holding that the state DOMA does not discriminate on the basis of sex and cataloging the various cases from other jurisdictions interpreting their own equal rights amendments
How later courts described this case
- holding that the state DOMA does not discriminate on the basis of sex and cataloging the various cases from other jurisdictions interpreting their own equal rights amendments
- holding that the same analysis that applies under the federal equal protection clause applies under the state privileges and immunities clause “unless the challenged law is a grant of positive favoritism to a minority class”
- "[T]he State has met its burden in demonstrating that DOMA [Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act] meets the minimum scrutiny required by the constitution."
- lead and concurring opinions constituting a majority of the court; claimed privacy interest outside the search and seizure context
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Alexander, C.J.
(concurring) — Although many pages of opinion have been written in this case, the issue with which we are here confronted is really quite narrow. The question before us is this: is the provision in Washington’s marriage statute, RCW 26.04.010, which clearly states that marriage is between a “male and a female,” unconstitutional? Put another way, have the petitioners met their burden of overcoming the presumption that this statutory provision is constitutional? The answer to both questions is clearly “no,” for reasons stated very articulately by Justice Madsen in the majority opinion. If we were to conclude otherwise, as do the dissenters, we would be usurping the function of the legislature or the people as defined in article II of the constitution of the state of Washington.
fll3 I quickly add, though, that there is nothing in the opinion that I have signed which should be read as casting doubt on the right of the legislature or the people to broaden the marriage act or provide other forms of civil union if that is their will.
¶114