Supreme Court's divergent views on marriage

The nine members of the Washington State Supreme Court filed six separate concurrences and dissents, reflecting a court splintered by strongly held views:

• Justice Barbara Madsen, writing the lead opinion of a plurality, concluded that the Legislature had the power and interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman and that the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional. The opinion was co-signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson.

• Alexander filed a two-paragraph concurrence, saying DOMA is constitutional. He wrote that the opinion "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."

• A concurring opinion written by Justice James Johnson and signed by Justice Richard Sanders used different legal reasoning to conclude the law is constitutional.

In dissent

• Justice Mary Fairhurst's dissenting opinion, co-signed by Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Bobbe Bridge, found no legitimate reason to defer to the Legislature for an "unconstitutional and unjust law."

• Chambers, joined by Owens, wrote a separate dissent that objected to Madsen's interpretation of the state constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause, which prohibits laws limiting the rights of specific classes of citizens.

• Bridge filed her own dissent criticizing DOMA for its "religious and moral strains" and argued that the court had the power and obligation to declare the act unconstitutional, just as the U.S. Supreme Court found school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.

— Staff reporter Jonathan Martin