Associated Press
Seven down, 43 to go.
As of this afternoon, the arc of history is bending towards justice in the state of Washington.
Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a measure legalizing gay marriage in a ceremony in Olympia on Monday. It made Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage.
A tearful Gregoire announced: "We're here to make history here in the great state of Washington. This is a very proud day ... A day that we did what was right, what was just, what was fair."
"Here in our state we have taken a long and difficult journey, and this is the last step."
The law will take effect on June 7, though it's worth noting that the fight from opponents will continue. Conservatives intend to collect ballot signatures in the hopes of putting the issue before voters in November, creating the possibility of giving citizens the right to marry, only to take it away five months later.
There's also the possibility that collecting enough signatures would put the law on hold pending a November election.
But that's all speculative at this point. What's very real is the breakthrough success marriage-equality supporters have had in the state of Washington -- the seventh state to tell its citizens that if two consenting adults fall in love and want to get married, they should be able to do so.
It's worth emphasizing that different states have arrived at the right point through different circumstances. While some states, including Iowa and Massachusetts, approved same-sex marriages by way of a court order, Washington joins states that backed marriage equality because they wanted to. Policymakers in Washington legalized same-sex marriage because they thought it was the right thing to do, not because a judge told them they had to.
That, I'd argue, makes success that much more meaningful.
What's more, it's another step towards a larger goal. The number of states with marriage equality keeps growing. The number of Americans who support marriage equality keeps growing. The number of policymakers willing to endorse marriage equality keeps growing.
The head of Focus on the Family was asked last year about same-sex marriage, and he practically conceded defeat, saying, "We've probably lost that."
I'm very much inclined to agree. Most of the country now believes two consenting adults should be legally permitted to get married if they want to. It's exceptionally unlikely that trend will ever reverse -- civil-rights trajectories rarely, if ever, move that way.
It won't be easy, and election outcomes may delay justice, but those on the side of progress are winning.
Leave a Comment:
Inexorable. :)
Congratulations to the state of Washington, and all of its citizens.
As state number seven steps into the 21st century, I look at the six that preceeded Washington and am amazed to see that, contrary to the shouts and screams of the far right "traditional family" loonies, the world has not ended in any of them. Just because two people of the same sex can marry hasn't stopped the ability or desire in two people of the opposite sex from doing the same thing.
No doubt the next time Washington state has an earthquake, Pat Robertson will say it's god punishing the fornicators.
If New Jersey, Maryland, and California get legislation passed or out of courts, that would be 20% of the U.S. that recognizes and performs same-sex marriages.
That doesn't include Washington D.C. or sovereign Native American nations.
You mean no one has married a sheep? LOL....unbelievable.
Congratulations to Washington! One step forward...
No, I don't think so.
Probably not. When the governor of Washington signed the bill into law, someone in the crowd yelled "Do not betray Christ!" The opposition is not chastened by failure. Of course, everybody has the right to make their case, but the opposition to equality is often totalitarian.
Also, I am fairly certain there is nothing in biblical or extra-biblical literature to the effect that loyalty to Christ is defined by opposition to marriage equality.
There is nothing in the Bible which shows that Christ was anti-gay. He never spoke against them. In fact, if you google "The story of Christ and the Centurion" you will get an entirely different version. Only the apostles, many of whom had foibles, were critical of gays. Also, in the Old Testament there is criticism of homosexuality, but there are numerous things we no longer agree with in the O.T.
Charlie,
Ted Olson said it right, "We (including GLBT) are all citizens. Deserving of equal protection under the law." It is really that simple.
To me the next step is to challenge reciprocity in court. That is where if I marry in MN or NV my marriage is recognized in every other state, the way current marriage laws (of heteros) are. That would seem to end it.
Washington is the most patriotic state in our union this day. There is no legal authority that allows states or the federal government to target certain segments of law abiding American citizens for blanket discrimination on issues where other segments of the population are allowed total freedom and unchallenged rights. Marriage is about the law, not religious doctrine. All Americans have constitutional rights that cannot be rescinded lest our entire Constitution end up in the shredder. Now is the time for our president to "evolve" and join this fight. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Congratulations! I hope one day to see this happen in all the states of the U.S. Equal = equal = equal and that's the way it should be here in America.
State-by-state is a hard slog, though. It'd be easier without DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages enacted in other states in defiance of the full-faith-and-credit clause. Without that, demographics would be enough to force recalcitrant states into line.
Washington is covered by the 9th Circuit Court, which only just ruled that once a state grants marriage equality, it may not take it back. And those ballot initiative jerks are going to try it anyway.
I believe that ruling was specific to California, but I could be wrong.
I think you're right. the Court ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it served no purpose other than to take away rights of a group for which some had animosity.
My State! RIGHT ON! But then I live on the LEFT coast!
While I understand where the 'more meaningful' comment is coming from, I have to take issue with it. As a resident of Massachusetts, I very much DID want full marriage equality in our state, as did a huge number of other MA residents. To imply that this was something imposed on an unwilling populace and was thus less meaningful than the votes of the state legislature is ridiculous and untrue. It also ignores the sad events in Maine, where the state government voted it in, and enough people voted against their neighbors having rights to overturn that decision.
In the end, the meaning comes from the people and families who finally get to have a marriage certificate. The meaning to them is exactly the same. Someone very dear to me died of breast cancer recently, and I am enormously grateful that she had the chance to marry her long-time partner a few years before she died. I'd never seen her so full of joy. She definitely couldn't have given less of a crap where that right came from - she was just so thrilled to have it. So please chose your words more carefully when you create a hierarchy of meaning when it comes to equality and love: that's what got us into this unequal mess in the first place.
Thanks, Karen, and I'm sorry you experienced such a terrible loss.
I agree with your comments, which make me wonder about the divide between states and the federal government.
Some states, thankfully, are showing a positive trend in the direction of true equality under the law (if you want to be committed to one person for the rest of your life, states should treat all people in that situation the same way).
Some states' voters WANT that change to happen (New Jersey, based on polling), but the governor intends to veto any silly will of the voters. Chris Christie apparently doesn't like that whole "will of the people" thing in his state.
Other states (Washington among them) want to make a change toward equal treatment. They will make progress at the state level, but will be thwarted by a federal government that has yet to address the challenge of how to treat all similarly situated citizens equally under the law. My partner can't include me on any VA benefits applications; we have no right to any tax concessions; I can't declare my partner to be a co-owner of the home that I bought... and the list goes on and on.
State progress is an excellent first step, but in the mean time, those of us who live in retrograde backwaters really struggle to feel the same sense of eager anticipation, knowing that our state governments will limit our rights to equal treatment under the law.
Steven, that's seven UP, and 43 to rise.
Way to go, Washington.
..."I'm very much inclined to agree. Most of the country now believes two consenting adults should be legally permitted to get married if they want to. It's exceptionally unlikely that trend will ever reverse -- civil-rights trajectories rarely, if ever, move that way."
My grandfather told me once, "Pauly, it's OK to go slowly; just always forward."
The thing that bothers me is that Conservative groups will likely succeed in getting the signatures needed to put this issue on the ballot. Just once, I'd like to see a court invalidate the signatures and say, "NO! We DO NOT vote on on anyone's civil rights!"
As a resident of WA, I know they will definitely get the signatures to put it on the ballot-- but the elections commission DOES go through each and every signature on the list, makes sure that the people who signed are alive, are registered to vote, and that their signatures match the petition and what their voting card looks like. Also, I listened to the commentary on KUOW this morning about it, and it looks like they are going to write the ballot initiative very clearly, as in AFFIRM will be that you agree with the statute as is currently written, and DENY will be that you do not agree with it. So, at least this time they won't obfuscate the wording and it will be clear how you are voting (a lot of other ballot initiatives are easily misconstrued) What I do think is that the tide of history is on the side of people who believe that gay marriage is the only fair way to move forward, and also, I think the conservative groups are waaaaaay overestimating the number of people who disagree with it in our state. At least on my side (left side) of the Cascades we are very progressive. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I must agree... voting on whether citizens can exercise their civil rights should be unconstitutional.
I think it is in the same neighborhood as Prop 8. Also deemed unconstitutional.
I'm so very proud of my new state! Now if only my home state of Maryland can follow this up, I'll be so proud that both Maryland and Washington are on the correct side of history when I return to Baltimore next year.
whats it to me who marries who? this is supposed to be a free country,but it has become free only if you follow the crowd,hell If you believe this you are nuts,as long as I pay my taxes ,I should be able to do what ever I want to unless it causes , anyone else not to be , doing what they want to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you think this is,America?
In 2004, the Iraq war was already going badly and Bushie's ratings were plummeting. Also in 2004, SFO mayor Gavin Newsom instructed the City Clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Soon, Bush Jr. wasn't talking about the war. Instead, every other phrase out of his mouth was "sanctity of marriage." I, of course, at the time, couldn't help wondering what the G was doing in the sanctity business. (Now that Santorum has explained it to me, I know better, of course! :-))
Point is, even though Newsom was right to be way out front on this, he was too way out front for the rest of the country at the time. True, we've come a long way on this subject in the last eight years. But Bush and Rove managed to energize their base in that election year with the "sanctity of marriage" argument against same-sex marriage. Ultimately, I think Newsom's decision gave Bush election ammo and big turnout.
In this year of near-Inquisition fervor by a bunch of sanctimonious intolerant refugees from Deliverance, I hope the news out of California and Washington doesn't repeat this effect. While I applaud the progress and believe it's inevitable, I just hope events aren't giving the Repubs a ready-made campaign issue—again.
Polls in WA state suggest the majority of voters will not overturn this law (but based on past elections, it might be close!). I actually suspect that the Demo powers-that-be looked at passing this law (and the resultant referendum to overturn it) as a way of increasing the progressive vote -- and helping out the Demo candidate for gov in an open race. What a difference 8 years make!!!
I was regretting that eight years ago the timing was unfortunate and favored the Repubs; you're suggesting that today, eight years later, the timing favors the progressives. Hope you're right!
There is an ample supply of political troglodytes that will continue to put road blocks on this march to equality.
I'm so happy for the citizens of Washington, but even more pleased at the greater message being sent to all Americans. It seems to me that every time a ruling is made in favor of same-sex marriage - regardless of where or for how long it lasts - one more wave is added to the tide of tolerance and acceptance. The topic is getting exposure, people are becoming more aware of it every day.
There is a growing percentage of Americans who are re-thinking their traditional, staunch ideas of what marriage is and should be. I believe that many of the reasons for high divorce rates and broken homes are results of individuals rushing into marriage from societal or religious pressure. I'm starting to hear and read comments like "who am I to tell anyone they can't get married?" and "as long as they love each other, why shouldn't they?"
Granted, same-sex couples in states that don't recognize gay marriage have a long road ahead. I wish them luck. It's just my observation that the more exposure it gets, the more attitudes might change.
It's been a great week here on the 'left coast.' Here in WA we have a referendum fight ahead, though. Alas, we're fighting the irrational as this blog post notes. Hope you enjoy: http://lameduckemptynest.blogspot.com/2012/02/gay-marriage-will-ruin-my-marriage.html
Cynthia, you write a great blog! I've got you bookmarked now, and I wish you all the best on your travels.
Watch what happens in Virginia tomorrow as People of Faith For Equality in Virginia leads Virginian same sex couples to courthouses in Arlington, Fairfax and Richmond to seek marriage licenses.
http://arlingtonmercury.org/blogs/about-arlington/faith-based-pro-lgbt-marriage-group-to-hold-demonstration-tomorrow
42% of Americans live in states with some form of marriage equality.
www.MarriageEquality.org/Current-Status
For those of us still struggling with where we feel comfortable within the "illegal/taboo/unusual/less unusual/acceptance" spectrum of our own personal stand on the subject of same gender marriage, let me offer this historical, and most personal perspective:
As recently as in 1987 in the U.S., only 48% of us agreed that it was acceptable for a white person to date (much less marry and reproduce with) a nonwhite person. This included not only blacks and whites, but ANY mixing of "races."
Which meant to this very white woman some ten years earlier, that my own legal marriage to a dark-skinned Hispanic man was way down that acceptance spectrum, hovering somewhere between "unusual" and "taboo," in most places (except for Alabama, where it still would have been illegal.) Our two beautiful children were representative to the majority of those polled as going against what was held by the mainstream to be "Right."
With the changing of behaviors have come the changing of attitudes. The Census Bureau estimates that multiracial individuals along with minorities will represent a majority of the US population by mid-Century. For my kids' generation and for those that come after, racial and ethnic diversity are just a part of their lives. . . not an issue. They work and play with, love and marry whomever they choose . . . Not a factor.
For those of us still struggling with where we feel comfortable within the spectrum of our stand on same gender marriage, please hear me: We should not place the burdens of our own fears, insecurities and lack of knowledge on the backs of yet another generation in the civil rights battle of this generation. In thirty years it will not be a factor. We should be the ones who stand tall today.