The Full Wiki

Same-sex marriage in Washington: Wikis

  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal recognition of
same-sex couples
Same-sex marriage

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway

South Africa
Spain
Sweden

Performed in some jurisdictions

Mexico: DF*
United States: CT, DC*, IA, MA, NH, VT, Coquille

Recognized, not performed

Israel
United States: CA (conditional), NY

Civil unions and
registered partnerships

Andorra
Austria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland

Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
Wallis and Futuna
United Kingdom
Uruguay

Performed in some jurisdictions

Argentina: BA, RC, RN, VCP
Australia: ACT, TAS, VIC
Mexico: COA
United States: CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI
Venezuela: ME

Recognized, not performed

Isle of Man (UK only)

Unregistered co-habitation

Argentina
Australia
Brazil

Croatia
Israel
Portugal

In some regions

United States: MD, RI

Status in other jurisdictions

Albania
Aruba
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Chile
China (PRC)
ROC (Taiwan)
Congo (DRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Estonia
European Union
Faroe Islands
Greece
Honduras
India
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey

Kosovo
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Malta
Moldova
Montenegro
Nepal
Netherlands Antilles
Nigeria
Panama
Paraguay
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Singapore
South Korea
Uganda
Ukraine
Venezuela
Vietnam

United States: AL, AS, AZ, DE, FL, GU, IL, LA, ME, MI, MN, MT, NM, NC, OH, PA, PR, RI, SC, UT, WV, WY, Native Americans

Notes

*DC (subject to Congressional review) and Mexico City same-sex marriage laws are effective from 1 March and 4 March 2010, respectively.

See also

Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage legislation
Timeline of same-sex marriage
Civil union
Domestic partnership
Registered partnership
Civil partnership
Listings by country

LGBT portal

Same-sex marriage is not recognized in Washington state. The Washington Supreme Court would have made Washington the second U.S. state to recognize these unions if it had decided differently in two cases that had been consolidated for appeal. Oral arguments were heard on March 8, 2005, and in July, one of the justices indicated a ruling would very likely happen before the September primary election in the State. Several justices were facing reelection, and some had speculated the Court may have held off on its controversial ruling until after the elections. The 5-4 split decision overturning the trial court rulings was handed down on July 26, 2006. The decision held that the state legislature is permitted under the Washington's constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. While the state's ban on same-sex marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act of 1998) was upheld, the court noted that its ruling does not prevent the legislature from changing state law to allow same-sex marriage, and three majority justices in the case invited the legislature to take another look at the ban's effect on same-sex couples.

In 2007, the Washington State Legislature passed S5336, creating domestic partnership in Washington. It was approved 28–19 by the state senate and 63–35 by the house. Governor Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law and it took effect on 2007-07-22.[1]

According to NPR, "Since July 2007, [Washington] state has offered limited rights to registered domestic partners and expanded them further in 2008. Domestic partnership legislation was expanded even further on 2009-05-18 when Governor Chris Gregoire signed SB 5688 (the "everything-but-marriage" bill) into law [2] [3]. In response, Referendum 71 (2009) was filed, which seeks to qualify for the November 2009 ballot. The measure would delay or overturn the "everything-but-marriage" bill by putting it to a popular vote.[2] The referendum was approved 53% to 47% marking the first time any U.S. state had approved a same-sex union law in a statewide vote.

Contents

Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same Sex Couples

A UCLA study estimates the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on Washington’s state budget. The study concluded that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $3.9 million to $5.7 million each year for the State[3]. This net impact will result from savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefits programs and from an increase in sales tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism.

Civil suits for same-sex marriage

Andersen case

  • March 8, 2004: Six same-sex couples, backed by Lambda Legal, file suit challenging the constitutionality of Washington's Defense of Marriage Act. The four constitutional claims are based on due process, privacy, equal protection, and gender equality.
  • August 4, 2004: King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing issues an opinion in Andersen v. Sims that said the state has no rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from the rights and benefits of marriage. The decision concluded that the state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated sections of the constitution that required due process and equal protection of the laws. Full marriage was not required, but the opinion at least mandated the creation of a "civil union" status that gave all marriage rights and benefits. These requirements did not go into effect, however, because the opinion was stayed pending appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.

Castle case

  • April 1, 2004: Eleven same-sex couples, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, file suit challenging Washington's laws that bar same-sex couples from marrying. It also seeks recognition of marriages performed legally in other jurisdictions.
  • September 7, 2004: Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard D. Hicks issues an opinion in Castle v. State that said the state marriage laws violated the equal protection of privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution. The ruling was combined with the Andersen case on an appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.

Andersen v. King County

The two cases, Andersen v. Sims and Castle v. State, were consolidated for supreme court review. The consolidated case was named Andersen v. King County.

  • March 8, 2005: Oral arguments are heard by the Washington Supreme Court.
  • July 26, 2006: The Washington Supreme Court handed down its ruling (5-4 in favor of overturning the lower trial court rulings). The majority opinion focused on the constitutionality of the legislature's actions, which enacted the Defense of Marriage Act limiting the privileges of marriage to opposite-sex couples.
  • August 29, 2006: Lawyers for the same-sex couples filed their motion under Supreme Court rules that allow either side in a lawsuit to seek reconsideration of a decision. The Court could reject the motion, ask the state for a written response, reverse their decision, or agree to re-hear oral arguments. There is no timetable, and requests are rarely accepted.[4]

Initiative 957

On January 10, 2007, a group calling itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed Washington Initiative 957 (2007) to put one part of the Andersen decision into law by making procreation a requirement for all marriage in Washington State. The stated rationale was to prompt public examination on the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and to create a test case whereby Andersen could be struck down as unconstitutional. The initiative was withdrawn by its sponsors on July 3, 2007 after receiving too few signatures to qualify for the November 2007 ballot.

References

  1. ^ Same-sex partnership bill passes in Washington State | News | Advocate.com
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=uclalaw/williams
  4. ^ Turnbull, Lornet (2006). Second Look at Gay Marriage? The Seattle Times, August 30, 2006, accessed online: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003234852_reconsider30m.html.

Texts :

26.04.010. Marriage contract -- Void marriages.
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable. 26.04.020. Prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: ...(c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection ... (1)(c) ... of this section.

See also

External links








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message