There is no remedy given as both sides agreed to appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.
Posted by Kid Prime on :
I can't read PDF files on this computer at the moment. Anyone care to give a quick summary?
Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
First, the opinion describes the two standards of review - Rational Basis & Heighten Scrutiny. Basically with Rational Basis the government only needs a rational reason for the law for it to pass constitutional muster. You use Heighten Scrutiny when you have a suspect classification (Like race, religion, national origin) or a fundamental right. With Heightened scrutiny the government needs a compelling interest which is achieved in the narrowest possible way
The opinion then decides whether to interpert the marriage right broadly or narrow it to gay marriage. Judge Downing went for broad because other cases used the broad approach. Therefore marriage is a fundamental right requiring heightened scrutiny.
Then he examines the state interest argued (and the unargued ones) He shows why these interests don't hold up against the rights of the individuals.
Judge Downing finds in favor of the plaintiffs (the gay couples) but does not give a remedy because both sides agreed to hold off until the Washington Supreme Court reviews the decision. The Judge does say that the SC could grant marriage rights by authorizing marriage or starting up civil unions. Judge Downing also wrote that he felt that the only threat to marriage that would come from outside the institution itself would be any legislative attempt to create civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Posted by Kid Prime on :
Thanks, Quis! Posted by STU on :
Thanks, Quis. I didn't read the opinion either, but I thought you did a great job of explaining the issues and the judge's ruling in a very clear, concise, and effective way.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)