Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« More Details from the Police R... | Hood River, Oregon »

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Politics Gay Marriage: Why Aren’t We Appealing the WA Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage?

Posted by DAN SAVAGE on July 30 at 17:20 PM

Bart Lovejoy writes…

It is common knowledge that the couples who sued the state for Equal Marriage lost.

It is not common knowledge that they have the right to file a motion to reconsider.

I spoke to one of the plaintiffs in the case and she didn’t even know that this was an option. This blew me away. She hadn’t even been informed that this was an option! She said she had not ever heard of it. She told me to ask Jamie Pederson, who was one of the lawyers involved in the case.

So, I spoke to Jamie Pederson face to face and he told me that they (the lawyers involved in the case) were not likely to file a motion to reconsider because they (the lawyers) don’t think it will change the outcome. That just doesn’t sit right with me. There was no guarantee that they would win when they went into this suit and there’s no guarantee that it won’t change the outcome. The lawyers still have approximately 20 days left to file. Apparently, the lawyers are not asking the LGBT community what it wants to do and they are not asking the couples if they would like to file for reconsideration with the court. Outrageous! Where is the conviction, the principle?

In the Stranger (online) there is an MP3 file where Justice Alexander says at least 4 times that the plaintiffs have 30 days to file for reconsideration of the ruling.

If they don’t file I want to know WHY?

I told Mr. Pederesen that if they don’t file that the lawyers on the case would be remiss in their duties to their clients and to the broader community. If this is the case, I will be writing letters to the editors of every paper in Washington State in order to let the LGBT community know that 2nd best is just fine with Democrats and that 2nd class is just fine with the couples’ lawyers. Even if the outcome is the same they would at least get more exposure and continue to stand on principle. That is, after all, the whole point.

The opinion of the Washington State Supreme Justices who sided with the ‘right wingnuts’ out of fear sided on the wrong side of the constitution and we have to fight them on their decision with a motion to reconsider! They need to understand that their ruling was not happily received.

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

Unless there's some special Supreme Court rule, they probably have only 10 days to get reconsideration in.

Posted by Napoleon XIV | July 30, 2006 5:40 PM

2

Napoleon,

If you listen to the Mp3 link in the post, Justice Alexander says there is a 30 window to file for reconsideration.

Posted by danny lovejoy | July 30, 2006 5:42 PM

3

Hmmm. The Big Book of Rules, Section 12 point 4, subsection "b" says 20 days, so mebbee we're all wrong.

Posted by Napoleon XIV | July 30, 2006 5:49 PM

4

It ain't like Gerry Alexander hasn't been wrong before...

Posted by Napoleon XIV | July 30, 2006 5:50 PM

5

Oh, yeah--Dan?

You need to direct your pitch to Patricia Novotony, who did the briefing/argument to the Supremes. Pederson was never much more than Posterboi.

Posted by Napoleon XIV | July 30, 2006 5:56 PM

6

Dan didn't talk to Pederson. Bert Lovejoy, author of the comment, did.

But yes, I think this is a pretty good question.

But if they reconsider and go the other way, the outcry is going to be unbelievable.

Posted by Fnarf | July 30, 2006 6:00 PM

7

They didn't appeal because Dan didn't go to those community meetings.

Posted by Always very impressed | July 30, 2006 6:18 PM

8

You tell 'em, Bert.

Thanks for the knowledge, Dan.

This issue is as vitally important as any human or civil rights issue today. There must be a push.

Posted by jls | July 30, 2006 6:50 PM

9

Oh come on this is obvious, it is because marriage is between a man and a... OK, once again I can't even keep up the sarcasm on this one. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. One would think we could beat discrimination in this country one day.

Posted by Silvertail | July 30, 2006 6:52 PM

10

I thought I heard Justice Alexander say that he thought, no he KNEW that a motion to reconsider would be brought - and that was why he wanted to end the Stranger's inquisition? Sounded like he had some inside knowledge about it, more than just common sense speculation.

Posted by so what | July 30, 2006 6:58 PM

11

Or he had a change of heart during The Stranger's inquisition...

Posted by Noink | July 30, 2006 8:13 PM

12

The attorneys for the plaintiffs should consult their clients and, if the clients wish it, they should file a motion to reconsider, and depending on how the issue was argued below, it might even be possible to apply to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (Yes, sometimes interpretations of state constitutions are done in ways that violate the federal constitution).

Yes. Cert is a high rissk strategy. But as I have said before, a 5-4 majority in favor of Lawrence and Roemer still sits on the Court.

Posted by jonathan | July 30, 2006 8:31 PM

13

I think Alexander might be thinking of reconsidering. It certainly sounded like it in the tape. What I could tell from the recording and what I know about him from the press this guy is on the fence and maybe he has some serious judgement remorse?
Whomever is in charge of the legal crap: make a motion. Don't quit. Fight until your last shell is spent. This is important stuff-you have to see it through.

Posted by lisa | July 30, 2006 8:31 PM

14

I completely concur with the idea that we need to file for reconsideration. I so want to send a message that we aren't content with this ruling. Perhaps we should organize in some way to really stress this point?

File!!!

Posted by Timothy | July 30, 2006 10:01 PM

15

They really, really, really need to file for reconsideration.

Posted by David Summerlin | July 30, 2006 10:31 PM

16

Forget this guy. Think Barbara Madsen. She was the lead judge on this decision. She was also the judge who, about three years ago, ruled that if you punched someone so hard in the head that you killed them, unless you say, "Yeah, I meant to kill him (or her) and I'm glad" you didn't really mean to; thus, no murder conviction. That resulted in hundreds of cases that had been successfully prosecuted around Washington State being overturned. It included the case of Tim Kimes, who had been killed by a vicious young thug, because young Kimes was simply trying to help a woman up whom Thugboy had pushed to the ground.
Barbara Madsen was overwhelmingly re-elected - fall of 2004 as I recall, but might have been 2005 - despite that "it isn't murder" ruling. The reason was only the families of the victims and some prosecuting attorneys cared.
Now, maybe the people reading The Stranger will care enough to get rid of this fucking bitch.

Posted by Terry Parkhurst | July 30, 2006 10:52 PM

17

What does this have to do with Democrats?

Posted by ivan | July 30, 2006 10:56 PM

18

Is it possible that there isn't enough money to remount a legal challenge? Could some of the ITMFA money be used? I don't live in Washington, but I'd be more than willing to let my three bucks serve a worthy cause.

Posted by Brie | July 31, 2006 7:06 AM

19

I would guess its not a matter of money, but time. I think al the attorneys are working pro bono. While a motion to reconsider seems really simple it is not. Yu have to give the courts reason to reconsider and this means lots of research drafting and preparing. Given that these are rarely if ever successful they probably don't want to waste the time.

That being said I think they should. You never know what might happen. All you really need is on justice to shift a little and you have a 5-4 the other way. Plus it will keep the issue alive and let them continue to make there arguments in the media.

Posted by Giffy | July 31, 2006 7:25 AM

20

The Lawyers working on this case don't have much time to make up their minds. They are not even publicly talking about filing for reconsideration. I was at the Wednesday and Sunday forums to hear what they had to say. I hope they don't make the mistake of not consulting their clients or the GLBT community (thinking they know better). I also hope that they aren't to tired after a 15 month waiting period to take up a reconsideration motion. It's their duty to follow this through. Especially after the horrendous rulling and the language used to beat the shit out of the gay community. The justices have to be held accountable with a motion for reconsideration.

I wan't to hear from Murray, McDermott, Gosset, Rasmussen, Upthegroove, Pederson, etc. on why they do or don't support a motion for reconsideration.

Posted by Danny Lovejoy | July 31, 2006 9:12 AM

21

Playing the Devil's Advocate here (you can bet the lawyers are drafting a Motion for Reconsideration behind the scenes--it's almost automatic):

1) Motions for Reconsideration rarely, if ever win; and

2) A Motion for Reconsideration still pending during the election cycle may prove politically disastrous for the two dissenting justices who are up for it.

Posted by Napoleon XIV | July 31, 2006 10:05 AM

22

Maybe they're not appealing because they know the radical right has already stacked the US Supreme Court?

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 31, 2006 11:04 AM

23

There's ample reason to reconsider. The plaintiffs can bring mountains and mountains of evidence regarding immutability and reargue for suspect class.

Posted by * | July 31, 2006 11:21 AM

24

The judges have already decided. An appeal is not going to change their minds, and would be a waste of energy, time and resources. Plus, reversing the decision would have no effect on the gay marriage ruling at the Federal level, where it really matters.

Posted by Gomez | July 31, 2006 2:48 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).