Have judge will travel

Apparently the same idiots that made the New York ruling taveled to Washington to deliver that ruling as well...

Brings to mind an image of a bumper sticker I saw that said "Arguing with them is like running a race in the Special Olympics. They might win, but in the end, they're still retarded."

(Olympia, Washington) The state of Washington's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 5 - 4 split decision the justices ruled that only opposite-sex couples are biologically capable of having children and the legislature acted reasonably and in the best interests of children.

The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal DOMA and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

In a dissent, Justice Bobbe J Bridge said that " if the DOMA is really about the 'sanctity' of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief. If the DOMA purports to further some State purpose of preserving the family unit, as the plurality would interpret it, then I cannot imagine better candidates to fulfill that purpose than the same-sex couples who are the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions."

Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004. Two lower courts ruled that the state law barring gay marriage was unconstitutional and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005. (story).

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the same-sex couples had argued that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional - pointing to a 34 word clause in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

LGBT civil rights groups were quick to denounce the ruling.

"The American family is strengthened when the legal responsibilities of marriage which protect children, stabilize homes and secure relationships are provided equally to all couples," said Jo Wyrick, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director. "Washington State has an economic and social interest in promoting the stability of the family, and it is stunning that the Washington State Supreme Court would base its ruling on personal opinion rather than on law."

Had the court struck down the existing law it could have been more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex." (story)

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February. (story) Garden State Equality said today's ruling in Washington will have no effect on the New Jersey case.

"On LGBT rights as well as on other social issues, New Jersey law has long been different from the laws of other states" said the organization's chair Steven Goldstein. "Additionally, New Jersey courts have been among the most fair-minded in the country, from allowing same-sex couples to adopt jointly to holding that the Boy Scouts may not discriminate against a gay scoutmaster.
A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. (story) The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Decision in Washington Marriage Case Due Today

(Olympia, Washington) A nervous countdown has begun as same-sex couples, gay foes, and state legislators await this morning's Washington state Supreme Court expected ruling on marriage.

At issue is a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004 and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005.

The case hinges on how the nine justices interpret 34 words in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The court could throw out the state's law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, uphold the existing law or say that the issue should be determined by the legislature.

If the court strikes down the existing law the result could end up being more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law. If the court hands down a ruling favorable to gay couples the state could see thousands of same-sex couples from across the country heading to Washington to wed.

The announcement that the court would issue its ruling this morning was made Tuesday in a short statement by the justices.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February.

A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Editorial on that HORRIBLE NY Ruling

Horrible Judicial Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage in New York
by Matthew Rothschild

Equality took one on the chin Thursday.

The decision by New York State’s highest court not to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples was pathetic, so backward and irrational was the reasoning.

The main argument was that heterosexual marriage is better for the kids.

Here are the exact words: “Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.”

Since when do state supreme court justices rely on intuition?

And the logic of the court’s decision is to accord lesser rights to divorced parents or those who have lost a spouse, since, as a consequence, their kid “will not have, before his or her eyes, every day” that living model of idealized masculinity and femininity. And what, pray tell, are these models?

There are crude gender stereotypes lurking between the lines of this decision.

What’s more, doctors who deal with kids all the time have rebutted the court’s central claim. “The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual,” the group stated in February 2002.

In fact, it is in the interests of the child, the pediatricians said, that same-sex couples be accorded legal equality. “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. It supports “the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and the welfare of their children.”

New York’s highest court has fundamentally misread what a child really needs. Not a set of Ken and Barbie doll mom and dad, but loving, caring parents who are a constant, trustworthy presence.

This is not a chromosomal issue.

To reduce it to that is to mistake genitals for parental skills.

Matthew Rothschild has been with The Progressive since 1983. His McCarthyism Watch web column has chronicled more than 150 incidents of repression since 9/11.© 2006 The Progressive

Arguments for Summary Judgment

Well, our case was argued to a judge on Thursday, July 13th, in a motion for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute, just the law.

So the county attorney tells the judge that, while we were married in Canada, we don't have a "real" Canadian marriage because we don't actually live in Canada.

With that in mind, I'm thinking I shouldn't have had to pay all that money for a divorce in this country because my ex and I were married in Okinawa, Japan and, after all, since we weren't actually LIVING there, it wasn't a real Japanese marriage anyway. His argument continued to be that a) we don't have a "real" marriage and b) since the Court of Appeals ruling last week, the case had no business even being heard. This guy is really a putz!

Here's the news article (which I've chopped up to eliminate my own name, Lisa's name, and my employer's name).

(July 14, 2006) — A judge reserved decision Thursday on a lawsuit brought by a [my employer] employee over the extension of health care benefits to her lesbian partner.

After listening to arguments from lawyers on both sides, state Supreme Court Justice [judge's name] said he'll issue a written decision in a lawsuit filed 18 months ago against the college by [me].

The lawsuit, which argues that [employer] discriminated against [me] based on her gender because it refused benefits to the female partner she was married to, while routinely giving health benefits to heterosexual married couples, is the first of its kind filed in [my] County.

[Lisa and I] were married in Canada in 2004, three years after their relationship was formalized in a civil union in Vermont.

In 2004, [I] sought to have [Lisa] included in her health care coverage. [Employer], however, said they couldn't grant the request because the [employer's] contract with the Civil Service Employees Association, which covers [me], didn't address benefits for domestic partners.

[I] sued in January 2005. But a new contract between the [employer] and the union, which took effect Jan. 1, 2006, extended benefits to employees' same-sex partners.

Lawyer [my lawyer], who represents [me] in a lawsuit brought on her behalf by the New York Civil Liberties Union, asked [the judge] for a judgment that New York recognizes the validity of marriages solemnized in other countries.

Although the state Court of Appeals ruled July 6 that the state constitution provides no rights for same-sex couples to marry, [my lawyer] said that ruling doesn't block [the judge] from finding that the college should have recognized the Canadian marriage.

[Putz lawyer], a deputy county attorney, said [employer] acted on a good-faith basis because coverage to same-sex partners wasn't in the union contract. The issue now is moot, he said, because the new contract allows coverage.

What has been hammered and hammered and hammered into this putz's head (seemingly to no avail) is that the previous contract contained NO LANGUAGE that would enable ANY spouse (same or opposite gender) to be placed on the benefits package, yet the employer routinely offered those benefits to opposite gendered married couples as a matter of policy. The discrimination entered when they refused to allow it for me, stating that the contract didn't allow it, even though they conceded that the contract didn't specifically allow it for opposite gendered spouses, either.

Later they tried to hide behind DOMA, which is for federal benefits only.

I think that this judge will rule against us, as he's ultra conservative, although his body language changed from folded arms sitting back in his chair, to leaning forward in his chair and engaging my lawyer in conversation and points of law. It's sort of what we expect and sort of what we've been hoping for, so that the case can make it to the state level (same level that issued such a terrible ruling last week).

And, given the mindset by the 4 judges that voted against marriage equality because of the need to procreate, we can argue that I've been there, done that, and have done my part in procreation for this nation and that, like the 58 year old woman that works for me who recently remarried, I should have the same rights to marry after having raised my children as she does, since we're both post-menopausal and can't bear children any more either. (By the way, Lisa is medically unable to bear children, so does that mean she couldn't marry a man, too?)

We expect a ruling within the next couple of weeks, I guess.

When it comes in, I'll post it here.

Crushing, Disappointing Defeat in NY

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that the state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages as a constitutional issue, and such law should be left to the legislature. However, in part of the ruling, the issue of comity is discussed (that is, recognition of marriages outside the jurisdiction).

The other side in our case has already filed for a dismissal of the case.

Click on the title of this post for the news article.

More later.