# Move over NY Court of Appeals, there's a new supreme court to get fucked **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098 "2006-07-26T15:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/1 "2006-07-26T15:52:46Z")
And that would be the Washington Supreme Court, which, falling back on the same cowardly bullshit, [upheld](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=759341MAJ) the disgusting bigotry of the people of Washington who demanded that all of the special rights that heterosexual marrieds get be reserved for them. I haven’t read the decison all the way through, but it looks like it’s the same old shit that every other cowardly court has fallen back on. Refusing to acknowledge this pervasive discrimination as sex discrimination and reviewing it appropriately, pretending like the state has some legitimate interest in breeders squirting out their issue (like straight people are going to stop spawning if queers get hitched) and just overall giving the great big fuck you to a significant percentage of the population. What might be the worst aspect of this other than the ridiculous bigoted decision that the court rubber stamped was that they made the people of Washington wait 16 months to get this pile of garbage dumped on them. 16 months of deliberation and the best the majority can come up with is the same tired bullshit, in some cases practically word-for-word, that the bigots on the NY court spewed out. At least if you’re going to sit on your ass that long before dicking people you could come up with some creative new way of phrasing the fuckover. And yes, we just had this Pitting for New York a few weeks ago and yes all the same stuff from that thread still applies and judicial restraint and deference and the will of the people and blah blah blah. I don’t care, the court can still go fuck itself. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/2 "2006-07-26T16:00:10Z")
Are we going to have Pit threads for the other 45+ states that come to the same conclusion? I mean, if we’re talking about blah blah blah and all that stuff. Or maybe you like having the same argument over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/3 "2006-07-26T16:01:22Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] I haven’t read the decison all the way through [/QUOTE] Do. It’s far more apologetic than the others have been. Lots of language like “our job is not to decide what the law should be, our job is to decide whether the lawmakers have the right to make the law they’ve made,” with very strong implications that the court believes the law is discriminatory and horrible but not unconstitutionally so. Plus it was a narrow decision, with lots of strongly-worded dissents. It’s enormously disappointing, but it’s very, very far from being a fuck-you. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/4 "2006-07-26T16:11:54Z")
Your argument is not with the court, it’s with the legislature. The court here merely decided that the law was constitutional. It’s not their job to determine anything else, and by the sounds of it, they tried very hard to find justification to deem it unconstitutional, and failed. Do you disagree with their legal arguments, or are you just upset because they didn’t misuse the legal system to advance a cause of yours? If the latter, I hope you’re prepared to shut the fuck up the next time some activist **Republican** judge shares your opinion on the role of the judiciary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/5 "2006-07-26T16:24:54Z")
Perhaps the OP can provide a link to the other thread so we can all reference it instead of repeating the same posts here. ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/6 "2006-07-26T16:43:29Z")
In the long run it’s probably a good thing. The proper way to do it is through legislation, not litigation. The Court basically said, “we don’t like it but it’s not our place to change it” like **Cervaise** pointed out. Remember the 2004 elections where voters in 11 states passed ballot initiatives prohibiting gay marriage? Remember why that happened? Do it right and it’ll stick. Rely on judicial activism and it won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/7 "2006-07-26T16:51:38Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Are we going to have Pit threads for the other 45+ states that come to the same conclusion? [/quote] One holds out the faintest of hopes that there will be at least one more state supreme courts that, should it confront the issue, won’t be a pack of pussies and actually take a stand in favor of the rights of the minority. But yes, I do intend, should another pack of pussies in black dresses uphold bigotry in this fashion, to tell them to go fuck themselves. > [@ADUSAF](#): > > Or maybe you like having the same argument over and over again. Sorry, I didn’t realize I’d exceeded my quota for this Pit thread category. > [@Absolute](#): > > Your argument is not with the court, it’s with the legislature. The court here merely decided that the law was constitutional. No, this argument is with the court for refusing to apply the correct standard of review and for refusing to acknowledge that the legislature’s so-called reason for fucking over same-sex couples is bullshit. > [@Absolute](#): > > Do you disagree with their legal arguments, or are you just upset because they didn’t misuse the legal system to advance a cause of yours? I disagree with their arguments, and I reject your bullshit claim that a court’s exercising its power to protect the rights of a disadvantaged minority is a misuse of the system. > [@Absolute](#): > > If the latter, I hope you’re prepared to shut the fuck up the next time some activist **Republican** judge shares your opinion on the role of the judiciary. I don’t believe that I said anything about the political affiliation of any of the justices. Why are you trying to inject false partisanship? > [@John Mace](#): > > Perhaps the OP can provide a link to the other thread so we can all reference it instead of repeating the same posts here. Tried a search but the board failed to respond. If anyone else can get a search to go through, please post the link. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/8 "2006-07-26T16:58:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Perhaps the OP can provide a link to the other thread so we can all reference it instead of repeating the same posts here. [/QUOTE] [Yeah, fuck you too, NY Court of Appeals - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=378544), I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/9 "2006-07-26T17:24:22Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] I don’t believe that I said anything about the political affiliation of any of the justices. Why are you trying to inject false partisanship? [/QUOTE] Granted. Replace “Republican” with “anti-gay”. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/10 "2006-07-26T17:24:53Z")
> [@](#): > > What might be the worst aspect of this other than the ridiculous bigoted decision that the court rubber stamped was that they made the people of Washington wait 16 months to get this pile of garbage dumped on them. 16 months of deliberation and the best the majority can come up with is the same tired bullshit, in some cases practically word-for-word, that the bigots on the NY court spewed out. At least if you’re going to sit on your ass that long before dicking people you could come up with some creative new way of phrasing the fuckover. Are you shitting me? The court engaged in what it described as an “exhaustive constitutional inquiry” in a a case consolidated from two separate cases, and with no fewer than 26 amici curie weighing in. No doubt if they’d handed the decision down in two weeks that would have reflected their knee-jerk homophobia and lack of reasoned thought. :rolleyes: And since your link is to the Washington courts general website, for everyone’s information the case is _Anderson et al. v. King County et al._. It’s a the top of the page now but will drop down as other decisions are issued. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/11 "2006-07-26T17:32:28Z")
And I can’t think of another case where the judges have telegraphed so broadly their own unhappiness with how they feel compelled to rule. From the opening paragraphs of the opinion, with emphasis added: > [@](#): > > 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. > > In reaching this conclusion, **we have engaged in an exhaustive constitutional inquiry and have deferred to the legislative branch as required by our tri-partite form of government**. Our decision accords with the substantial weight of authority from courts considering similar constitutional claims. We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington. **It is important to note that the court’s role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be.** United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens talked about the court’s role when he described several noteworthy opinions he had written or joined while “convinced that the law compelled a result that {he} would have opposed if {he} were a legislator.” [citation omitted.] As Justice Stevens explained, **a judge’s understanding of the law is a separate and distinct matter from his or her personal views about sound policy.** But what do I know? I’m just a breeder, even if I haven’t squirted out any offspring yet. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/12 "2006-07-26T18:22:17Z")
Otto, I think that point is important. **At this point** there is precedent saying that state DOMAs are constitutional, part of it (that Godawful SCOTUS denial of cert. case) possibly binding. Much as I disagree with DOMA laws generally and the Federal one in particular, in the absence of state statute law or constitutional guarantees that are **clearly** denial of due process or equal protection (e.g., as in Massachusetts), the courts may feel that judicial self-restraint calls for deferring to the legislature. This does not make my opinion that these laws should be abolished, and gay marriages legalized, any weaker. It’s simply recognizing that _you’re being told something_. Perhaps identifying a few states where a law has a reasonable chance of passage, and fighting hard to show the discriminatory action of not legalizing gay marriage there, to get the general public supportive, might be the right course, rather than fighting the “constitutional rights/courts” route. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/13 "2006-07-26T20:02:14Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Otto, I think that point is important. **At this point** there is precedent saying that state DOMAs are constitutional, part of it (that Godawful SCOTUS denial of cert. case) possibly binding. Much as I disagree with DOMA laws generally and the Federal one in particular, in the absence of state statute law or constitutional guarantees that are **clearly** denial of due process or equal protection (e.g., as in Massachusetts), the courts may feel that judicial self-restraint calls for deferring to the legislature. This does not make my opinion that these laws should be abolished, and gay marriages legalized, any weaker. It’s simply recognizing that _you’re being told something_. [/QUOTE] Oh believe me, I understand that I’m being told something. It’s not anything that I haven’t been told hundreds of times before. But I don’t think the message is as clear as you think it is. Of the IIRC five state supreme courts which have issued final rulings on SSM denial, two of them, Hawaii and Massachusetts, have said that it violates the state constitution (Hawaii’s ruling was overturned by state referendum). Two out of five on an issue this contentious isn’t a terrible record. And it doesn’t mean that however many times bigots say the same bigoted shit that I’m not gonna tell them to fuck themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/14 "2006-07-26T20:04:56Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] And since your link is to the Washington courts general website [/QUOTE] My link was correct. The court has redirected it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/15 "2006-07-27T00:54:34Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] And it doesn’t mean that however many times bigots say the same bigoted shit that I’m not gonna tell them to fuck themselves. [/QUOTE] So if the remaining state supreme courts issue similar opinions… they are all wrong, and you’re right? There’s absolutely no room for any reasonabole judge to say, “These laws are constitutional, and it falls to the legislature to correct the issue?” Just ZERO room, eh? And they’d ALL be wrong, and you’d be right? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/16 "2006-07-27T01:37:41Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] But I don’t think the message is as clear as you think it is. [/QUOTE] **Otto** , the message is _quite_ clear. Same-sex marriage is not going to fly in the courts. Period. Really, no matter how much we complain, it won’t. Accept that, and adopt a new strategy. For a very brief time (about two weeks), there were a few petition collecters here for a referendum to support gay civil rights. Find someone with bucks who will support more than a few petition collectors for more than a brief time. Collect bucks from all who agree in order to run ads that to sign that petition, and to vote in favor of the referendum is the _right_ thing to do. Follow the political process to gain your civil rights, not the legal process. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/17 "2006-07-27T04:35:37Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] Refusing to acknowledge this pervasive discrimination as sex discrimination…breeders squirting out their issue. [/QUOTE] What is a breeder? It sounds like you have a problem “with them people.” [sub]I love gay men. Less competition.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/18 "2006-07-27T05:09:04Z")
Aside from the standard life, liberty, process clause that is in Washington’s Constitution, there is also a section that notes: [QUOTE=Article 1 Section 12] No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations. [/QUOTE] If there is a law allowing heterosexual couples to marry, then it certainly seems like it should apply to homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/19 "2006-07-27T05:29:04Z")
[QUOTE=DMC] If there is a law allowing heterosexual couples to marry, then it certainly seems like it should apply to homosexuals. [/QUOTE] Is there a law “allowing” hetero’s to marry? I’ve never thought of this, but what is the legal foundation of marriage based on a state’s law? I realize there’s a huge difference in state law and US law (hence the Bills introduced in D.C.). Or, that should be, a huge difference in how state and US law applies. I know this has been covered in many, many threads, but I’m wondering the simplest explanation of **DMC** ’s quoted part that seems to disallow something like marriage being a limited thing. I suspect there’s something like an amendment to the constitution of Washington state, but don’t have the patience to look for it. Nor, honestly, would I likely recognize it. Also, isn’t an amendment to a Constitution the same as it being in the Constitution itself? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098/20 "2006-07-27T06:00:08Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] And that would be the Washington Supreme Court, which, falling back on the same cowardly bullshit, [upheld](http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=759341MAJ) [/QUOTE] Following the link, I just get a list of cases. Which case is it? -FrL- [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/move-over-ny-court-of-appeals-theres-a-new-supreme-court-to-get-fucked/366098.md?page=2)