by Goldy, 07/26/2006, 8:07 AM

Five to four upholding DOMA. Madsen, Alexander, C. Johnson, J. Johnson and Sanders in the majority; Fairhurst, Chambers, Owens and Bridge dissent.

UPDATE:
I’m still reading through the opinions, and I emphasize the plural because there are a lot of them. Justice Barbara Madsen wrote the majority plurality opinion to which Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson signed on in concurrence. Chief Justice Alexander then added a brief concurring opinion stating that nothing in Madsen’s opinion should be construed to cast doubt on the right of the legislature or the people to broaden the definition of marriage.

All this wasn’t good enough though for Justices Jim Johnson and Richard Sanders, who had to produce their own separate concurring opinion (authored by Johnson) berating the rest of the court for even giving the subject serious thought.

This is a difficult case only if a court disregards the text and history of the state and federal constitutions and laws in order to write new laws for our State’s citizens. Courts are not granted such powers under our constitutional system. Our oath requires us to uphold the constitution and laws, not rewrite them.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and every Washington citizen has a constitutional right to enter into such a marriage, 1 subject only to limited regulation under the police power (for example, restricting underage or close family marriage). This understanding of marriage has been continuously recognized throughout the history of the United States and of the state of Washington, including Washington territorial law. The unique and binary biological nature of marriage and its exclusive link with procreation and responsible child rearing has defined the institution at common law and in statutory codes and express constitutional provisions of many states.

So I guess what Johnson is saying is that it’s irresponsible to rear children in a same-sex household? This is the kind of moralistic, authoritarian court the BIAW and the religious right are trying to buy.

Finally there were three separate dissenting opinions from Justices Mary Fairhurst, Tom Chambers and Bobbe Bridge. Fairhurst wrote a passionate dissent, signed on to by Justices Susan Owens, Bridge and Chambers. Here are a few of the juicier excerpts:

The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests.

[...]

The relevant question is not whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our traditions that it is a fundamental right, but whether the freedom to choose one’s own life partner is so rooted in our traditions.

[...]

Unfortunately, the plurality and concurrence are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA’s discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination.

Fairhurst then closes by quoting Justice Brandeis: “We must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.”

I concur. (With Brandeis.)

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Man there’s a lot of stuff to read here, and I’m no constitutional scholar, so I’m not really in a position to provide an authoritative analysis on legal grounds. However, I must say that I am disappointed, though not surprised.

Perhaps common law and our Constitution do give us the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians in this way. I would hope not, but perhaps they do. And if so, that just strikes me as a sad injustice.

Civil marriage is a contract that confers certain legal rights on the participants, and I simply cannot see how same-sex marriage in any way threatens the rights of heterosexual couples. At the same time, same-sex couples will continue to live together and raise children as if they were legally married, regardless of this decision, and it’s hard to understand the state’s interest in denying these families the same rights accorded to others.

Essentially, Justice Fairhurst is correct. The Court just upheld the right of the state to discriminate against gays and lesbians. If those who are offended, disturbed or even disgusted by homosexuality want to celebrate this decision, well, that’s up to them.

Personally, I’m disappointed.

97 Responses to “WA Supremes uphold state ban on gay marriage”

1. ArtFart spews:

11 “If marriage is about making more babies, what happens to the marriages of a great many hetero couples that cannot have children? Are their marriages nullified??”

The Vatican published another piece a few weeks ago which would appear to state that yes, sexual union without the possibility of children is inherently sinful. Hmmm…does this mean that postmenopausal women should henceforth keep their legs cross.

A lot of us in Rome’s flock just cringe and hope the dudes in the red hats will come to their senses.

2. ArtFart spews:

Canada’s probably going to make gay marriage illegal again unless they’re smart enough to dump Harper.

3. Rujax spews:

Like you, pooop?

4. Mike Webb Sucks spews:

Best comments so far:

Chambers, Owens and Alexander are up for reelection.

Commentby ahha— 7/26/06@ 8:51 am

Wow, like that’s going to make any difference. Why do moonbats want to legislate from the bench when the people elected to create te laws do what they’re supposed to do?

e Washington State Constitution is clear:

ARTICLE XXXI
SEX EQUALITY – RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

SECTION 1 EQUALITY NOT DENIED BECAUSE OF SEX.
Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.

Period.

Commentby Daddy Love— 7/26/06@ 12:09 pm

Daddy Love: Show me where that involves Marriage? Nothing in the constitution speaks to gays having that right? Why do you try and make an equation that others admit is not there hence the lawsuit?

howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS @ 17

“Heterosexuals couple will forever be capable to “breed” and society acknowledges that capability…”

Really? What if an 80–year -old man wishes to marry and 85-year-old woman? Are they “capable” of breeding? Hint: the answer is no.

What about a man who has had a vasectomy and a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Are they “capable” of breeding? Hint: the answer is no.

Clearly such couples threaten us all!!

Commentby Daddy Love— 7/26/06@ 12:13 pm

Daddy Love – Non sequitor. They have the naturally working parts. The missing link to your poor statement.

Ogg

“…the idea of two men doing it evokes a feeling of disgust among those whose orientation is straight….An equally large majority find two women getting it on somewhat exotic…”

Idiot.

Commentby Daddy Love— 7/26/06@ 12:14 pm

That’s so funny Daddy Love. You just have personal issues!

5. Rujax spews:

So this is why I don’t post here anymore.

Miss me…Klake (the village idiot) and Howcanyoubeproudtobean EVILfuckingchristianistBITCH? Huh? Well I don’t fucking miss you.

So…predictable outcome, the conservaturds and the evangullibles got what they paid for…and gays are the new nee-grows.

Liberty and JUSTICE for ALL, my ass.

6. Mark1 spews:

@16:

Or whiney liberal pinheads….

7. Mark1 spews:

@7:

If you love Canada so much, why don’t you quit whining and move there? Simple as that.

8. ahha spews:

Chambers, Owens and Alexander are up for reelection.

9. rwb spews:

Yeah, like we need even more people on the planet.

But you know, this is all to protect the children. Don’t let the gays marry because they might acquire children and “ruin” them with the gay lifestyle.

Much, much worse than being raised in an abusive and alcoholic hetero family. Never any lasting problems from than. No siree

10. Will spews:

Oh well…

11. Josef in Marummy Country spews:

This is a good ruling – the people should make the decision at the first possible opportunity.

12. skinny spews:

So, the “rational” basis for upholding the law is that prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying somehow promotes procreation and raising children with married parents. I really don’t follow that logic. There are lots of children being raised by gay parents. How does denying them (both the parents and the children) the rights and protections that come with marriage further the state interest? How does denying homosexuals equal rights encourage a straight couple to procreate? There’s no rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage rights.

Which ones of the activist judges who were in the majority here are up for reelection?

13. howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS spews:

So this is why I don’t post here anymore.
Commentby Rujax— 7/26/06@ 3:24 pm
Commentby Rujax— 7/26/06@ 3:26 pm
Commentby Rujax— 7/26/06@ 3:26 pm
Commentby Rujax— 7/26/06@ 3:42 pm

14. Matt spews:

This ruling deeply saddens me. I always thought Washington State was a bit more enlightened than the rest of the country… I guess not. At least we have Canada to the North. Nice to at least live next to a civilized people.

Is anybody aware of an online analysis of the ruling? May be a bit early, but if you find one, please post the link here.

15. Daddy Love spews:

The Washington State Constitution is clear:

ARTICLE XXXI
SEX EQUALITY – RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

SECTION 1 EQUALITY NOT DENIED BECAUSE OF SEX.
Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.

Period.

16. howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS spews:

If marriage is about making more babies, what happens to the marriages of a great many hetero couples that cannot have children? Are their marriages nullified?? -Commentby Will— 7/26/06@ 9:21 am

Heterosexuals couple will forever be capable to “breed” and society acknowledges that capability; Homosexual couples will NEVER have that same characteristic. Every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Homosexual couples that procur children will NEVER be capable of giving those children a mother AND a father.

17. LeftTurn spews:

I guess this means discrimination is okay in Washington. I am cool with that. Let’s start discriminating against right wing turds, Christians and republicans.

18. Richard Pope spews:

So which of the five majority justices (Justices Madsen, C. Johnson, J. Johnson, Sanders and Chief Justice Alexander) required 16 months to make up his or her mind on this issue, but was able to suddenly reach a firm position on Wednesday of candidate filing week?

19. Richard Pope spews:

What did Roger Rabbit judge? Perhaps administrative hearings. A respectable enough and needed job to be sure. Did he do this for a long time? Or did he never do this and is totally full of hot air?

20. LeftTurn spews:

Three more interesting tidbits of information, which may or may not have significance.

1) Richard Pope’s middle name is Lamar
2) The temperature in Seattle reached more than 90 yesterday
3) Ann Coulter is a dyke

21. Daddy Love spews:

howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS @ 17

Heterosexuals couple will forever be capable to “breed” and society acknowledges that capability…

Really? What if an 80–year -old man wishes to marry and 85-year-old woman? Are they “capable” of breeding? Hint: the answer is no.

What about a man who has had a vasectomy and a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Are they “capable” of breeding? Hint: the answer is no.

Clearly such couples threaten us all!!

22. righton spews:

I’d like to see Bridge’s signature on this; was her (drunken) hand shaking?

23. jamie spews:

What’s truly appalling here is Madsen’s mis-interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause. Moral cowardice and a fear of being labeled as a judicial activist is no reason to uphold DOMA. The court may have taken the politically ‘safe’ route by kicking the issue back to the legislature, but the legal analysis applied is flawed. To suggest that the privileges and immunities clause does not apply because (to paraphrase) a man and a woman are treated equally by both being denied the right to engage in same-sex marriage is a fundamental mistake. PIC applies to classes of citizens, and you don’t even need to ignore the overwhelming evidence that gays and lesbians constitute a protected class.

The court is the institution that society has charged with exercising judicial activism to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, something they failed at spectacularly today.

24. Observer spews:

Weep on you moonbat idiots.

25. thor spews:

This could be a lively issue in the legislature about whether the state should condone blatant discrimination.

It is important to remember the idiocy of the three preachers and the entire state Senate GOP when they tried to keep it legal to fire people just because they are gay. Luke Esser proclaimed that passing the anti-discrimination law would lead the Courts to affirm gay marriage – as did the entire caucus, in propoganda produced at state expense. The Tim Eyman and the three preachers tried to restore discrimination for the same reason.

So much for that stupid arguement. But it will be remembered when voters kick a bunch of GOP senators out of office this coming November for their failure to support an extremely modest proposal to ban discrimination in our state and divide us.

26. Will spews:

If marriage is about making more babies, what happens to the marriages of a great many hetero couples that cannot have children? Are their marriages nullified??

27. Green Thumb spews:

What’s particularly funny about the “communist” meme is that the folks who say it rarely have the intellectual sophistication to explain coherently what “communism” is and how it compares and contrasts with “liberalism,” “centrism,” and “conservatism.”

Can you see “Jack Burton” standing at the chalk board, sketching his intellectual universe?

Damn. I’d pay $5 to see that.

28. Thomas Trainwinder spews:

Ruling uses logical reasoning….

29. Smartypants spews:

This is such fragmented decision, it gives me some small hope for another future challenge. The Johnson/Sanders concurrence is particularly despicable, but the personal irony for me is that Madsen, who wrote the majority opinion, won her original election to the court in an unexpected campaign upset that was run by two lesbians. And I volunteered on her campaign.

Banging my head against the wall now…

30. Richard Pope spews:

Three interesting tidbits of information, which may or may not have significance:
1. Association of Washington Business endorses Chief Justice Gerry Alexander for re-election, while urging replacement of Justice Susan Owens with State Senator Steven Johnson.
2. Chief Justice Alexander provides decisive fifth vote to uphold DOMA and its ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday of Supreme Court candidate filing week.
3. Secretary of State website presently shows no challengers filed against pro-DOMA Chief Justice Alexander or anti-DOMA Justice Tom Chambers. Bellevue attorney John Groen, the announced challenger to Alexander, still has not filed his official declaration of candidacy and plunked down his filing fee.

31. Aexia spews:

Only Owens has a challenger at the moment.

Is there a liberal trial judge named Johnson we can persuade to run against Alexander?

This ruling is lame… but not entirely unexpected.

32. proud leftist spews:

44
Conservatism is a disease and should be treated as such.

33. The Socialist spews:

I think conservatism is a disease!!!!!!!

34. The Socialist spews:

a VENEREAL disease

35. Gerald spews:

I hear ya Matt.

I’m trying to stay optimistic though: There’s the same probablity that the legislature will one day vote down this law as there is to create a law creating gay marriage (which will have to happen Doma or not). Basically, this law is just a tiny step the state will have to overcome as the state (and country) slowly becomes more progressive and accepting to homosexuals.

Symbolically though, this really sucks.

36. Scz2eb2sTR spews:

gP5zwdnFA4U bJBrW2NzweeP mOY13e0bJJAyU

37. The Socialist spews:

Oh Well Matt what’s keeping you here in this state run by a bunch of Socialist Democrats? You are shy a half million to get into Canada? You could swim the Frazer River it’s not as bad as the Rio Grand and you can buy your pot to mellow out.. Well life is really tough when you are different and nobody loves you.

Commentby klake— 7/26/06@ 1:54 pm

FUCK OFF ASSHOLE !!!!

38. JDB spews:

Let’s stop whining and look at what should not be done.

First of all, if you really are against this decision, run an initiative. If the people of this state support it, they will vote for the initiative. Make it a “Civil Unions” initiative as oppose to a “Gay Marriage” initiative, and I bet it passes by 65%.

Second, realize that this is a weak, plurality decision. Public relations are important. Make it clear to people that gay couples are vital and that gays need the protections, duties, and privileges and responsibilities related to marriage.

In the end, I will bet that in less than 10 years we will have civil unions and most of this argument will be moot. Let’s face it, as was shown by the abject failure of the referendum to overturn gay civil rights, the population of this state is not anti-gay (with the exception of a few religious bigots and a few self-loathing individuals like JCH). The struggle is not over, it just requires a little more

39. Daddy Love spews:

Ogg

…the idea of two men doing it evokes a feeling of disgust among those whose orientation is straight….An equally large majority find two women getting it on somewhat exotic…

Idiot.

40. LeftTurn spews:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001202.php

Looks like the culture of corruption is busy trying to cover its ass and bury the truth. What else would you expect from the crooked republican party?

41. Rujax spews:

Hate/fear.

Fear/hate.

You assholes got ANYTHING else?

42. Rujax spews:

Didn’t think so.

43. Roger Rabbit spews:

1

Yes, but the reasoning is squishy, and could have gone either way under the logic employed. An underlying principle here is the role of courts under our system of government is to adjudicate, not legislate. A competing principle is the courts have a general duty to correct injustices, and a specific duty to correct constitutional errors by the other two branches. The knife edge of debate is whether this applies to legislative errors of omission, as well as to legislative errors of commission.

Without question, there is ample precedent for the notion that evolving social conditions and mores can result in changes over time in what is constitutionally acceptable. Today’s decision essentially says it’s up to the legislature, not the court, to decide whether society has evolved to a point where the marriage statutes should be expanded to accomodate same-sex unions. There is a nothing remarkable about this conclusion; it is an approach solidly established in American and Washington jurisprudence.

There also is jurisprudential validity in Sanders’ and Johnson’s taking judicial notice* of the social and legal tradition of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. (*Whether or not they called it “taking judicial notice,” that’s what it is.) Obviously, it can’t be seriously that argued there is no such social or legal tradition, or that it’s not important enough to take judicial cognizance of it.

The same can’t be said for their procreation dicta — there is neither social nor legal tradition to support the argument that having children is either a purpose or a requirement of marriage. That’s nonsense; there are plenty of childless marriages, and this would automatically eliminate constitutional protection for marriages between men and women past childbearing age, an untenable concept that no one would defend. It’s probably throwaway language they threw in to pander to their Christian-Taliban political base — what we may properly call a “judicial excess,” not to mention a waste of ink and paper, and an element that introduces unnecessary uncertainty and confusion into their opinion.

Well, I ain’t Sanders or Johnson, and can’t tell ‘em what to do; all I’ll say is, when I was a judge and Sanders was a lawyer in private practice and appeared before me on a case, he did a shitty job of representing his client. Because of that, I’ve always thought he was a shitty lawyer. I admit I voted for him; that’s complicated. I don’t think our supreme court should consist of nine rubberstamps for groupthink. On the other hand, the only reason I voted for him the last time is because he didn’t have an opponent who was even marginally qualified. On the whole, I would consider Sanders harmless and easily tolerate the idea of him occupying a seat on the court, if it weren’t for his occasional egregious ethical lapses.

I digress; I meant to proceed to a conclusion here by saying that if the decision had gone the other way, we would have been hearing cries of “judicial activism” and “judicial legislating” from the bigots, but in the practice of constitutional law, there is nothing more appropriate than for courts to discover previously overlooked constitutional rights that have, for one reason or another, lain dormant. For example, the constitutional right of black kids to attend any public school, not just public schools set up for black kids to prevent them from attending any other public school — a constitutional right that reflects sunlight so brightly you wonder how courts could have overlooked it for 150 years.

The concurring opinion authored by the BIAW’s purchased judge, Johnson, is fully explainable under the master-and-servant principle and requires no discussion; but what are we to make of the other judges comprising the plurality? I haven’t read the opinion yet, and don’t need to; this decision is what it is because those other three judges wanted to avoid controversy, eschew bringing public opproprium upon the court, and get re-elected. What we see here is judicial pragmatism. Any questions?

44. Commander Ogg spews:

Homosexuality by its very nature can turn a vast majority of my fellow citizens more then a little bit crazy. The concept of two men (or two women, lets stick to men. An equally large majority find two women getting it on somewhat exotic, whether they admit it or not).

Any way, the idea of two men doing it evokes a feeling of disgust among those whose orientation is straight. It is hatred born of a primal fear, an irrational fear that by merely associating with a gay couple, you yourself may turn gay. It is beyond logic, beyond reason, a living thing that encourages mob reaction, mob violence. The closest analogy was the reaction of my old time Southern brothers to a white women sleeping with a black man.

An attempt by the Washington Supremes or Congress to codify such hatred under the banner of Defense of Marriage is similar to the old laws of Misogyny (overturned by the Court 40 years ago), a codification into law of religious based prejudice that has no basis in fact and reality.

The biggest nightmare of the Domonionist is being played out in the state of Massachusetts at this very moment; after over two years of equality of marriage regardless of sexual orientation, nothing bad has happen. The milk did not sour, the cows did not die, and no pillar of salt engulfed the “Evil Sodomites”. Life moves right along, just like it always has. While it is a damn shame that the WSC chose to uphold such a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, it is not surprising.

It took 100 years after the end of the Civil War for African Americans to finally get their full rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope Gay Americans do not have to wait that long.

45. REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX] spews:

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. The assault trial of a man accused of shoving a cell phone down a woman’s throat has begun. Prosecutors say 24-year-old Marlon Brando Gill was angry and jealous when he forced the phone into Melinda Abell’s throat in December. But defense attorneys insist the 25-year-old victim swallowed the phone intentionally to prevent Gill from finding out who she’d been calling. [..............Yes, just another "MOFO" Democrat "communicating" with his "bitch ho".]

46. John425 spews:

You super-leftists want to construe this as narrowly as possible so that it will fit your silly agenda. The ruling says that states have a broad interest in furthering procreation, not an absolute one.
Kinda like pointing out that some people deserve food stamps but not the entire population.

47. sgmmac spews:

Rep Ed Murray is vowing new legislation to make gay marriage legal.

The Olympian has a few stories on the new ruling

This is on the Murray legislation:

http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/NEWS06/60726017

48. Richard Pope spews:

I wonder if Roger Rabbit will run against Norm Maleng for King County Prosecuting Attorney?

49. Barney spews:

@ 14:

Weep on you moonbat idiots.

Commentby Observer— 7/26/06@ 9:57 am

Thanks for stopping by, Justice Johnson!

50. John spews:

I hate this fucking country. All I want to do is live in peace and mind my own business. But no, the conservafucks have to spread their “morals” to the rest of us. FUCK YOU.

51. wayne spews:

Notice how Richard stops by to make the same comment in every blog (SP, Postman.)

How’s that Costco class action going Richard? Maybe Harish Bharti will be interested in helping you out with your case.

52. Green Thumb spews:

Roger, thanks for taking the time to write No. 37. The quality of your thinking and writing is most appreciated.

53. righton spews:

greeen thumb .. funny one..

the guy posts 30 juvenile retorts plus one long one w/ sentences and you praise him…

54. WlVi1kvpkW spews:

dYmWnMTTRZbK INh3yeskLN5jm pcyN91pJdOV

55. pvUiIIozFB spews:

0b9EkhsUyKm X0vIOyKP5u rHy7if1Hb7Z

56. ELHjPGfJrw spews:

dpM9EPRWRQru cRiNeeueoHDR EyRFHz2LmeiR

57. Commander Ogg spews:

Mr. Eric @ 44
In your opinion Homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as such. But opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all smell.

The American Psychoanalytic Association stopped listing homosexuality as a disease in the 1970′s:

POSITION STATEMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY
The American Psychoanalytic Association opposes and deplores public or private discrimination against male and female homosexually oriented individuals.

On the other hand, homophobia is a recognized mental illness:

In some (perhaps many) people, homophobia derives, in part, from a heterosexual’s fear and anxiety about his (it seems to be more common and most dangerous in young men) own sexuality. Such a person worries that he has homosexual desires.

You should seek treatment ASAP.

58. wayne spews:

“When I was a judge?”

I remember we had a King County court commissioner with a procreation issue (he was seen through his window banging a court employee over lunch, I seem to recall), but I was not aware we had someone on the bench with big floppy ears or a fluffy tail.

59. ArtFart spews:

23 I couldn’t agree with you more, JDB. The concept of civil unions seems a reasonable compromise. However, keeping the debate UNreasonable serves the interests of the two groups whose own perverse union has become a blight on our society: the right-wing evangelicals and the cheap-labor crowd.

60. The Socialist spews:

I hate to say this but this is probably a good decision for us. Because it take a hot button issue away from the neo nuts. It’s sad for me to say that . It is sad that we live in such back ass word society now a days. And we still have to many bigoted people in the country and the state. It is just sad hatred instead of compassion and caring and yes even love has won out.

61. JDB spews:

at 89:

The tag “communist” might not apply, but the ideology hasn’t changed.

Yeah, and apparently the tag “facist” might not apply, but hte ideology hasn’t changed either.

62. klake spews:

This ruling deeply saddens me. I always thought Washington State was a bit more enlightened than the rest of the country… I guess not. At least we have Canada to the North. Nice to at least live next to a civilized people.

Is anybody aware of an online analysis of the ruling? May be a bit early, but if you find one, please post the link here.

Commentby Matt— 7/26/06@ 8:53 am

Oh Well Matt what’s keeping you here in this state run by a bunch of Socialist Democrats? You are shy a half million to get into Canada? You could swim the Frazer River it’s not as bad as the Rio Grand and you can buy your pot to mellow out.. Well life is really tough when you are different and nobody loves you.

63. howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS spews:

It is just sad hatred instead of compassion and caring and yes even love has won out.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
trying to forget my feelings of love.

Feelings, for all my life I’ll feel it.

good grief.

64. JDB spews:

Roger, thanks for the analysis. Very interesting. Didn’t know you had been a judge though. Interesting revelation.

I will say this having just skimmed the majority decision and read and listen to the news, I doubt highly that CJ Alexander’s decision was made out of election expediency. That is buying into the U(sp)/wingnut paranoia. I’m know Justice Alexander for a very long time, and he is from the Evans/Reed moderate wing of the Republican Party (which always had some strength in Thurston County). He is and always has been a man of deep intellectual honesty, and has accomplished more than enough that he would not mind losing his seat on principle.

The Socialist:

You are exactly right. The wingnuts were so hoping for a decision to fire up their base. They didn’t get that. They didn’t get the anti-gay rights referendum of $30 tabs. All they have are the BIAW’s extortion initiative (What do you mean I can’t put a hog farm in Wallingford. Pay me or else I’ll sue), and the Blethen “I’m getting old, and our paper is being taken over by these here tubes” Estate Tax initiative, which they could only get on the ballot by lying about what it does, and I think will go down hard.

Let’s face it, Mike! is not generating any excitement, and in the only other race that matters, Reichert is looking weaker and weaker. You know in Mike!, Reichert and GOP headquarters, they are shaking their heads as they see the last good chance of getting their base out float away.

65. Roger Rabbit spews:

38

That wasn’t me. I was a proper judge.

66. eric spews:

Goldy said… “Civil marriage is a contract that confers certain legal rights on the participants, and I simply cannot see how same-sex marriage in any way threatens the rights of heterosexual couples.”

WHY STOP THERE??? Why not allow multiple partners, after all, it is just a contract, so if they are all of age and agree, what’s the problem.

Homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as such.

67. wayne spews:

Has Richard ever run for Supreme Court? He’s been watching the filings and he’s run for just about everything else. He’s just dying to jump in against Chambers if no one else does. Admit it, Richard!

68. Mark The Redneck spews:

“…If those who are offended, disturbed or even disgusted by homosexuality want to celebrate this decision, well, that’s up to them.”

Count me in. LMAO…

69. Green Thumb spews:

So, righton, are you saying that 37 isn’t a thoughtful posting? If so, why not? I think it is because, unlike so many of the comments here, it displays 1) a command of a body of facts, 2) nuanced judgment. I don’t think one must agree with Roger’s argument to respect his attempt to get beyond the mindless food fights that predominate here.

Am I endorsing his “juvenile” retorts. No. Roger responds to the winger flame throwers in a different way that I do. That’s his business.

What I find funny about your comment is that you are being rather selective. Have you ever criticized JCH for his avowed efforts to carpet bomb HA with off-topic and gratuitously offensive missives? Have you ever criticized MTR for calling for the extermination of all muslims on the planet?

Let’s be honest: Many of your winger friends come here to disrupt rather than have an honest conversation. It’s like strangers coming into your house and tearing the place up. If you folks aren’t going to show a modicum of respect, why are you surprised when Roger dishes it back? After all, if he didn’t you’d just turn around and call us a bunch of pussies.

Bottom line: If you want a real discussion, model it. That includes policing your allies. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about Roger.

70. Mark The Redneck spews:

What’s amazing is that it hinged on one vote. Clearly, there’s some cleansing to do in the FUWA Supreme Court come November.

Fairhurst has shown herself to be a delerious moonbat. The issue was constitutionality. Her opinion wasn’t based on that at all. It was all about her feeeeelings on the matter and idle speculation about the motivations behind the DOMA law. She has now established herself as the poster child for judicial activism. She’s gotta go, and now we’ve got the smoking gun to get rid of her.

71. Green Thumb spews:

Pay no attention to Mark the Redneck. He’s a sociopath and a right-wing extremist who argues that the way to “win” the “war on terrorism” is to exterminate all of the muslims on the planet.

Alternative scenario: MTR is a paid troll who has adopted an abusive personality with the intent of destabilizing this blog.

72. Mark The Redneck spews:

Their lawsuit got shoved up their asses. I’ll bet the gays loved it. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? Special privileges for taking it up the ass?

73. Mark The Redneck spews:

“Destabilizing”? WTF does that mean? Just because your O-Fer a few hundred in taking me on?

I’m still waiting GT. Take me on dumass…

74. Mark The Redneck spews:

I got no dog in this fight, so IDGAF. The institution of marriage was wrecked a couple of decades ago by radical feminism.

But I think it’s hilarious that you guys and your butt buddies got beat in FUWA of all places. So it’s onto the next round..

75. Green Thumb spews:

Waiting for what, MTR? Your next check from the Republican National Committee?

Suggestion: Instead of spending so much time on this blog, why don’t you go get some counseling for your abusive tendencies. That might help you with your love life.

76. Mark The Redneck spews:

So now it’s “abusive” when I point out where you’re full of shit? Isn’t it just “inconvenient”?

77. jsa on commerical drive spews:

I skimmed the Supreme Court case, and didn’t read it in depth.

The argument of the majority had nothing to do with the morality of gay marriages. It sat on a a basic question: Does the legislature have the right to make laws regulating marriage, or does the court have to step in and do that?

I’m conflicted about this. In principle, it would be better if making laws was left to legislatures and the courts were left to do detail work on these laws. Unfortunately, the legislature of Washington State voted in DOMA (a law which I feel is stupid and unnecessary), and if it was called on to confirm DOMA next week, it would do so in a heartbeat.

I am generally very uninterested in how other people keep house. How you behave in a public space matters. If four people want to set up a group marriage next door to me, I’m fine with that, as long as they whack at the lawn every few weeks, take the trash out, and don’t get too noisy after 10 pm on a school night.

I am perpetually amused that such a large part of the population has such an uneventful home life that they need to get involved in how other people keep house.

78. Laura in WA spews:

Maybe slightly off-topic, but I’m wondering what people make of Gregoire’s statement below:

She said that when she and her husband Mike married in the Catholic faith, state government provided certain rights and responsibilities, but, she says, “the state did not marry us.”

Gregoire says, “I believe the state should provide these same rights and responsibilities to all citizens,” Gov. Gregoire said. “I also believe the sacrament of marriage is between two people and their faith; it is not the business of the state.”

Is she advocating the state start issuing “civil unions” to ALL couples (gay or straight), and drop the word “marriage” altogether? I suppose there’s a reasonable case to be made for that, especially with the confusion between religious and civil institutions the word “marriage” seems to create with some people, but I don’t see it happening, EVER (and I’m not really sure it would be a good idea anyway considering all “civil unionized” couples would be left with questionable legal status whenever they left WA) — and moreover it’s not something I can see Gregoire advocating considering she won’t even tell us what she thinks about same-sex marriage. But I’d love to hear her elaborate on what exactly she DID mean by that statement.

79. jsa on commerical drive spews:

ArtFart@21:

Canada’s probably going to make gay marriage illegal again unless they’re smart enough to dump Harper.

Probably not, at least not soon.

Harper has a minority government. That is, the Conservatives pass legislation only with the assistance of the Bloc (a socially very liberal party) or the NDP (What would be the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” up here in the Far North).

Harper was elected solely because the Liberals had become incredibly corrupt under Chrétien, and they had failed to clean house properly.

There’s a theory very popular with Vancouver lefties that he’s going to lull everyone to sleep and then once the Conservatives get a majority government, the fangs will come out.

The main issue isn’t whether the Conservatives are good or bad, or how evil and ideological Harper may actually be. For all its space, Canada is a much more urbanized population than the US is. Something like 70% of the population lives in the cities. Urban folks everywhere tend to vote left(ish). Collective living breeds collective voting blah blah blah. It is frequently pointed out here that for all the disgust with the Liberals, the Conservatives did not win a single riding in an urban district. This is the equivalent of everything from Everett to Olympia and the Sound to the foothills up in Issaquah all going Democratic.

Don’t ask me though. I just know what I read in the paper.

80. Jack Burton spews:

“4. As liberals, our job is to verbally kick the living shit out of you unpatriotic, America-hating, fascist wingnuts.”

I can see the “facist” analogy since moonbats don’t like laws (except for their own.) But really, “Unpatriotic and America Hating?” The moon bats have cornered this market for a long long time. Remember communists? I supposed they and their supporters have all gone away………NOT.

The tag “communist” might not apply, but the ideology hasn’t changed.

81. jsa on commerical drive spews:

The tag “communist” might not apply, but the ideology hasn’t changed.

Yeah, because everyone whose opinions are on the left side of the political spectrum secretly wants hardcore BOSHLEVIKSM!

My God! I’ve been found out. I had this great cover going where I have this high-paying consulting gig, collect a string of houses in the city, spend my Saturdays going on hiking trips and my Sundays cooking big fancy meals for my family and friends.

But it’s all a LIE! In fact, I secretly want everyone to be unhappy, wear baggy gray ill-fitting clothes, and live on cabbage soup and $2 hooch. My ideal form of society is a boot stamping on a human face forever.

Go run off to whatever rock you scurried out from under. BTW, if Jack Burton is the best psuedonym you could come up with, read a few more books and watch some decent movies for a change.

82. Robert L. Crocker spews:

Good ruling but why the heck was it 5-4…

should have been a slam dunk, no brainer 9-0 kind
of thing……

sounds like 4 of our justices can claim less than zero
quantitie of brain…

83. JDB spews:

Mark the Yellowback has a deep seated hatred of women, and talks alot about taking things up the ass.

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, by the way, he won’t pay off his bets when he is wrong. Given that he is always wrong, this makes some sense, but still, it shows he has no honor or morals.

In other words, your normal wingnut in denial.

84. Roger Rabbit spews:

44

“Homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as such.” Commentby eric— 7/26/06@ 2:26 pm

If that’s so, why is homosexuality common in the animal kingdom?

85. Roger Rabbit spews:

44 (continued)

On the other hand, Republicanism is a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

86. Roger Rabbit spews:

While homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom, I defy you to find a wild animal that is a Republican.

87. Roger Rabbit spews:

59

No.

88. Roger Rabbit spews:

60

Shut up and pay your gambling debt.

89. Roger Rabbit spews:

60 (continued)

By betting Goldy $100 that I-912 would pass by 15 points, then refusing to pay when I-912 lost by 10 points, Mark the Retardo proved he’s not only STOOPID but also a LIAR and THIEF.

90. Roger Rabbit spews:

61

“Clearly, there’s some cleansing to do in the FUWA Supreme Court come November.”

Go for it! It’s always fun to watch BIAW and their suckups light matches to their money. A better use for it than bidding up the price of gas.

91. Roger Rabbit spews:

65

“I got no dog in this fight … ” Commentby Mark The Redneck— 7/26/06@ 7:08 pm

Yeah, I noticed this decision doesn’t outlaw having sex with horses.

92. Roger Rabbit spews:

68

You must be new here. Let me explain the rules of posting on HorsesAss.

1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here.
3. There is no censorship.
4. As liberals, our job is to verbally kick the living shit out of you unpatriotic, America-hating, fascist wingnuts.
5. Expect no mercy.
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender.

93. Roger Rabbit spews:

67, 69

F I V E H U N D R E D T H O U S A N D D O L L A R S

That’s how much Mark the Retardo was forced to pay his dead crack-whore ex-wife for vagimony and child support!

$500,000.000

Bad choices, Mark … you made BAD CHOICES!!!

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

94. Roger Rabbit spews:

500 grand … you could buy a 2-car garage on Capitol Hill for that.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

95. Roger Rabbit spews:

2

Hey Josef — have you asked Zits for a date yet? Or are you still worshipping the underwear you stole from her bedroom and kissing her picture on your computer screen? Better not wait too long, or she may die of syphilis before you get around to fucking her. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

96. Roger Rabbit spews:

53

Let’s put it this way Richard, I’m a Washington lawyer, which narrows it down from 6.3 million people to 30,000 people, and that’s as specific as I’m willing to get.

97. vnwIPCRWiU spews:

YWGclW5SBDYzED DXHK6zXWM1T Nsj3GNBkfPaO