Of course, I worry about blowback. With HB 2661 (this year's version of HB 1515) likely to pass, it seems self-evident that the GOP has a state constitutional amendment all ready to introduce the second those damn fags get anything resembling equal rights. And marriage - well, we should just brace for the constitutional onslaught they've got ready.

It'll make their bullshit ploy on sexual assault legislation look like child's play.

it'll be pretty hard to pass a constitutional amendment in Washington, even if they have one at the ready. really, if seattle's senate contingent sticks together, that's enough votes to block it.

think the justicees are waiting for the gay rights bill to pass? maybe that'll provide a clearer basis on which to rule.

Here's my (completely speculative) read on Alexander's comment: if the court is pushing to issue a decision before the end of the legislative session, it means the decision will be a positive one for marriage equality proponents, though well short of a complete victory. The only reason I can think of to act before the session ends is if the court intends to declare the state DOMA unconstitutional but to leave the remedy -- either civil unions or full marriage rights -- to the politicians. In so doing, they would be following the model established by the Vermont court, which punted to the legislature, rather than that adopted by the Massachusetts court, which explicitly told the legislature that civil unions would not suffice to correct the constitutionally unsustainable unequal treatment of gays and lesbians with respect to marriage rights.
If I'm right -- and admittedly that's a big if -- it has several major political implications. First, it means that Democrats better push through the anti-discrimination bill on a fast track. If they don't get it done before the court rules, they may not get it done at all.
Second, it will make for an interesting end to the session, one where Democrats will find themselves in a difficult spot. While Seattle Dems will have no reason to jump on the civil unions bandwagon, there will be tremendous pressure on their suburban and non-Seattle counterparts to band together with Republicans to push through a hastily drafted civil unions bill. In this scenario, Gregoire will play a key role in determining whether or not Dems stand firm for full marriage rights. So far she has pointedly refused to state explicitly her position on the marriage issue other than one comment in the spring of 2004 when she said she she believed the state was "not ready" for gay marriage. Since then she has restricted herself to saying it is a matter for the courts to decide. If I'm right and the court does punt to the legislature, then she will have to pick: marriage or civil unions. If she comes out for civil unions, it will likely set off a stampede in Olympia among frightened Dems to go that route. And I suspect she will. Given Gregoire's extreme caution on this issue so far, and the calculation of her political advisors that standing up for full marriage will damage her reelection prospects against Rossi in 2008 (a misguided fear, by the way, since the experience in Vermont and Massachusetts has shown that the backlash against gay marriage gains tends to be noisy and immediate, but also short-lived), my prediction is that we will end up with the unfortunate and unsatisfying "separate but equal" civil unions as the ultimate resolution of this process.
Of course, given that I have a well-deserved reputation as a gibbering idiot, I could (as usual) be totally wrong about this.

They could be following either the Massachusetts or the Vermont model——both involved the legislature. Mass's court told the leg. to remedy the law, and when the legislators inquired as to whether civil unions would cut it, the court said no. I could see that happening here, too: A court decision followed by the legislature following up with the required paperwork.

Had dinner with Justice Owens tonight, who insists that the Chief told the other justices that he was misquoted. She did not lay out any possible timetable for the decision.