A recent newspaper editorial regarding same-sex marriage aptly framed the issue this way:

“To the courtroom. That ought to be the next stop for same-sex marriage advocates in this state.”

Now, to the court it is! This is the right way to decide constitutional issues.

Over the past several weeks, we have witnessed a different approach taken across our nation:
In San Francisco the mayor decided unilaterally to disregard the state law;
In New York state a small town mayor chose to ignore the state statutes;
In Portland, the county attorney declared on her own that the Oregon law was unconstitutional, clearing the way for the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses.
The first and most fundamental question before us is this: who should decide the constitutionality of our laws?

Amid the swirling clouds of political debate we must return to the fundamental building blocks of our nation.

We are a nation of laws with a carefully drawn system of checks and balances.

It is fundamental to our system that the actions of the legislative branch are subject to review by the judiciary.

Constitutional issues are decided by judges, not by Executive branch officials.

This concept of judicial review has permitted our nation to address sensitive social issues in an orderly fashion that breeds respect for the law.

This proud history stands in stark contrast to the unilateral actions taken by a few local officials across the country who have decided which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore.

King County Executive Ron Sims has been under intense political pressure to be like those other local elected officials and ignore the state law. He has resisted that temptation despite his personal views on the underlying issue.

That is because his respect for the law and our system of government runs so deep. I admire his commitment to principle.

Last week I met with Executive Sims to discuss this issue and he put it so eloquently to me when he said:

“Government doesn’t have the right to engage in civil disobedience.”

This issue is where it belongs - in a court of law.

Our state statutes leave little room for ambiguity. Our law was passed in 1998 and specifically prohibits marriage when the parties are persons other than a male and a female.

The 1998 law was intended also to codify the leading court case in Washington State, Singer v, Hara , a 1974 State Appellate Court case from King County where the Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s prohibition against same-sex marriage.

Our role, as legal counsel for King County, will be to defend the constitutionality of our marriage laws. The plaintiffs are well represented by counsel, and they will have the full opportunity to make their Constitutional arguments before the court.

I expect that, whatever the Superior Court decides, this issue could likely wind up in the State Supreme Court. That is as it should be