Evangelicals rejoice as Washington high court upholds traditional marriage

From Evangelical Press News Service and local sources
     OLYMPIA, Wash. — After nearly 16 months of deliberations, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 recently in favor of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), issuing a strong rebuke for dissenting justices who favored mandating same-sex marriage.
     Leaders of evangelical Christian groups that had closely followed the case were delighted by the ruling.
    “I believe this decision is in direct response to the fervent prayer and faithful work of people of faith,” wrote Gary Randall on the Faith & Freedom Network website. “I am reminded of the verse in Proverbs 21:1 (NIV) that says, ‘The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.’ ’’
     Randall, an Oregon minister, businessman and broadcaster, is president of Bothell,Wash.-based Faith & Freedom Network, a Christian organization serving both states. He told the Seattle Times that his group might still work for a state constitutional amendement banning gay marriage.
     The case was brought by 19 gay and lesbian couples who challenged the DOMA law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Two lower courts had struck down the law, and the state's highest court heard arguments on March 8, 2005.
     The majority opinion, written by Justice Barbara Madsen and announced in late July, affirmed the proper roles of the judicial and legislative branches of government.
    “A judge’s role when deciding a case, including the present one, is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases that have applied the constitution,” Madsen wrote. “Personal views must not interfere with the judge’s responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator.”
     It was evident the justices were deeply divided, since the ruling included two concurring and three dissenting opinions. The lead opinion took the unusual step of criticizing dissenting justices by name, specifically their desire to legislate from the bench.
    “Perhaps because of the nature of the issue in this case and the strong feelings it brings to the front, some members of the court have uncharacteristically been led to depart significantly from the court’s limited role when deciding constitutional challenges,” Madsen wrote for the majority. “For example, Justice (Mary) Fairhurst’s dissent declines to apply settled principles for reviewing the Legislature’s acts and instead decides for itself what the public policy of this state should be. Justice (Bobbe) Bridge’s dissent claims that gay marriage will ultimately be on the books and that this court will be criticized for having failed to overturn DOMA. But, while same-sex marriage may be the law at a future time, it will be because the people declare it to be, not because five members of this court have dictated it.”
     James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said, “This court has found that the state does indeed have a legitimate interest in encouraging and protecting one-man, one-woman marriage,” he said. “That interest is the next generation —ensuring that the best environment in which to raise children is nurtured and safeguarded.”
     Dobson added that this decision was the seventh one favorable to marriage within a month’s time. Recent decisions in New York, Georgia, and Connecticut have been favorable to traditional marriage.
     Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, praised the majority for leaving the matter in the hands of the people and their representatives, but said there remains the need for federal action.
    “In state after state, homosexual activists continue to take their attack on the definition of marriage to the courts, thus attempting to usurp the right of the people to decide this issue,” he said. “Lawsuits still pending in several other states demonstrate that marriage is, in fact, at risk as long as the courts have the final say on marriage Only passage of a marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution will take the future of marriage out of the hands of judges and bring these extremist lawsuits to an end.”
     The Washington high court also affirmed the interest of the state in establishing marriage laws.
    “DOMA is constitutional,” Madsen wrote, “because the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents.
    “Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the Legislature's view, further these purposes.”
     Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which was involved in the case, said marriage is to benefit children, not to validate the desires of any two adults.
    “Marriage licenses don’t certify one person’s love for another person,” he said. “They provide a legal framework to protect children that result from the marriage. The Legislature passed a completely constitutional law when it enacted the state’s DOMA on behalf of the people of Washington and the court today recognized that.”