Washington
7/26/06: UUA President Decries WA Supreme Court Ruling on Marriage Equality
High Court Ruling Imminent in Freedom to Marry Case
Summary: The case of Castle v. State was argued before the Washington Supreme Court in March of 2005. A finding in favor of the plaintiffs would make equal marriage the law of the state and would make Washington the second state in the U.S. to support full marriage equality. Meanwhile, anticipation of the Court's ruling was heighteed when, on January 27, 2006, the State Senate passed landmark legislation that ends discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing, and lending. The bill expands the Washington Civil Rights Act, protecting minorities from discrimination based on race, religion, gender and disabilities.
Background: In March 2004, six same-sex couples asked the King County License Bureau for marriage licenses. The licenses were denied and county official Ron Sims urged the couples to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act, so that the issue of marriage equality could move forward in the courts, rather than in the tumultuous way things were happening in other states.
Out of this action, the Religious Coalition for Equality was created to offer a progressive voice of faith, to counter the fearful, intolerant message of the radical religious right. Formed by Christians, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Muslims, Buddhists, and clergy of other faiths, RCE soon had a statement of faith signed by over 200 clergy. Virtually all Unitarian Universalist clergy in Washington State signed the statement of faith and have participated in the activities of RCE.
In August and September, 2004, two lower court judges struck down the state's Defense of Marriage Act law , ruling that same-sex marriage must be legalized. Those rulings were stayed pending appeals, and the state Supreme Court allowed the cases to bypass the appeals court.
The Washington state legislature had passed Defense of Marriage legislation in 1998, supporting a traditional definition of marriage. But the political and social climate has since changed, with four countries—the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and the U.S.—legalizing equal marriage in at least one jurisdiction. A majority of Canada's provinces now support equal marriage.
In advance of the Washington high court's consideration of the motion, 2,000 Washington citizens, many of them Unitarian Universalist clergy and congregants, converged on Olympia, Washington, on February 14, 2005, for a rally organized by the Religious Coalition for Equality, advocating for marriage equality and equal rights for all couples. Speakers including Spokane UU minister the Rev. Richard Erhardt, offered perspectives on the Bible and homosexuality, why marriage equality is important, and the dangers for sexual minorities without civil protections. Legislative advocacy trainings were conducted by clergy and lobbyists, including the Rev. Kit Ketcham of Vashon/Whidbey, a member of the steering committee of RCE. After the rally, members of the crowd visited lawmakers from most legislative districts in Washington State as well as Governor Christine Gregoire, to discuss the Anderson-Murray Antidiscrimination Bill, House Bill 1515 , which would protect sexual minorities’ civil rights, such as housing, employment, etc.
On March 8, 2005, the Washington Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a same-sex marriage case in which eleven couples sought the right to marry (Castle v. State ). The American civil Liberties Union, the Northwest Women's Law Center, and Lamda Legal, all of which brought the case, argued, "Same-sex couples make the same kinds to commitments to each other as different-sex couples and need the many protections for their families that marriage provides." Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington said, "This case is about basic fairness for all families."
As Evan Wolfson, Exeuctive Director of Freedom to Marry wrote in his recent op-ed piece for Washington's "The Stranger," "The right way to end discrimination in marriage is to, well, end discrimination in marriage. Not to create something new, different, lesser, or other. Not to take our nation, again, down the path of separate and unequal treatment for some. Not to say to some couples and their kids here in Washington, “You come in the front,” while telling others to go around back. Couples seeking the freedom to marry deserve a clear and simple answer: marriage—same rules, same responsibilities, same respect."
A ruling from the state Supreme Court is expected imminently.
Media coverage:
For further information:
Additional Resources:
Archival Coverage from the UUA:
|