Wash. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Jeff Kingsbury, left, and his partner Alan Fuller, look over the Washington State Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state's ban on gay marriage Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash. Kingsbury and Fuller, who live in Olympia, Wash., and say they have been a couple for 14 years, were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the state that led to the ruling. The 5-4 decision leaves Massachusetts as the only state to grant full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren) (Ted S. Warren - AP)

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on gay marriage Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in another liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground.

Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same-sex couples to wed.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and it left intact the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Earlier this month, New York's high court dealt gay couples a similar blow when it upheld a state law against gay marriage.

Wednesday's ruling surprised and delighted gay-marriage opponents, given Washington state's liberal politics, particularly in Seattle.

"This is more than we could have imagined. We are shocked, and pleasantly shocked. We were prepared for the other direction," said Jon Russell, field director for the conservative Faith and Freedom Network.

Disappointment was perhaps greatest in Seattle, home of the state's most visible gay community.

"There aren't words to describe how hurt people in the gay and lesbian community are. There's a lot of tears and a lot of anger right now. Emotion is raw," said state Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat and one of four openly gay state lawmakers.

The state Supreme Court overruled two lower courts that had found the ban violated the Washington Constitution's "privileges and immunities" section.

The gay-marriage ban "is constitutional because the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the controlling opinion.

However, Madsen and other members of the majority invited the Legislature to take another look at the "clear hardship" that the ban causes for same-sex couples.

In a dissent, Justice Mary Fairhurst said the majority improperly bowed to public opinion. "Unfortunately, the (majority) are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA's discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination," she wrote.