Ruling doesn't respect equality

More than a century ago, a U.S. Supreme Court justice dissented when a majority declared that our federal Constitution permitted citizens of African descent to be made to ride in "separate but equal" railway cars. That was wrong, Justice John Harlan said in Plessy v. Ferguson, because the Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." As King County Executive Ron Sims said Wednesday, Harlan's lesson is one we must learn again and again and again.

Just as the plaintiffs in Plessy did, our plaintiffs looked to the Washington Supreme Court for vindication of their rights, and, just as in Plessy, the court failed them. Their disappointment, their outrage, their grief are beyond what words can measure. Though a majority of the court, seven justices in all, acknowledged the hardships our couples and those like them are forced to endure as second-class citizens, the plurality shrank from its duty to uphold that most fundamental of democratic values: equality. The court left them and their families without the basic protections that all other families in Washington enjoy.

The court did so because the plurality viewed its role as little more than a rubber stamp for legislative action, even where that legislative action expressly discriminates against one group of people for no good reason. We do not dispute the importance and necessity of the separation-of-powers doctrine, on which the plurality relied. Like the plurality, we agree that each branch of government must do its job and no other. However, we vigorously disagree that the doctrine requires the court to abdicate its historical and proper role. That role includes a duty to protect the rights of individuals, minority groups, the vulnerable and the politically unpopular. That is the promise of our constitution and our justice system, and Wednesday that promise was broken.

Our disagreement with the plurality is mutually respectful. Indeed, though it is little consolation, we recognize with hope and gratitude that our state largely has put behind us the cruel bigotry of several decades ago. And we reject the speculation we have heard from others that the plurality upheld this discriminatory legislation out of fear of public reaction. Rather, we believe Justices Barbara Madsen, Charles Johnson and Gerry Alexander did their duty honorably and as they saw it.

At the same time, we observe that such fear would be warranted. There are elements in our society that, with increasing boldness, insult, intimidate, attack and even assassinate jurists for simply doing their jobs. These elements threaten the rule of law and, thereby, threaten the very foundation of our civil society. Certainly, the threat from those who would silence the third branch of our government with the false and pejorative label -- activist judge -- far exceeds any imaginable threat posed by the marriage of loving and committed same-sex couples. Because this threat strikes at not only the interests of our clients in this case, but at the core safeguards of our civil society, it should arouse alarm in every citizen who cares about our future.

We took our challenge to the courts because we believe in our justice system. Indeed, the pain of this ruling is sharpened precisely because of the trust we place in the rule of law. Yet we know our system is imperfect. We know justice is achieved in degrees, in steps forward and backward. Most important, we know that ultimately, someday, and we hope soon, we will achieve the victory denied us on Wednesday.

Now we take our challenge to the Legislature. And we take our challenge to the people of Washington, to our friends and neighbors, our families, loved ones and co-workers. We need their help. We need your help. We ask you to look into your hearts and discern whether you share our hope and belief that our state, blessed with great natural beauty and abundance, is likewise blessed with fairness and generosity. Our hope now looks to you, and we trust you will not disappoint us. With the help of all our fair-minded, freedom-loving fellow citizens, we will together someday soon declare what the court would not: In this great state of Washington, all people are equal before the law.

Lisa M. Stone is executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center. Patricia Novotny is the center's cooperating attorney. The Northwest Women's Law Center represented the eight couples in Andersen et al. v. King County, one of the two marriage equality cases decided by the Washington Supreme Court.

Soundoff (Read 19 comments)
Tell us what's on your mind.

Add P-I Opinion headlines to