In praise of legal writing. The decision below captures legal writing as I think it should be--this is about as good as it gets. From Andersen v. Sims. Washington law, as of 1998, describes marriage as a "civil contract" valid only when entered into "between a male and female." The plaintiffs challenge this recently amended law as violative of the Washington state Constitution; to wit, its privileges and immunities clause and substantive due process.
Judge Downing offers, I think, a fair introduction to the legal and social issues at play. Both sides should read this:

Whether or not same-sex marriage's day has arrived, the debaters of its attendant legal issues have now arrived in the courts of Washington. They do not arrive empty-handed.

Never could this or any court find itself more in tune with the lofty goals advanced by every party to a lawsuit. Here, one side is guided by the beacon of individual liberty, the cherished right of each of us to seek to live our lives in the way we find most personally fulfilling. On the other side, the view is toward the future generations to whom we will pass on our legacy and the stated goal is to enable them to enjoy the social advantages and psychological grounding that are unquestionably nurtured by a healthy family environment.

It is so, too, with the legal principles at the heart of the dispute. The equal application of the laws, championed on the one hand, is a principle at the very core of our shared societal values. The competing legal principle in this case - the separation of powers between branches of government - is fundamental to the structure of our ordered democratic society. It is the sworn task of the courts both to vigorously defend the equal rights of all individuals and also to sedulously support the laws duly enacted by the people through their representatives.

There are, of course, political ramifications to this wedlock deadlock and neither folly nor sense of duty could blind one to that circumstance. The social issue before the Court is one about which people of the highest intellect, the deepest morality and the broadest public vision maintain divergent opinions, strongly held in good faith and all worthy of great respect. Resolving their disagreement is, to be frank, a matter too big to be addressed to a lone individual and this author would naturally like nothing better than to stop at this point and, with a warm and sincere pat on the back, to send all parties off to the State Supreme Court or the State legislature or both. Regrettably or not, such an abdication of responsibility is not an option. As this case and this debate pass by this way station, some impressions and conclusions must be recorded.

Thoughts on the decision forthcoming.