Marriage and democracy

Washington, as well as all of Western civilization, has always defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Democrats and Republicans passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act by a supermajority vote in 1998. The state Supreme Court's decision to affirm a ban on gay marriage provides a strong endorsement of DOMA's manifest reasonableness and upholds representative democracy and the clear will of the people.

Justice Jim Johnson wrote, "The weighty record of history, overwhelming societal consensus, and the strong force of legal authorities from Washington courts and its Legislature, as well as from the United States Supreme Court, do not allow such a cavalier and arbitrary redefinition of marriage by a court." The majority appropriately restrained itself from becoming a policy innovator and social engineer.

The majority rightly rejected the claim that DOMA could not be defended on public-policy grounds. Writing for the dissent, Justice Mary Fairhurst actually suggested that those who oppose same-sex marriage may act out of bigotry. Interracial marriage laws were about white supremacy. The majority correctly agreed that the charge that marriage laws written hundreds of years ago existed to discriminate against homosexuals is baseless. Marriage has nothing to do with discrimination. It's about protecting children and encouraging mothers and fathers to stay together to raise their kids (often children that are not planned).

Forty-one states, the United States Congress and even President Bill Clinton voted to affirm the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Our court was right to conclude that all of these people were not motivated by bigotry.

The majority acknowledged that the Legislature could reasonably determine that children do best when raised in a healthy home headed by a mother and father. Does that mean we don't provide support and compassion to other family forms? Absolutely not. But we do not pass laws based on exceptions. We don't intentionally deprive children of a father and mother.

Marriage honors diversity and sends a clear message that men and women are different and vital to the life of a child. While the Legislature may choose to provide certain benefits to single parents, guardians or even same-sex couples raising children, they should not redefine our most vital and basic societal institution.

Finally, what the other side doesn't like to discuss, but we argued and merits further public discussion are the true implications to redefining marriage. Even the most liberal constitutional law scholars agree that these implications are broad. For example, do we want our government documents and public school curriculum to do away with terms like "mother" and "father" and "husband" and "wife"? That's what's happened in Massachusetts. What happens to business owners and citizens who have moral and religious objections to homosexuality? Do we really want our children taught that there's no unique value in heterosexual marriage — in a child being raised by his mom and dad?

Are we sure it's a good idea to take the limitations out of marriage? Removing the gender requirement necessarily means you must remove the numerical requirement and endorse polygamy. The ACLU is already arguing this in other courts.

Our court correctly refused to foist such an extreme public policy change on Washington with the consent of the people. For this, we are thankful and believe future generations will profoundly benefit from the court's restraint.

Kristen Waggoner represented interveners in the case. She is a partner at Ellis, Li & McKinstry PLLC.