The Daily of the University of Washington

Will Washington follow California to the altar?


On May 15, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in a 4-3 ruling. The decision affects the estimated 92,000 same-sex couples in California found in the 2000 Census.

What is the Q Center?

What: A center with a lounge, tables, a computer station, a conference room, a lending library and an advising office

Where: Schmitz Hall 450

When: Open 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday

Benefits: A professionally staffed, welcoming place that provides expert advice on sexuality, gender identity, identity development and other issues, while also operating in an anti-oppression framework


“It is very influential because California is a diverse and politically important state,” said senior Travis Grandy, a staff member at the UW Q Center. “This does maybe signify that things are changing and people’s attitudes are changing.”

It is uncertain whether the ruling’s effect will echo in Washington state. In July 2006, the Washington Supreme Court upheld its ban on same-sex marriage in a case brought forth by 19 same-sex couples. Many gay and lesbian couples are now funneling their efforts toward a legislative change to the state constitution.

In response to Washington’s 2006 decision, King County Executive Ron Sims voiced encouragement for same-sex couples to continue demanding legal rights. Gov. Chris Gregoire dismissed gay marriage as a decision beyond the state level.

Constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage exist in 26 states. California joins Massachusetts as the only states that have legalized same-sex marriage. The 121-page court report stated, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”

But nothing is set in stone yet.

The ruling has 30 days to take effect. Conservative opposition has wasted no time in fighting against the legalization. Conservative groups have asked for a 5-month delay before the law takes effect in order to give voters the opportunity to amend the constitution through the November ballot.

“[The ruling is] California judicial tyranny at its finest,” said senior Thomas Walker, president of the UW College Republicans. “The government is putting their stamp of approval on this by saying that gay marriage has as much … benefit to society as heterosexual marriages.”

The California ruling may also rally more conservative and Republican voters for the 2008 presidential elections.

Sen. John McCain opposes same-sex marriage. During McCain’s appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, DeGeneres said that her marriage with her partner is only fair and only natural.

“I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman, and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue,” McCain said.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both believe legalization of same-sex marriage is a state decision.

Others believe the historic ruling by the California Supreme Court is a step in the right direction for gay and lesbian couples across the nation.

“Given time, these things will change,” Grandy said. “[In Massachusetts,] people are getting married. It’s happening. People are seeing it happen and the world is not falling apart.”


1 Comments

#1 Jeffrey Weekley
(Carmel Valley, CA | Unverified Name)

on June 1, 2008 at 4:47 p.m.
Report this comment

How can Mr. Thomas Walker call the California Supreme Court's decision to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples "judicial tyranny" when both the state's legislature has passed a same-sex marriage bill and when the governor has said he'd abide by the court's ruling. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislature's bill saying it was for the courts to decide.

Now, since both the elected representatives of the people and the courts have spoken in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples, those opposed to it are attempting to amend the constitution to nullify the ruling.

When the majority is allowed to vote away rights of the minority...THAT is tyranny, Mr. Walker. It's called the tyranny of the masses and it is exactly what our founding fathers intended to stop with an independent judiciary.


Post a comment

Name:


(None, None | Unverified Name)
Login to verify your name

Email:


Required, but not shown.

Comment: