Wash. Court's Surprise Ruling Delights Traditional Marriage Supporters

by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
July 27, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Pro-family groups and traditional marriage defenders are hailing yesterday's 5-4 decision by the Washington Supreme Court to overturn two lower-court rulings and uphold the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In a case involving 19 homosexual couples who challenged the constitutionality of Washington's DOMA, the State Supreme Court's decision clearly delineated the issues. The court stated: "The two cases before us require us to decide whether the legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples. The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to answer 'yes,' and we therefore reverse the trial courts."

Tony Perkins

Pro-family leaders' response to the ruling has been a mixture of surprise, exultation, and excitement. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is one of many traditional marriage supporters who says he did not see this decision coming. "We had anticipated the court striking down [Washington's] Defense of Marriage Act," he admits, "but we're obviously pleased that the court has exercised judicial restraint."

Perkins says this decision demonstrates that U.S. courts are not immune to the political reality that the majority of Americans are determined to protect marriage. "It is not a coincidence," he contends, "that these decisions, since the first one in Massachusetts, have turned the other way when state after state after state has passed marriage amendments protecting marriage."

Jan LaRue of Concerned Women for America (CWA) says members of her group have been "holding our breath waiting for this one." Now, she says, traditional marriage supporters can "celebrate another win" for marriage, democracy, and judicial restraint.

Implications of the Washington State Ruling
LaRue notes that CWA filed an amicus brief in the case supporting traditional marriage and the crucial role it plays in American society. "This ruling is extremely important," she points out, "in that the court also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to 'make a showing' that homosexuality is an 'immutable characteristic,' such as race or alienage."

The effect of that statement by the court is that it "really undercuts their 'civil rights' argument," the CWA spokeswoman explains. "Homosexuals are not a minority class that has ever been confined to the back of the bus or deprived of political power," LaRue asserts.

In response to the Washington Supreme Court's ruling, American Family Association (AFA) founder and chairman Don Wildmon sounded a note of empathy. "It must be devastating," he observed, "for those who are promoting homosexual marriage to lose so many court battles that they really expected to win and that, to be honest, all of us expected them to win."

But even if the decision is "totally devastating" for same-sex marriage advocates, Wildmon adds, "it's certainly a great win for us." However, since DOMA laws are being challenged in eight other states, he points out, "it's not over. But maybe we've stopped a little bit of the momentum."

The AFA chairman figures the mainstream media are probably pretty crestfallen over the ruling as well, particularly after having "pushed homosexual marriage so hard and for so long," he says. Certainly, it must be discouraging for them, Wildmon muses, "to finally realize that some of the most extreme liberal courts in the nation are saying, 'No, there is no inherent right to homosexual marriage.'"

Counsel's Caveat: A Series of Big Wins Does Not Mean Ultimate Victory
Attorney Mathew Staver, founder of the pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, says the Washington Supreme Court ruling is only the latest hit in a streak. "It's the sixth consecutive marriage victory by a court in the last few weeks alone," he points out. "This has been a string of victories, all of which have upheld marriage, all of which have said that legislators should be involved in this business, representing the people -- not judges."

Mat Staver

In effect, the majority judges' decision articulated what conservative voices have been saying for some time, Staver notes. "This particular court said that there are three branches of government, and that judges should judge and legislators should legislate," he explains, "and judges should not become legislators. So this is a great decision for judicial restraint."

However, this battle is far from over, the Liberty Counsel spokesman cautions. "The gay activists are not going to stop their agenda," he notes. "I think, however, they have been thrown into a tailspin, so to speak, over the last few weeks -- six consecutive defeats, one after another, just in a couple of weeks' time."

Nevertheless, Staver notes, a federal constitutional amendment enshrining the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is still needed. Only with the passage of a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he insists, will the future of marriage be taken safely out of judge's hands.