Ask them how they feel about Griswold v. Connecticut?

Hope you'll invite Mr. Justice Bridge, one of those old men in long balck dresses. He drinks like a drunken sailor and looks like Bill Gates or like Jim Carrey in Dumb & Dumber, but hey, he gets my vote the next time he wants it & is willing to buy it.

"Are undercover buy/bust operations a violation of the 4th Amendment?"

The more fundamental issue is whether they should be elected at all. Even the perception of whether they might have been influenced by electoral politics is deeply troubling, especially when it comes to a civil rights issue.

moreperfect.org has a lead on this exact issue.

Let's see, Griswold. That's where Wild Bill Douglas bit a bad tab of Purple Strychnine, and started seeing emanations & penumbras where the Constitution used to be.

So ask your guests if they see the Constitution as a constitution, or if they see it as living, breathing, penumbral Silly Putty.

Alexander is a bigot.

Two questions for Alexander: Question one: Should persons upon application for a marriage licence be required to show they are capable of procreation in order to have the state issue a marriage license? Question two (which is slighly different): Are those that are precluded from procreation, but otherwise meet the standard of one man, one woman (such as a 60 year old woman marrying a 60 year old man) now precluded from obtaining a marriage license in Washington? If not, why not given the court's ruling yesterday basing its plurality upon the premise that the legislature can restrict marriage licenses in that manner?

Questions for Alexander:

How long did it take you to walk barefoot from Appalacia to Washington?

Did your snake-handling buddies disown you after you got that big city lawyer degree?

Do you wear anything under your robe to hide the woody you get whenever them queers talk about queer stuff? Or is that even necessary?

Fuck you you fucking fuck. Oh, I guess that wasn't a question. Sorry. No, not really. Fuck you.

Actually, a 3rd question: Are county clerks now required to restrict marriage licenses based upon the court's ruling? Should they be asking for direction on this from the legislature, or should someone ask for an emergency injunction to restrict the issuance of such licenses to prevent further damage to childen in the state until this issue is resolved?

1. Would a law banning adoption by homosexual couples be constitutional in the state of Washington?

2. Is the admission of emperic scientific evidence appropriate, such as the doll test in the Brown vs Board of Education case decided by the federal supreme court?

Bridge to Nowhere: You're a moron. Justice Bobbe Bridge is a woman.

Dave Coffman: Your questions are better aimed at the legislators that passed DOMA in Olympia. Read the opinion - Alexander neither condoned or agreed with the law - all he did was agree that the legislature met the minimum requirement and had a minimum interest in passing DOMA (the whole child bearing red herring). He doesn't have to believe the rationale, but only that the legislature had a rationale.

Justices can't (and shouldn't) vote like legislators. Alexander has been a fine and good Supreme Court Justice for quite a while now. If he loses in November then you'll be stuck with a BIAW sponsored right-wing reactionary guy (John Groen). Alexander is impartial - Groen will be bought and paid for by right wing interests.

I’d like to know how well they each listened and tracked what was going on. Ask ‘em to comment on what another one said. How thoughtfully do they respond? Did you feel they accorded respect to your situations, or was there an abundance of glibness? If you catch any whiff of either narcissism or condescension off of any of them please let us know. If you are uncomfortable about anything, we’d like to know what. The sitting justices are so accustomed to being surrounded by nothing but obsequious sycophants it is sick.

For Alexander as well: Were you concerned that any decision you would make in this case would have an effect on your re-election bid?

The gist of the majority opinion that Alexander joined was deference to the legislature, for good or ill.

It sounds like neither Stephen Johnson or Groen are coming in, for good reason. Johnson is a pretty conservative GOP state legislator, with high marks from conservative interest groups, so I don't imagine he would have many positions popular with The Stranger's editorial board or readership. Groen is a long-time property rights lawyer who worked for years with Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative property rights group. He has no judicial experience, but you can be pretty sure he will line up with the James Johnson and Sanders wing of the court. Ask yourself if you would rather have a justice who agrees with the opinion by Madsen, or the far more conservative concurrence by James Johnson. That is where Groen would undoubtedly fall.

Thank you Dave! That is exactly the line of questioning I want answers for. Does that mean all of my engaged/married straight friends are required to have kids? The whole circular logic of having the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex means having equal rights really bugs me too. Did they study scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is a choice versus being genetic? Ask them that too.

Mr. Bridge is a WOMAN? Oh God, no. So it ain't so! (Thought I heard Stephanie Miller say that Bridge needs a trachea shave, so I just assumed ..... Silly me.)

Willis: I did read the opinion. Hence my "fourth" question given his very limited separate opinion. I agree that courts should leave legislating to the legislature- but now I am interested in what the effects of the court's decision are and his opinion on that. I don't think that Alexander gets a "pass" simply because he's a nice guy or because someone potentially worse is running against him.

1. The US Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to marry is a "fundamental right." The restriction of fundamental rights triggers strict judicial scrutiny, whereby the state that restricts the right must show that it : (a) has a compelling interest in restricting the right; and (b) the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve the interest.

So: How does the Washington State Supreme Court (which purported to apply the federal test) justify the application of a deferential "rational basis" test to the discrimination in this case?

If the justification turns on the idea that the right to marry is fundamental but the right to marry a person of ones choice is not, isn't this non-sensical and irreconcilable with the line of cases including Griswold v. Connecticut, that define the right to privacy?

Moreover, isn't Chief Judge Kaye of the NY Court of Appeals correct that it is analytically wrong to define a right by of the persons who seek to enforce it?

Didn't the US Supreme Court reject exactly this fallacy in the Lawrence case when it overruled Bowers v. Hardwick?

Then I'd get into whether there is any rational relationship between the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples and the biological interests identified by the Washington Supreme Court.

Dave: And my only point was that your first 3 questions didn't apply. All he said was the the leg had a reason - not that he agreed with the reason.

Fair enough Willis. But given his vote and the fact that he's up for reelection, I think they are valid questions to gain his perspective.

Ask them if the state has a fundamental interest in Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock getting married four times in a week, in Michigan, Tennessee, California and France.

Ask them if the Anderson/Rock marriages are more valuable to the state than recognizing legal rights of homosexual partners that the state trusts enough to place foster children with.

Ask him how he squares his opinion with (a) Marriage between a man and a woman who have no children by choice; (b) marriage between a man and a woman who are infertile; (c) marriage between a man and a woman past the child-bearing age; (d) marriage between a man and a woman who never have sexual relations of any kind.

Ask him what distinction he makes in his mind between an opposite-sex couple with adopted children and a same-sex couple with adopted children; are they different?

Ask him how he feels about a lesbian who gives physical birth to a child fertilized from a sperm bank who then raises that child in a same-sex relationship. Then ask how that differs from a woman doing the same thing, but raising the child in a legal opposite-sex marriage.

Ask him if he thinks gays should be allowed to raise children -- or better yet if he thinks a legal prohibition against gay adoption would be constitutional. Make him answer. MAKE HIM ANSWER.

Ask him if he sees any parallels or conflicts between this decision and Dred Scott, or Pace v. Alabama, or Loving v. Virginia.

Basically I'm saying pin the bastard to the wall. And make him understand that no one in this city is ever going to vote for him again.

Hey, I'm a JD!

Ask 'em what kind of direction they give their law clerks when the clerks draft an opinion for them. It's always interesting to find out whether they defer to their clerks' work or actually do some of the research and writing themselves.

Also ask how much time they spend in Olympia (or outside Seattle at all). As I understand it, Fairhurst is currently the only one who keeps chambers in Oly. Owens is on the peninsula, which is a kooky place in its own right, but how do any of them get perspective from Eastern WA?

Ask them why procreation is in the state's interest? With global climate change, increasing demands on limited resources (everything from energy to water) and longer life expectancy rates, perhaps it is not in the state's interest to procreate--atleast not ad infinitum.

It seems to be in the state's interest, to perpetuate the species, but not every couple need have kids to do so, and, as Draconian as it may sound, limiting the rights of some couples to procreate may actually be more in line with the state's interest.

I'd suggest that we have all the answers we need from Justice Alexander. Don't ask him...tell him that we will work as hard as we can to defeat each and every one of the Justices who made this poor ruling.

Ask him about Mary Kay Letourneau's marriage to her rape victim (as he is in the eyes of the law).

Ask him why he believes the courts can uphold the civil rights of other minorities, but the civil rights of fags and dykes are the purview of the legislature.

Ask him why he believes majoritarian tyranny is constitutional.

Ask him how comfortable he is with his decision to let countless gay families live and die without the legal protections afforded their heterosexual counterparts while we wait for legislative action that will, in all liklihood, take at least another generation to pass. If ever.

Then tell him he's a backwards fuck who isn't fit to lick my ass. Then tell him to fuck off again.

While I am as disappointed as the rest of you in Alexander and Madsen (I expect no different from Jim Johnson or Richard Sanders in particular), I would like people to bear in mind that there's no question Alexander's opponent, Groen, would have voted to uphold DOMA - and Groen will do his level best to overturn any kind of restriction on rampant development and sprawl, too. That's what the BIAW is buying him the seat for. Ditto Steve Johnson, the invisible Senator from Kent (he's my state Senator, and he is the most nonresponsive state legislator of the three in the 47th). Both Groen and Johnson are completely in the pocket of the BIAW, which is one of the most reactionary forces operating in Washington state today.

Point taken, Geni, but the problem is that I'm no pragmatist.

Alexander might need my support more than my non-interference.

He won't get it.

Ask about Andress. Then ask about Andress again.

(My apologies to the Stranger Erection Control Board: Am doing more typos than usual this morning, and suggest that Stranger tech weenies bump up the comment font so we can actually see it.

Sincerely,

Typo-Dong Missile)

(I'm a JD, admitted in WA and CA). Keep in mind that it can be EXTREMELY hard for sitting justices to comment on a lot of these issues. Seriously. There are limitations on what they can answer under the ethics rules for judges (and judicial candidates.)

Ask the justices and candidates about transsexual marriages. When can a transsexual woman (an M to F, that is) get married to a man? When can a transsexual woman get married to another woman? Does it depend on surgery? Hormones? Documentary evidence (ie, the M on a birth certificate or passport or drivers license)?

Then ask about the same transwoman getting married to men. Does it matter that the transwoman will never be able to bear children, as she clearly will not?

Ask that piece of shit why someones sexual preference is cause to prevent them from entering into a contractual partnership. Also ask him if he really thought that procreation would cease if not protected by the state. Also ask him if he will increase/start smoking so that he can increase his risk of cancer and die a horrible painful slow agonizing death. And when he is in the hospital maybe the current court can find a nice loophole to prevent the idiots (if there are any) that care about him from seeing him in his last moments. In fact since the wrinkled old fart is probably way to old to procreate ask him if he thinks that his marriage should be annulled. After all I fail to see how the relationship of 2 people who simply love each other but aren't in the process of shitting out kids, should be protected by the state. Finally ask him if he will feel any guilt when he reads about the next gay-bashing in this state since attitudes such as his lend support to the idea that gays are sub-human and should be treated as such.

The majority opinion acknowledges many of the real ways in which gay families are hurt by their exclusion from the marriage regime and notes that "plaintiffs have affirmatively asked that we not consider any claim regarding statutory benefits and obligations separate from the status of marriage. We thus have no cause for considering whether denial of statutory rights and obligations to same-sex couples, apart from the status of marriage, violates the state or federal constitution."

So, if the legislature does not provide gay families with the substantive benefits of marriage, how would you react to a new remedial claim brought by gay and lesbian families for the substantive benefits and protections of marriage?

I despair. Groen is indeed a nightmare. He's going to win, too. Property rights is a white-hot topic outside of the city. And if he does, POOF, there go all your Urban Growth Boundaries (such as they are). Wanna buy a house on Mount Rainier?

When persons apply for marriage license who decides if they are male or female? What is the legal definition? Especially since you don't need birth cirtificate or Drivers Licnese to get a marriage license according to http://www.metrokc.gov/lars/marriage/index.htm.

Wow, interesting point. It doesn't just say "no birth certificate or driver's license", it says "no identification". I'll bet it's happened -- a little devious cross-dress, a nearsighted clerk... Sure, I'm, uh, John, and this is my fiancee, uh, Jane, yeah, that's it, Jane. Write it in.

Of course, making a false statement on the form is presumably a criminal act.

Oh how interesting!! In California you need to present two pieces of ID. See my post above about transsexuals - this is fascinating. So this means a transperson who outwardly looks perfectly male or female (yet underneath is not, perhaps) could come in and get a marriage license with someone who looks perfectly female or male.

Or to give another example, a transperson who is NOT passable for whatever reason - say a transman (ie, natal female) who is comfortable being genderqueer wants to marry his female partner, and he has done everything legally required to be "male" including surgery, yet still looks female in some ways. What then?

Transies are the monkeywrench in the marriage equation, to mix a couple metaphors.

@Squirrels: all justices have chambers in the Temple of Justice in Oly. They may live elsewhere, or work from other places occassionally, but spend most of their time in Oly. Not that it matters, it's not like you can pop in and say 'hi'.

I'm a JD, and here's a few legal questions on the hot-topic gay marriage:

The ruling stated that homosexuals were not a "suspect" class. If they had been determined a "supsect" class, DOMA would've had to have survived a much tougher strict scrutiny test. To be a "suspect" class, it must be shown that gays have "suffered a history of discrimination, have as
the characteristic defining the class an obvious, immutable trait that
frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to
society, and show that it is a minority or politically powerless class.") (cited from Madsen's opinion).

The Court agreed the first prong was satisfied-- that gays suffered discrimination. But the Court found that they failed the second (that their trait was "immutable") and third (the class is politically powerless) prongs of the classification.

As to immutability, the Court relied on a 1990 case that stated the trait was immutable. A couple items:
First, in the 1990 case, High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990), the "immutability" standard that the court cites, at 573, is stated thus: "exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;". Note the use of the word "OR"!! Thus, even if the trait is not immutable, if it's OBVIOUS (depends on accuracy of your gaydar, I guess) or DISTINGUISHING (I'd say this fits the bill, no?), you satisfy the second prong. Why did the Court ignore these two alternative ways of satisfying the second prong of "suspect" classification?

The Court also noted the plaintiffs failed to produce secondary material showing the "immutability" of homosexuality. But in light of recent scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is biological (see, eg, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm ), could the Court consider homosexuals a "suspect" class and then review DOMA under a heightened standard with sufficient evidence?

As to the third prong, "politically powerless group", the Court points to the recent enactment of the anti-discrimination law as evidence that the group HAS political power. But the Court itself noted that "Race, alienage, and national origin are examples of suspect
classifications." Under the standard offered later in the opinion, then, wouldn't ALL minority groups (racial, alienage, gender etc.) that find protection under anti-discrimination statutes necessarily fall out of the "suspect" classification, since they all have found the "policital power" to obtain anti-discrimination protection? Why the double standard?

^^EDIT to comment re: immutability of homosexuality. At what point would the Court determine scientific evidence (ie, recent studies showing homosexuality is immutable) outweighs previous legal precedent (ie, 1990 decisions saying its not immutable)? Or would the Court give deference to the trial court weighing that issue?

The decision was doomed once the Court failed to perform an independent analysis of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, defaulting instead to analysis of the federal Equal Protection Clause. Justice Chambers' dissent focuses entirely on this.

"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations."

Justice Owens concurs with Justice Chambers dissent. Why doesn't Justice Alexander? The holding decision says this only applies when privileges are offered to a minority class, but the text of the state constitution does not qualify the word class in any way whatsoever. The holding decision (and it's authority, Grant County II), contains suspect historical analysis to defend this restriction of the text, depending on the fact that there was rampant patronage occurring before the Constituation was signed and that Corporations were included. This sure seems like deviating from the text when it is convenient for the justices to do so.

Heterosexual couples undeniably form a class of citizens of this state, and they have a joint privilege, obtaining a marriage license, that homosexual couples do not. Last time I checked, homosexual couples consist of citizens of the state. Maybe Justice Alexander differs on this point?

why is procreation in the state's best interest? are we building an army of straights for a 2025 invasion of idaho? are we filling the underground portion of seattle with mole children who can survive a nuclear holocaust? i demand the truth.

Normally, I don't recommend revenge, but in this case it's totally justified IMHO, so long as one doesn't end up not recommending a justice who normally is ok or better and helping an extreme reactionary get elected. Look at the slate before you consign them to the depths of Hades.

The timing with the decision and the last day for opponents to apply does seem suspicious. Is there any way to recall these clowns?

"Is there any way to recall these clowns?"

Yes, yes there is, and it's pretty easy too. You just have to get enough signatures on a recall petition, ignore all the party people who will try to scare you from doing it, and turn it in.

However, these are STATEWIDE seats. That's a heck of a lot of signatures.

Ask him flat out: did you time this decision with the filing deadline in mind?

Then ask him to resign.

Ask for the specific Constiutional provision which indicates that procreation is in the interest of the state of Washington.

How did the interviews go?

In addition to interviewing judicial candidates,I suggest The Stranger do an article based on interviews with state legislators regarding their views on the implications of the majority’s reasoning on the constitutionality of legislation defining marriage to exclude gay marriage. For example, I would like to read about interviews in which state legislators are asked to answer questions such as those below to determine their views on the extent of the legislature’s discretion in light of the decision, whether they believe such legislation is likely to be introduced and passed or not:

• Would the ruling, based on encouraging procreation and the preservation of humanity, now permit the legislature to require all heterosexual couples to have at least one child?
• Would the ruling serve as authority for legislation requiring in vitro testing to assure that a fetus is likely to survive to adulthood or beyond?
• May state laws encourage the rearing of children in a home headed by the child’s biological parents by setting new and exceptionally high standards for foster care placement or adoption that make it more difficult or virtually impossible to prove the need for removal regardless of abuse, mental illness that leads to decisions and actions that endanger the child, the refusal to provide a child an education or needed medical care, or any other situation that now constitutes a strong case for establishing that a biological parent is unfit?

My thought is that it would be interesting and telling to show that state legislators understand that whether they have such discretion, they should exercise that discretion wisely. Hopefully, that would help newly introduced state legislation on gay marriage by showing how poorly reasoned the majority’s decision is, how it failed to set any boundaries, and how a close examination of the justifications actually shows the legislature was acting from bias not from sound information.