Archdiocese's gay-marriage brief rejected

Sixteen months after the gay-marriage case was argued before the state Supreme Court, the Seattle Roman Catholic Archdiocese filed a friend-of-the-court brief — which the court promptly rejected because it was late.

The archdiocese filed its amicus brief Thursday, arguing that granting same-sex marriage would violate the church's ability to freely practice its religion. The Catholic Church believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and questioned whether allowing gay people to wed could, as one example, force priests to perform such ceremonies.

Oral arguments in the case, which challenges the constitutionality of the state's ban on gay marriage, took place in March 2005. The deadline for amicus briefs was 30 days before that.

The archdiocese filed its brief only last week because recent developments in other states made clear the effect a pro-gay marriage ruling could have on the Catholic Church, said Seattle Archdiocese spokesman Greg Magnoni.

In Massachusetts, for instance, where gay marriage is allowed, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its adoption services because the state did not grant an exemption for the charity's decision to not place children with same-sex couples.

If Washington state grants same-sex marriage, must a religious marriage counselor offer therapy to same-sex couples, church leaders pondered in the amicus brief? Could a Catholic high school fire a teacher for getting married to someone of the same gender?

In addition, recent victories in New York and Nebraska for those opposing gay marriage buoyed the archdiocese's decision to file the brief.

Though Washington state's Supreme Court rejected the church's brief on Monday, "it's important for us to make these points because it's such an important issue," Magnoni said. "We're talking about First Amendment issues here. These points were not made [elsewhere] in the case."

But Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which represents some of the same-sex couples in the case, said the archdiocese's legal argument was weak.

"It's very clear the state cannot force a religious institution to recognize a marriage that a religious institution chooses not to." Besides, Stone said, the archdiocese's religious-liberty argument could have been made 17 months ago.

Not all religious leaders believe gay marriage is against their faith. Several of the plaintiffs suing for the right to same-sex marriage are religious leaders.

The Supreme Court has yet to issue its ruling, although one justice has said that would happen before the start of September's primary election.