Nickels represents a pro-gay city where the 2000 U.S. census found one in every 21 couples living together is gay or lesbian. His spokesperson, Marianne Bichsel, proudly notes that in 1990 Seattle became one of the first cities in the country to offer domestic-partner benefits to its employees, and she stresses that Nickels is "supportive of gays and lesbians having the same rights that he and his wife enjoy"--but alas, she says, Nickels does not have the authority to issue marriage licenses, because that's the county's job.
King County Exec Sims would like to remind you that he has a long record of support for gay issues. The county offers domestic-partner benefits, and Sims backed the recent move to require people who do business with King County to offer those benefits too. But alas, says Sims' spokesperson Elaine Kraft, Sims can't direct the county to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because of Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage here as only between a man and a woman.
Both Nickels and Sims are obscuring the truth with these scripted responses from their spokespeople. Nickels may not legally be able to issue marriage licenses in the way San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (who is also in charge of San Francisco County) can. But if he can get his buddy Sims to issue just one same-sex marriage license, Nickels can follow the other example Newsom has set for civic leaders who defend gay civil rights: He can throw his city's legal resources behind a fight for gay rights in court.
Newsom didn't just order the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses. When his state called those licenses illegal, he took the state to court, challenging California's Defense of Marriage law--which is virtually identical to Washington's--on the grounds that it violates the equal protection language of the state constitution. That action assures that no matter what happens with same-sex marriage in San Francisco, the larger constitutional question--does California have a constitutional right to call gay marriage illegal?--will eventually be decided. If Nickels had the courage to stand behind his professed beliefs, he would pressure Sims to issue same-sex marriage licenses, then support the same type of suit here.
Sims, who does have authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses, could also move beyond his pro-gay talk. At the most radical, he could simply start issuing marriage licenses in defiance of state law, as Newsom has done, citing the equal protection clause of the California constitution as justification (the same sort of equal protection language can be found in Washington's constitution). If this feels too radical an idea for Sims, who is currently running for governor, he could issue just one symbolic marriage license to a Seattle gay couple. Then he could instruct the county's attorneys to file suit against the state, with the support of Nickels, when that license is declared illegal. The result would be a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of Washington's Defense of Marriage Act.
Now is the perfect time for such a suit. Here's why: Opponents of gay marriage would freak out, fearing a Washington ruling similar to the recent decision in Massachusetts ordering same-sex marriages to begin May 17. And their freakout would be well founded. The equal-protection and equal-rights language in Washington's constitution is so strong, observers believe the state's highest court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage. To head that scenario off at the pass, gay-marriage opponents would try to go above the heads of the Washington State Supreme Court justices by trying to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. But the amendment process begins in the state legislature, and the legislature is about to close up shop for the year, so the soonest anti-marriage forces could introduce their amendment would likely be 2005--which would give the courts enough time to rule on the Seattle/King County case, and gay-rights supporters enough time to rally the one-third of state senators or state reps that is needed to kill a proposed amendment.
"Most people have been assuming that same-sex marriage isn't something that could happen here for a while," says Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle lawyer who serves on the national board of directors for the gay-rights group Lambda Legal. "But if you could get a Ron Sims to go ahead and start issuing licenses immediately, and then start a court battle--you'd have to do the timing right to make sure the legislature wasn't going to come and do anything mischievous, but that would be great."
Would Sims do it? Spokesperson Kraft sticks to the script. She says Sims has no problem with the idea of gay marriage, but: "His job as King County executive is to enforce the law, and currently the law is that this is not legal."
That irks Pedersen: "He's just saying, essentially, 'Well, that's the state law and I don't have anything to do about it.' That's sort of frustrating. You'd hope somebody who is as established as he is in his position, and who has aspirations to be the leader of the entire state, would have a little more courage."
Both Nickels and Sims do seem rather oblivious to the tipping point the gay civil rights movement in this country has reached. Political leaders in other urban centers with large numbers of gay people get it, and they are pushing hard in the right direction. (Witness Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, speaking last week in support of gay marriage: "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender, and transsexual community. [They are] your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists. They are politicians. They have adopted children. To me, we have to understand that this is part and parcel of our families and extended families.") When you consider that Seattle's King County has a higher concentration of cohabitating gay and lesbian couples than Chicago's Cook County, the fact that Nickels and Sims aren't making a more forceful push for the marriage rights of gays and lesbians here becomes, quite simply, embarrassing.
