In the Friday, September 3, 2004, edition of the Spokesman Review there was an article titled Attorneys Debate Gay Marriage. In the article, an attorney for 11 same-sex couples argued that gays and lesbians have a "fundamental right" to marry the people they love, despite a 1998 state law restricting marriage to the union of a woman and a man" (Spokesman Review, p. B-1).
Here is a prime example of how anchor tenets become negotiable ideas. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, but a judge, Richard Hicks, a Thurston County Superior Court Judge could change that in Olympia. First two people of the same sex can marry, what next? Why not allow three people to marry? Why not interfamily marriage, an adult and a child, a man and a goat? This may sound absurd, and it is, just as absurd as two same sex people being "married." An American Civil Liberties attorney Paul Lawrence stated "Marriage is a right that ought to be granted equally to all Washington citizens . . ." In fact, it is just that people like Paul Lawrence and other ACLU lawyers, or state judges, want to redefine marriage.
On Tuesday of this week, Judge Hicks ruled the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. He said, "Strange as it seems, today the biological father and the biological mother need never meet . . . One may need a government license to get married but no law is required to father or birth children" (Roesler, 9/8/04 Spokesman, p. 3).
I am not saying gays/lesbians cannot have some form of civil union. I do not agree that banning same-sex marriage violates state and federal guarantees of equal protection. Will we now accept all above mentioned marriages to promote equality?
Posted by dr.j.g.hood
at 5:22 PM