Last month, the Suquamish Tribal Council amended its existing Marriage and Divorce Ordinance to permit marriages regardless of the couple’s gender. The amendment passed by a unanimous vote of the council and allows same-sex couples to receive the same treatment and benefits as opposite-sex couples. At least one person entering the marriage must be an enrolled member of the Suquamish Tribe. The amendment also provides for tribe members in civil unions entered in recognized jurisdictions to convert the union into a Suquamish Tribal marriage.
The issue of sexual orientation is not controversial in the Suquamish community. I have found no mention of sexual orientation as an issue in my research of the Tribe’s oral history or in non-Indian archival data. Some elders have stated that traditional views on same-sex interactions suggested that these individuals may have possessed unique spiritual associations. Research indicates that sexual orientation was probably not an area of great moral concern or discussion in Suquamish society before interaction with non-Indians. That same cultural value remains within the community today.
This tribal community of 1,050 members is sensitive to discrimination. Many members have experienced mistreatment based on race in their own lifetime, so the council understands the importance of ensuring that tribe members do not face discrimination in their own tribal laws, including due to sexual orientation. Tribe members view the amendment as an expression of the high value they place on inclusiveness and acceptance of diverse views within our community. This amendment embodies the Suquamish people’s ultimate exercise of its inherent right as a sovereign government to address the essential social question of whom Suquamish Tribe members can choose to marry.
Suquamish Tribe
NYTs on Suquamish Tribe Same-Sex Marriage Law
Here.
Puget Sound Public Radio on Suquamish Same-Sex Marriage Law
Here is a link to the audio and a transcript. An excerpt:
The Suquamish tribe has about a thousand members. One of them, a 28–year–old Seattle woman, pushed the tribe for years to open up marriage to same–sex couples. This week, the tribal council finally approved the change.
Now, the tribal court can issue a marriage license to two men or two women, as long as one of them is a member of the tribe.
Michelle Hansen is the tribe’s attorney. She says the new law gives gay couples the same marriage rights and benefits as others.
Hansen: “They don’t have to leave the reservation in order to get married. They don’t have to get a state, or a jurisdiction under the state type of license. They can just come here, and many tribal members would rather have those kinds of intratribal matters handled by their own government and by their own courts. So, this gives them that opportunity.”
Hansen says couples can also turn to the tribal court for divorces or some paternity issues.
The seven–member Suquamish Tribal Council unanimously approved the ordinance. The head of the council says he’s heard very little opposition, if any.
The Coquille tribe of Oregon appears to be the only one other tribe in the country with similar recognition for same–sex marriage.
Matthew Fletcher: “In general, I think it’s kind of off the radar.”
WaPo on Same-Sex Marriage Vote at Suquamish
An excerpt:
On Monday, the Suquamish Tribal Council ratified the people’s wishes and recognized gay marriage, making it only the second tribe in the country known to do so.
The new law allows the tribal court to issue a marriage license to two unmarried people, regardless of their sex, if they’re at least 18 years old and at least one of them is enrolled in the tribe.
It will be up to other courts to decide if unions granted under the Suquamish ordinance will be recognized elsewhere in Washington, said the tribe’s attorney, Michelle Hansen.
Gay marriage is still illegal in the state, but the Legislature this year approved a measure recognizing same-sex unions from other jurisdictions, which include other nations. State lawmakers also have approved a so-called “everything but marriage” law, granting same-sex couples many rights.
“I wanted to feel accepted by my tribe,” Purser said. “I was expecting a fight to be ugly. But I was so shocked. I guess I was expecting the worst out of people. I was expecting the worst out of my people.”
Incidentally, I’m on record as saying that the only other tribe that has approved same-sex marriage is the Coquille Tribe:
The Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast is the only other tribe that recognizes same-sex marriage, said Matthew L.M. Fletcher, a law professor at the Michigan State University Indigenous Law Center.
If there are others, please let us know!
Press Release: Asst. Sec. Echo Hawk Issues Gaming, Land into Trust Determinations
From a DOI Press Release:
Washington Tribes’ Challenge to Wash. Water Statute Fails
Here is the opinion in Lummi Indian Tribe v. State of Washington (Wash. S. Ct.).
An excerpt:
In 1998, this court held that under then-existing law, new private water rights did not fully vest until the water was put to a beneficial use, and not merely when the “pumps and pipes” capacity to use the water was built. Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 586, 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). We cautioned then that we were not considering municipal water rights, which often receive separate treatment in water law. Id. at 594. In response to our opinion, the legislature amended the municipal water law, Second Engrossed Second Substitute H.B. 1338, 58th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2003) (SESSHB 1338), to, among other things, explicitly define certain nongovernmental water suppliers as municipal and to make that definition retroactive. We are now asked whether these amendments violate separation of powers or facially violate due process. We conclude they do not. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Suquamish Tribe over Puget Sound Fishing Rights
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s (crabby) opinion in Upper Skagit Tribe v. Washington.
The briefs:
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief
The key holding:
We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that Judge Boldt meant what he said; the Suquamish treaty territory “include[s] the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” This broad, unlimited fishery is what Dr. Lane described in her report and testimony. Dr. Lane stated that marine fisheries “are far more difficult to delimit than fresh waters.” She repeatedly underlined that her report did not, and could not, list all of the usual and accustomed fishing locations of the Suquamish. She noted that the Suquamish had more limited resources in their home area than most tribes, and thus had to travel more extensively to fish.
Dr. Lane said that she had no documentary evidence that the Suquamish fished in the San Juan Islands, but nonetheless found it likely that they did so. Judge Boldt agreed, deciding in the absence of any specific evidence that the Haro and Rosario Straits were part of the Suquamish traditional fishing grounds. This demonstrates a lack of specific evidence would not have precluded Judge Boldt from including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage in Suquamish’s territory.
And why we think the court is being crabby:
Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction under VAWA
The Western District of Washington rejected a claim that the Violence Against Women Act confers tribal court jurisdiction over personal protection orders issued against non-Indians. In this case, Martinez v. Martinez, the Suquamish Tribal Court had issued a PPO against a non-Indian man in favor of an Alaskan Native woman. They both lived on non-Indian-owned land on the Port Madison Reservation. The court also ruled that the tribal court exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case.
Here are the materials:
defendant-martinez-motion-to-dismiss
suquamish-tribe-motion-to-dismiss
plaintiff-martinez-response-to-motions
Turtle Talk 