Gay marriage face-off nears in Wash.

SEATTLE -- The state Supreme Court tomorrow will hear arguments in a challenge to the state's Defense of Marriage Act, a case that could result in Washington becoming the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.

The hearing in Olympia will plant the court's nine elected justices squarely at the center of the nation's culture wars. It follows two sweeping lower court rulings last year that declared the law, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

Proponents of traditional marriage say they are concerned that marriage is on the verge of being radically redefined in the state.

''I'm very concerned that they won't uphold state law," said state Senator Dan Swecker, a Republican, who was one of the original sponsors of law. He added, ''Let's face it, we're a fairly liberal state."

Buoyed by the earlier victories, gay marriage advocates say they are cautiously optimistic that the court will uphold the decisions in the earlier cases.

''We have always felt we have a good shot of winning or we wouldn't have filed. There's no point in guessing, but we think we'll win," said Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which brought one of the initial lawsuits challenging the state's bar to same-sex marriage.

In that case, Andersen v. Sims, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled Aug. 4 that the denial of civil marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples was ''not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest." The lawsuit was brought on behalf of eight couples by the Law Center and Lambda Legal, a gay civil rights group.

The next month, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled in Castle v. Washington that the law violated the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause, which requires that any privileges offered by the state to one segment of a community be offered to the entire community.

In his decision, Hicks further ruled that homosexuals are a suspect class, a legal designation applied to groups with set characteristics -- for instance, race -- that causes them to be subject to discrimination and therefore entitled to added legal protections. The Castle case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer and 10 other couples.

Despite the rulings, no marriage licenses have yet been issued to same-sex couples in Washington state. Both lower court rulings were stayed and a consolidated appeal of the two cases is now before the Supreme Court.

Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act is one of 38 such laws in the nation. The state Legislature passed it overwhelmingly in 1998, overriding the veto of then-Governor Gary Locke.

Polling has shown that a slim majority of the state's residents are opposed to same-sex marriage. A survey of 500 residents conducted for the Seattle Times in late March 2004 found that just over 50 percent of state residents said that gay couple should not be allowed to marry, while 44 percent favored that idea. That poll had a 4.5 percent margin of error.

After the ballot box backlash against gay marriage at the polls last November -- bans of such unions passed in all 11 states in which it is was offered, including neighboring Oregon -- a fresh legal decision in favor of gay marriage could reinvigorate the push for marriage rights, gay advocates say.

''To have a second state after Massachusetts be a beachhead for marriage rights would be a really important psychological boost," said Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle-based attorney who is a member of the national board of Lambda Legal.

Defenders of traditional marriage, however, contend that if the law is overturned the institution of marriage will be weakened and families will suffer.

Former Seattle Seahawks quarterback Jeff Kemp, president of Families Northwest, an organization promoting traditional marriage that has filed an amicus brief in the case, said that gay marriage would be ''a radical transformation and a significant social experiment. It isn't marriage unless it's joining two opposites. Children need moms and dads."

The court could issue its ruling as early as late June, though most observers say the decision will probably come this fall.

If the law is overturned, traditional marriage supporters say they will continue to push for a state constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex unions. That would require a two-thirds vote in both legislative houses followed by the approval of a majority of voters, which is unlikely at present, given the composition of the Legislature, where Democrats control both houses. Two constitutional amendment proposals offered by Republican senators this year in anticipation of a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court ruling have so far garnered little attention or support.

In their briefs, gay marriage proponents have offered the court several distinct legal arguments to chose from should they rule in favor of same-sex marriage: that marriage is a fundamental right, that it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, and that it is incompatible with the state's strongly worded equal rights amendment, passed by voter initiative in 1972.

They say the state offers at least 423 rights and benefits to married heterosexuals that are denied to gay couples.

Defending Defense of Marriage Act will be attorneys for the state, for King County, and for a coalition of Christian pastors and conservative legislators who have been granted intervener status in the case.

Legal specialists say the court could take a variety of tacks in dealing with the case. They could uphold the law and overturn the lower court rulings. Even if the justices agree it is unconstitutional to bar state recognition to same-sex unions, they could, depending on the legal reasoning that they adopt, take a route more in keeping with Vermont, where the Supreme Court gave the Legislature the option of creating civil unions, than Massachusetts.

''If they decide there is a constitutional problem, it's 50-50 on what the remedy will be. It could be civil unions," said University of Washington law professor Peter Nicholas, who teaches a class on sexual orientation law. Lawyers for the state have indicated that it would prefer civil unions to marriage if the court finds constitutional problems with the law.