December 2007

Bar News welcomes letters from readers. We do not run letters that have been printed in, or are pending before, other legal publications with overlapping readership. Letters must be 250 words in length or less, and e-mailed to letterstotheeditor@wsba.org or mailed to: WSBA, Attn. Letters to the Editor, 1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539. Bar News reserves the right to edit letters. Bar News does not print anonymous letters, or more than one submission per month from the same contributor.

Cracking the glass ceiling

Marcine Anderson said “time flies,” and Karen Andersen gave us sobering statistics concerning women as “unequal partners” (October 2007 Bar News). Both themes struck a chord with me. I started law school 30 years ago and have been admitted to the practice of law in three states; worked in large firms, small firms, and run one of my own; raised three children; and — gulp — been divorced three times. I am a bit older and wiser than the starry-eyed young woman who believed her law class would be the one to level the playing field in the nation’s law firms. My role in the failure of women lawyers to break the glass ceiling in our profession is one of the few failures I readily admit and heartily regret.

I am now happily married to the best litigator I’ve ever known and the best friend I’ve ever had. For the first time in 30 years, I am a full partner with a man who says he holds me in the highest esteem of any lawyer he knows, and that I lift him to be the best lawyer he can be. How my ego soars to hear it! My grown sons are awesome. They have no interest in being lawyers. My fifteen-year-old daughter has high school and boys on her mind, but I see the seeds of a great litigator. Watch out, fellows! This next generation of “girls” will give you a run for your money and I, for one, will be right there cheering them on!

Gail Ragen, Seattle

Poking at Polk?

I certainly enjoyed reading about the service of Jeannette Hayner who was a hardworking and effective legislator (“Three Lady Lawyer Legislators Who Showed Us the Way,” November 2007 Bar News). It did not serve any purpose, other than to call into question the veracity of the author, for George Scott to repeatedly slam legislator William Polk. It was legislator Polk, a very bright and also effective legislator who managed to work effective compromise in 1977 with only about 36 percent of the House in his caucus. The major bills coming out of that session included the Juvenile Justice Act and state pension reform for fiscal stability. Representative Polk’s leadership as caucus chair of that small majority led to the House Speakers position for his co-leader Duane Berentsen a few years later, while he was majority leader.

Representative Polk spoke for a large number of the state who wanted a well-managed government without cronyism. This is something that he had a great deal in common with Jeannette Hayner. Mr. Scott’s brand of legislator apparently has great disfavor with the “citizen legislator” of whom William Polk was one of the finest examples. It was unfortunate for the state that the needs of his family’s education and the continuing demands of time had him “retire” to his profession.

I have not seen Bill Polk for over 20 years but I will never forget his undying commitment to forthrightness in government. The needless slam by author Scott seriously lessens the readability and reliability of his article and any message that might be in it.

David C. Mitchell, Everett

Legislating morals

Our entire legal system is based on morals. It is based on what our society has determined is right or wrong. Our society believed it is immoral to steal something from someone else, and made it illegal. The federal government determined that it was immoral for children to work long hours and limited the number of hours children can work. The issue of same-sex marriage is one of morals. It is a social and political issue.

Many people believe that homosexual acts are immoral and that the State government should not encourage such behavior. It has been immoral under most religions for thousands of years. A majority of Muslims, Jews, and Christians agree on this issue and a vast majority of people across the world now and in the past have agreed.

Creating same-sex marriage in Washington will open the doors for more modifications to please other moral minorities (September 2007 Bar News). Polygamy has been accepted in some societies, and shouldn’t they be accommodated too? The age requirement for marriage is somewhat artificial and different in different societies. The sanctity of marriage will suffer if its definition is diluted to include anyone who wants to do anything.

Some people are dissenting from the morals and ideas of past generations. The legislature has accommodated this minority by allowing homosexuals to adopt children. This created some moral acceptance of behavior that a majority of the people of Washington State still considered to be immoral. When the legislature recently created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, they knew the majority of the people of this state would not agree. That is why they wrote the bill so that a referendum by the people was not allowed.

A minority of people are changing the morals of the law and forcing their ideas on the majority. This is not how our republican form of government is supposed to work.

Some may say that by holding to the morals that served societies all over the world for thousands of years, we show we do not like the people who are having same-sex relationships. It is not that we do not like them, we love them, but believe they are doing the wrong thing.

The same-sex marriage issue is definitely one of morals, which makes it a political and social issue. The WSBA should not take a position on the issue of same-sex marriages because the morals of the bar members are diverse.

Jeanette Burrage, Des Moines

Equal marriage divides

Although I have supported same-sex marriage since the mid-90s, I hope the WSBA will not take an official stand on the matter (September 2007 Bar News).

The American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the National Education Association, and even labor unions have cost themselves membership and the respect of the public by taking public stances on divisive issues like abortion and gun control. In so doing, they have also diminished their influence and their ability to serve their professions.

The WSBA will not lose membership over this question, but it will invite segments of the Washington legal community opposed to gay marriage to attempt to have their personal political views enshrined in “official” positions. After all, if they are required to be part of a political organization, they might as well strive to make its politics match their own. This will turn the WSBA into a political battleground like any other.

The politicization of the WSBA will cost all of us respect and trust in the eyes of the public.

The notion that same-sex marriage relates to the “administration of justice” because marriage touches so many areas of law strikes me as exactly the kind of legalistic sophistry that gives our profession a bad name in many quarters. However, even if it may be fairly said the WSBA can take a position on this or any other political question, it ought to refrain.

Robert Lyman, Portland, Oregon