia to unveil legislation "to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples," according to a release yesterday. They also will propose a different approach, with a bill to extend partnership benefits to same-sex couples.

Since July, when the state Supreme Court upheld a gay marriage ban, there's been much talk about what the next approach would be by supporters of same-sex marriages. The Democrats seem to want to provide two options to lawmakers.

And you can be sure that opponents will say this issue was settled by the state Supreme Court. Hardly. In a splintered decision, the court upheld the ban. But several justices went out of their way to say that in upholding the ban, they were not saying the Legislature could not legalize gay marriage.

Writing in the lead opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen said the Defense of Marriage Act met "the minimum scrutiny required by the constitution." And she added:

However, given the clear hardship faced by same sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander filed a two-paragraph concurrence, largely, it seemed, to point out that the Legislature has the power to do what it wants with marriage:

I quickly add, though, that there is nothing in the opinion that I have signed which should be read as casting doubt on the right of the Legislature or the people to broaden the marriage act or provide other forms of civil union if that is their will.

Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Marketplace

advertising

advertising