Arrow-right Camera


Reaction to Defense of Marriage Act ruling

Thu., July 27, 2006, midnight

“Today, caring and love for family lost, and nobody won. Hopefully that will change.”

Brenda Bauer,

one of plaintiffs.

“Our view is that marriage is already defined by nature and civilization as the union of two differents: one man and one woman. We know there have been variations throughout history, but they haven’t worked well.”

Jeff Kemp, president of Families Northwest

“The impact of this case upon the plaintiff couples and their children is both far-reaching and deeply saddening … ‘Defense’ of marriage? Defense from what? Against whom? The (Defense of Marriage Act) ought to be recognized for the discriminatory enactment that it is, and rejected as such … Future generations of Washingtonians will undoubtedly look back on our holding today with regret and even shame.”

Justice Bobbe Bridge

“This decision will not stand the test of time. Justice will not allow it to stand the test of time.”

Ron Sims, King County Executive

“If we start to redefine marriage, it will diminish our commitment to marriage and stable families for future generations.”

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester

“We should not have to go through the same painful process of waiting for popular opinion to catch up with the Constitution to declare denial of the right to marry unconstitutional.”

Justice Mary Fairhurst, referring to courts in the 1960s throwing out laws banning interracial marriage

“Though advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments and the dissenters cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”

Justice Jim Johnson

“I don’t think you’re going to see something happen overnight on this issue.”

Gov. Chris Gregoire


Click here to comment on this story »