Washington state upholds Defense Of Marriage Act in a 5-4 decision

Mostly great coverage by The Stranger on SLOG here

Justice Fairhurst, in the minority pool, is my new heroine:

Justice Fairhust said the plurality and concurring opinions "... condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

I don't fly the flag for our governor Gregoire, and she can be too cautious in her statements IMHO. (after all, she's carved somewhat from the same mold as Gary Locke, the Democratic governor who passed the Defense Of Marriage Act.), but here's her very veiled statement that seems to hint that she supports civil unions:

As Governor, I do not believe the state should discriminate against any citizen. I also believe that personal religious beliefs are protected by our Constitution.
On the issue of gay marriage, Washington is a very diverse state and there are many strongly held opinions and personal feelings on this issue. I ask all Washingtonians to respect their fellow citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled and we must accept their decision whether we agree with it or not.

As to my personal beliefs, Mike and I received the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic faith. State government provided us with certain rights and responsibilities, but the state did not marry us.

I believe the state should provide these same rights and responsibilities to all citizens. I also believe the sacrament of marriage is between two people and their faith; it is not the business of the state.

...

I can't help be really depressed about this; and has made me think very deeply about the issue. But as more and more states are upholding bigotted laws regarding marriage, while ironically helping to pass laws to further secularize the U.S. in almost every other way, I'm beginning to think that U.S. politicians are just too chickenshit to tackle the big scary "marriage" thing and try to change it, in fear of losing votes...

..which is why I think Gregoire's statement may be more OTM than my intuition wants to initially believe. Change is going to have to happen via civil unions.

Yeah, civil unions aren't quite the same as marriage... then again, what exactly is "marriage"? To me, it's the basic partners' rights that matter the most. If civil unions can promise what marriage can legally promise in that regard, a civil union can be a form of "marriage", but just more explicitly defined with vows that contain religious elements -- or not, as I see it.

It's depressing to see something so archaic mean so much to people, given the rights that come with it. On the other hand, it's so depressing to see something meant to be incredibly emotional and archaic become so incredibly trivialized and trashed and show that it MOSTLY does not work -- which is an insult not only to the people who are married and are making their marriages work, but also to the same sex couples that know that they are destined to grow old together and should enjoy the same freedoms.