# Limiting marriage to one man/one woman unconstitutional: WA trial court **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 7, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521 "2004-09-07T19:26:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/1 "2004-09-07T19:26:01Z")
Source: [www.basicrights.org](http://www.basicrights.org) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON TRIAL COURT SAYS LAW LIMITING MARRIAGE TO ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL > > 9/7/2004 > A Washington State trial court ruled today that a Washington State law that limits marriage to one man and one woman–excluding same-sex couples from marriage–is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. > > Writing for the court, Judge Richard D. Hicks said, “For the government this is not a moral issue. It is a legal issue. Though these issues are often the same, they are also quite different. The conscience of the community is not the same as the morality of any particular class. Conscience is what we feel together as one community. Conscience makes us one people. What fails strict scrutiny here is a government approved civil contract [marriage] for one class of the community not given to another class of the community. Democracy means people with different values living together as one people. What can reconcile our differences is the feeling that with these differences we are still one people. This is the democracy of conscience.” > > This is the second Washington trial court decision in recent weeks to declare the law unconstitutional. Both cases will now proceed to the Washington Supreme Court. BRO cautions that the Washington law was a state statute, where as Oregon has a constitutional amendment on the November ballot (#36). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/2 "2004-09-08T00:22:32Z")
Woot! ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/3 "2004-09-08T00:49:30Z")
I agree with the court. All citizens are entitled to the same rights, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. But I think this thread will do much better in GD, where thoughtful arguments may be advanced in one direction or the other, or in the Pit, where less thoughtful but hotter arguments may ensue. This topic does not seem mundane or pointless to me. It’s way too important to be so dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/4 "2004-09-08T00:55:27Z")
I’m glad it’s in MPSIMS. It’s nice every now and then to talk about gay marriage without having to debate gay marriage, if you follow my meaning. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/5 "2004-09-08T01:09:11Z")
Yeah, I’d rather chat about this right now. I get enough argument with my neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/6 "2004-09-08T04:44:14Z")
So once again I applaud Washington, and reapproach Mr. TeaElle to consider Seattle rather than Williamsburg/Jamestown for our vacation. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/7 "2004-09-08T04:56:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m glad it’s in MPSIMS. It’s nice every now and then to talk about gay marriage without having to debate gay marriage, if you follow my meaning. Me too. I’ve gotten so bloody tired not only of hearing the same arguments (as I’m sure is the case for those on the opposite side) but of feeling like I must justify myself to those who don’t have that onus themselves. Just … seeing this … without anyone coming in to say something negative about it … is a nice change. Let someone in GD open a thread there. ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/8 "2004-09-08T10:08:38Z")
Focusing on the word “one”, does this also allow multiple spouses? ---
**Author:** ![FruitPie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@FruitPie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FruitPie)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/9 "2004-09-08T12:24:02Z")
Hey.Surely it can’t be limited to humans…thats speciesism 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-marriage-to-one-man-one-woman-unconstitutional-wa-trial-court/263521/10 "2004-09-08T14:15:03Z")
Oh, har har, **FruitPie.** I’m hoping this can stay civil as well. I’m glad to hear of this, as Michigan is putting a “protection of marriage” constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot. The language of the proposed amendment would ban civil unions too. This stupid state is so backwards sometimes.