PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE
JOINT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has defined the family as
“consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the
holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our
civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15,
45 (1885), quoted in United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401 (1908); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court described marriage as “an
institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it
is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in 1977 stated that “the basic
foundation of the family in our society [is] the marriage relationship,” Smith v. Org. of
Foster Families For Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843 (1977); and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Washington concluded that, “There is no
history and tradition of same-sex marriage in this country, and the basic nature of
marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has not changed,”
Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, 977 (Wash. 2006) (En Banc); The Supreme
Court further found, “Nor is there a tradition or history of same-sex marriage in
this state”…[and] the Court went on to note that, “Nearly all United States
Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly
link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and childrearing,” Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, 978 (Wash. 2006) (En Banc);
Moreover, the plaintiffs, members of the homosexual community, could not show
that they were members of a “suspect class”. See Andersen v. King County, 138
P.3d 963, 969 (Wash. 2006) (En Banc), therefore, the Supreme Court concluded,
“We hold that the plaintiffs [same-sex couples] have not established that the
Washington State Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional,” Andersen v. King
County, 138 P.3d 963, 990 (Wash. 2006) (En Banc).
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1 concluded that
the Washington Statute prohibiting same-sex marriages was valid, See Singer v.
Hara, P.2d 1187, 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) (regarding Wash. Rev. Code. §
26.04.010 (1988) (repealed)); Supporting its opinion, the Court of Appeals said, “It
is apparent from a review of cases dealing with legal questions arising out of the
marital relationship that the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man
and one woman who are otherwise qualified to enter into the relationship not only
is clearly implied from such cases, but also was deemed by the court in each case
to be so obvious as not to require recitation. (See, e.g., In re Estate of Grauel, 70
Wash.2d 870, 425 P.2d 644 (1967); Davis v. Davis, 3 Wash.2d 448, 101 P.2d 313
(1940); Weatherall v. Weatherall, 56 Wash. 344, 105 P. 822 (1909),” Singer v. Hara,
P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). Moreover, the Court of Appeals
concluded, “[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of
societal values associated with the propagation of the human race,” Singer, 522
P.2d 1187, 1195 (1974); and
WHEREAS, in 2013 the United States Supreme Court officially severed its
respect for marriage by declaring unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) which defined marriage for federal purposes as existing between one
man and one woman, United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
NOW THEREFORE, the Legislature of the State of Washington hereby
submits the following Joint Resolution to the United States Congress entitled
Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Application to the United States Congress
to call a Convention for proposing an amendment
to the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, the Legislature of the State of
Washington by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives hereby makes
application to the United States Congress to call a Convention for proposing the following
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution
Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define
or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman,
and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United
States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.