http://www.courts.wa.gov/5-4 to uphold the ban.
*Sighs.* Four rational people, three ambivalent who suggest legislature create a law granting the right to same-sex marriage, two disgusting homophobes. And the biggest group loses because group ambivalent decided to wimp out and subscribe to the awful, piss-poor arguments presented in favor of the ban.
Fairhurst outlined the main problems with the arguments when she issued her dissent. The trial was not supposed to be over whether heterosexual marriages provide a benefit to society. Upholding DOMA on the basis of that it will "encourage heterosexual marriages, which encourage procreation" is insane. Purely insane. If DOMA were struck down, heterosexual marriages would still be perfectly legal. Allowing same-sex marriage does not hinder these goals, and banning it will not somehow make gay people turn straight and enter heterosexual marriages for the purpose of procreation. The arguments used, in fact, are invalid as it has been already ruled in the past that marriage does not require children and that those who are incapable of reproducing can legally marry. Furthermore, to not allow same-sex couples to marry only hurts the children who are already being raised by same-sex couples, whereas it would not affect children being raised by heterosexual couples in the slightest.
I remain fully convinced that heterosexual marriage is currently illegal in Washington State. The privileges and immunities clause of the Washington State Constitution states that no rights shall be conferred upon a class of people that is not also granted to every other class of people. Thus, for a male to not be allowed to marry a male must mean that a female may not marry a male, and vice versa. This is furthered by the Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees non-discrimination based on sex. The courts can whine all they like about how "it's okay because it's being applied equally! Neither sex can marry the same sex!" This is, again, insane, because to apply that logic would mean that it's okay to have some jobs that only women are allowed to do and some jobs that only men are allowed to do, and since it's being applied equally, it's all right. Bullshit, man. A male cannot marry a male whereas a female can, & vice versa. That's blatant sex discrimination.
As a trans person I'm highly disturbed by the DOMA because of its listing of "man" and "woman." This opens itself up to legal distinctions about who is a man and who is a woman. That frightens me. Also as a trans person, prior to transitioning it will be only legal for me to marry a male, and after transitioning it will only be legal for me to marry a female. Say it with me: insanity.
One of the most bizarre parts of the arguments presented to uphold the ban was the idea that gays and lesbians are somehow not a distinct class with immutable qualities that bring them harm as a minority. WHAT THE ********, DUDES.
Thank you Justices Fairhurst, Bridge, Chambers and Owens. You guys tried, and you were fighting the good fight. But could you please have convinced just one more person?
sad
Reply
