Andersen V. King County - Decision

Decision

In the plurality opinion, which was co-signed by Justices Gerry L. Alexander and Charles W. Johnson, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that “Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.” Justice Gerry L. Alexander issued a separate concurring opinion, further emphasizing the possibility that the legislature or people could expand the definition of marriage in the state. Justice James M. Johnson also issued a separate opinion, co-signed by Justice Richard B. Sanders, which concurred in judgment only. This opinion suggested that the judges' rulings in the lower courts, which held DOMA to be unconstitutional, were result-oriented and disregarded the law. The reasoning in Madsen's plurality opinion is similar to that found in the Hernandez v. Robles decision, which was handed down on July 6, 2006, from New York’s highest court.

The four justices that dissented accused the majority of relying upon “circular reasoning” in formulating their opinion. In the main dissenting opinion, co-signed by Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Bobbe J. Bridge, Justice Mary Fairhurst asked, “Would giving same-sex couples the same right that opposite-sex couples enjoy injure the state’s interest in procreation and healthy child rearing?” Justice Tom Chambers issued a separate dissenting opinion co-signed by Justice Susan Owens, while Justice Bobbe J. Bridge issued yet another dissenting opinion.