Denying same-sex couples the ability to marry violates their constitutional rights. It’s as simple as that.

Actually, it’s not that simple, as King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing made clear in a thoughtful, 26-page decision he issued Wednesday. Simple or not, however, the ruling was just.

Downing was the trial judge in a case brought by eight same-sex couples who were turned down for marriage licenses. He had to weigh the court’s natural deference to the will of the people, as expressed by their elected lawmakers, against the constitution’s insistence that all people enjoy fair and equal application of the law.

Washington state law, amended in 1998 to restrict marriage to man-woman couples, is not fair and equal, Downing held.

Indeed, it is especially unfair, given the long list of benefits, rights and responsibilities that attach to marital status. Inheritance. Property rights. Visitation access in hospitals, not to mention decisions about life-support systems. During trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney said married couples in Washington can claim 300 legal rights and responsibilities not available to same-sex couples. No one contradicted the point.

Downing’s ruling, which is on hold pending review by the state Supreme Court, will move Washington into the national spotlight in the debate over same-sex marriage. It will fan emotional flames among Washingtonians on both sides of the issue – a natural consequence of cultural change. But those are consequences that must be accepted in the name of justice.

The ruling won’t rob anyone of his or her personal convictions about morality. It won’t oblige any church or faith to violate its beliefs. It will merely extend the unbiased protection of the state to more of its citizens.

“As time marches inexorably on,” Downing wrote, “human society – its collectively felt needs and its ability and inclination to provide for those needs – evolves.”

Gay rights clearly constitutes one area of evolution. But that’s the magic of the American foundation of rights. They were written with the capacity to conform to inevitable but unforeseeable changes, social as well as technological.

The plaintiffs in the King County case are a select group, stable and committed to long-term relationships.

They include two Protestant clergy members and a Jewish cantor.

They include church members and parents.

They are productive, contributing citizens in their communities.

They model all the qualities and attitudes reflected in any discussion about “family values.”

If Downing’s decision holds up, its expansion of marriage rights will also fall to same-sex couples who aren’t so upstanding – as already is true for heterosexual marriages. Ultimately, that’s the point.

Said Downing: “The delineation of rights is best done with a view to human potentialities rather than in fear of our shortcomings.”

The realm of human potentialities is only enlarged by the affirmation of our belief in equal rights.