A Stitch in Haste

It's quite simple really: the Washington Supreme Court's upholding of that state's DOMA is little more than New York's Hernandez v. Robles all over again.

DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.

Translation: It is perfectly permissible to relegate an insular minority to second-class citizenship for no other reason than because the majority is too incompetent to control itself sexually and needs to be "encouraged" (i.e., manipulated) into certain behaviors in a way that gays, apparently, need not be.

From which it follows:

--Majoritarianism is absolute; the legislature is to be deferred to at all costs.

--Romer is dead; naked bigotry is once again a legitimate government interest, so long as it is sufficiently cloaked.

--Discriminatory laws are no longer subject to "overinclusiveness" or "underinclusiveness" review (e.g., apparently gay parents simply do not exist).

--It is permissible for a legislature to "believe" something, and to legislate accordingly, no matter how little evidence supports that "belief" or how much evidence contradicts it. (This was also the single most exasperating part of the Robles decision.)

--Judges have no prerogative, none whatsoever, to challenge the "beliefs" of the legislature, no matter unsupported, and unsupportable, those beliefs might be.

--Anyone who disagrees is a "judicial activist."

The opinions are astoundingly harsh and bitter toward one another — they will make an interesting if disappointing read.

More, possibly, later.

The case is Andersen v. King Co., Nos. 75934-1, 75956-1 (Wash. July 26, 2006). Links to PDFs here.