Washington Court Okays Homosexual "Marriage"; Missouri Voters Reject It

The courts and the people both spoke again on homosexual "marriage" the first week in August.

In Seattle, Washington, Judge William Downing of the King County Superior Court ruled unconstitutional a state law defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The judge ruled that the state must extend full marriage rights to homosexuals.

Meanwhile, Missourians voted overwhelmingly for a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual "marriage." After being approved by the state's House of Representatives, 124–25, and the Senate, 26–6, the amendment won 71% of the vote in a special election.

Similar amendments are pending in Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Others are being prepared in Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio. Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada have already amended their constitutions to protect marriage.

Judicial Madness

In his written decision, Judge Downing expressed the elitist worldview held by activist judges: "[T]he moral views of the majority can never provide the sole basis for legislation" (p. 15). For the full text of the decision, see metrokc.gov/kcsc.

He does not make clear what he would offer as a basis for legislation, but in this case he yielded to the moral views of a small but aggressive minority.

As a philosophical basis for his ruling, Downing held to "the cherished right of each of us … to live our lives in the way we find most personally fulfilling" (p. 2) and "the evolving parameters of human liberty" (p. 5).

For legal support, he cited legislation and court rulings in Canada and Western Europe, along with the infamous Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that imposed homosexual "marriage" on Massachusetts this year. For sociological backup, he looked to "New York Times marriage announcements" and the American Psychological Association's recent endorsement of same-sex "marriage" (p. 5).

The State Takes a Dive

The principal defendant in the case, King County Executive Ron Sims, had actually invited same-sex "couples" to file a lawsuit to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

Sims' sympathy for the plaintiffs made it very hard for the defense, said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "He wasn't on our side," Lavy said.

The ADF represented Republican lawmakers who tried to defend their state's marriage laws. The legislators feared the state attorney general, Christine Gregoire, for political reasons (she's up for re-election this fall) and would not adequately defend the case. (See Article on the Wayback Machine (No longer on Seattle Times site).)

"We put up a vigorous defense, and the judge just blew it off," Lavy said.

Among Downing's many incredible assertions was this:

"[T]he fact that there are no scientifically valid studies tending to establish a negative impact on the adjustment of children raised by an intact same-sex couple" (p. 21).

"There are hundreds of scientific studies indicating that this is not a good thing for children," Lavy said. "We made sure the judge had them, but he didn't read them. There was no evidentiary hearing.

"Of course there are no studies that prove that children raised to adulthood by homosexuals have problems later in life. This wasn't allowed 20 years ago. These kids haven't had time to grow up."

Downing stayed his decision, pending appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.

"We will be very much involved in that appeal," Lavy said.

There's Hope

In Missouri, grassroots groups, led by the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, worked primarily through churches to ensure the marriage amendment's victory.

The coalition's website ( cpmm.net) made available yard signs, postcards, car-window displays, and a "Get Out the Vote Plan" to help citizens organize to protect marriage. The coalition organized absentee voting, letters to newspapers, inserts for church bulletins, and a telephone campaign utilizing church directories.

These low-cost, labor-intensive tactics defeated a well-funded effort by homosexual militants to defeat the amendment. "They spent at least $200,000 in this state," said Vicki Hartzler, the state spokesperson for the coalition. Toward the end, the homosexualists ran ads on television — something that the grassroots groups could not afford, but didn't need to do.

Commentary

Downing's bizarre ruling reveals the foundations of the homosexual movement: an unvarnished, untrammeled humanism (under the fig leaf of "personal fulfillment"); a quasi-religious faith in "evolution"; boundless elitism; and contempt for the democratic process.

And above all, a willingness to circumvent that process with the help of outlaw judges like Downing.

But as the people of Missouri have taught us, the ungodly don't always win — not when ordinary people, backed up by their churches, summon up the courage and the energy to oppose them.