Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Washington, Idaho couples will see their unions recognized nationwide

Eli Francovich And Jim Camden Staff writers

The Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states will have only indirect effects on Washington and Idaho, where same-sex couples already are able to marry.

Washington voters ratified legislation allowing same-sex marriage in 2012, the first such law approved by both a Legislature and a state’s voters. Idaho’s constitutional requirement that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman was struck down by a federal court last fall, and the high court’s ruling effectively ends efforts by Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden to overturn that.

“I have maintained from the very beginning that it should be the prerogative of the states – not the courts – to determine whether same-sex marriage is consistent with the values, character and moral fabric of that particular state,” Otter said in prepared remarks.

The high court has not yet rejected those appeals, but today’s decision means it probably will, and same-sex couples will continue to receive marriage licenses in Idaho.

“The decision doesn’t change the current landscape here,” said Todd Dvorak, a spokesman for Wasden.

The constitutional provision remains on the books, and the attorney general’s office is reviewing the decision to determine what steps, if any, the state would need to take regarding the law.

Deborah Ferguson, a Boise lawyer who represented four lesbian couples who sued and won in federal court last year, said she believes Friday’s decision covers the Idaho appeals. She said her clients were ecstatic when they called her Friday morning.

“Lots of tears of happiness,” she said.

Peter Lavallee, a spokesman for the Washington attorney general’s office, said the main effect of the ruling for that state’s residents is that same-sex couples married in Washington will have their marriages recognized in any other state when they travel or move there. Previously, same-sex couples from Washington could be denied certain rights, such as visiting a spouse in a hospital, in a state that didn’t recognize their marriage.

In a speech on the state Senate floor, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, said the ruling means he and his husband “don’t have to check our marriage license at the border” when traveling to states that banned same-sex marriage.

Washington was at the forefront of recognizing same-sex marriage, Pedersen said, and the state “helped turn around the debate,” he said.

But Sen. Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, said the high court was restricting the religious freedom of people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, to recognize something dissenting justices argued is not in the Constitution. That includes merchants who don’t want to supply goods or services to same-sex weddings or judges who don’t want to perform them because of religious objections.

Padden, a former district court judge, had what he called a word of caution for supporters of same-sex marriage: “There’s a lot of people who still believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Northwest lawmakers were divided on the decision. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called it a “historic moment” that shows how far the country has come.

“After decades of fighting for equal rights, LGBT couples finally have the guarantee of marriage equality nationwide and the protections that all married couples enjoy,” Murray said in a news release.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., also promised future action.

“We must continue to fight all forms of discrimination that LGBT people continue to face and ensure that there are comprehensive federal nondiscrimination protections in place,” Cantwell said in a release.

Like Otter, Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador denounced the decision as an attack on state and individual rights. In a news release he called for support of his bill, the “First Amendment Defense Act,” which prohibits federal agencies from penalizing any business based on their definition of marriage.

“The decision turns the principles of democracy on their head,” Labrador said. “As Justice Scalia correctly states in his dissent, our founding documents gave the citizens of this great nation the ‘freedom to govern themselves.’ ”

U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Spokane, said she disagrees with the ruling but that it’s important to respect the law of the land.

“Every person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs,” she said in a news release. “The rule of law and equal protection of legal rights applies to everyone.”

Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney representing Coeur d’Alene Hitching Post owners Donald and Lynn Knapp, said the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t affect his clients. The Knapps are contesting a Coeur d’Alene city ordinance outlawing sexual discrimination. Tedesco maintains the Knapps have been arbitrarily targeted by the city. In some ways, he said, the Supreme Court’s decision helps his client because it includes language that protects individuals’ right to define marriage.

“We can’t be coerced to agree with that decision or participate in that,” he said.