Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting No. 75934-1 FAIRHURST, J. (dissenting) – In these consolidated cases, 19 gay and lesbian couples petitioned to receive the same right that all heterosexual Washington residents enjoy--the right to marry the person of one’s choice. See Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 93-130 (Castle v. Washington, No. 04-02-00614-4, 2004 WL 1985215, Mem. Opinion on Constitutionality RCW 26.02.010 and RCW 26.02.0201 (unpublished order) (Thurston County Super. Ct. Sept. 7, 2004)) [hereinafter CP (Castle)]; CP at 876-901 (Andersen v. King County, No. 04-2- 04964-4-SEA, 2004 WL 1738447, Mem. Opinion and Order on Cross Mots. for Summ. J. (unpublished order) (King County Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2004)) [hereinafter CP (Andersen)]. In each case, the trial court found on multiple grounds that the denial of that right, as codified in RCW 26.04.010(1) and .020(1)(c), was unconstitutional. Yet, Justice Madsen’s plurality opinion (plurality) reverses those trial courts based on “[t]he case law” that purportedly “controls our inquiry.” 1 Although the title of the Castle court’s memorandum opinion refers to RCW 26.02.010 and RCW 26.02.020, no such statutes exist. See CP at 93. The opinion later correctly refers to RCW 26.04.010 and RCW 26.04.020, which are the statutes at issue in the case. See CP at 95. - 1 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting Plurality at 59. Neither an objective analysis of relevant law nor any sense of justice allows me to agree with the plurality. The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests.2 With the proper issue in mind--whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by 2 Despite the plurality’s attempts to distance itself from the concurrence, the plurality itself acknowledges that the concurrence “merely repeats the result and much of the reasoning of the [plurality’s] decision on most issues.” Plurality at 5. In truth, the concurrence fills the noticeable, and presumably intentional, omissions in the plurality’s reasoning. The plurality notably avoids any real discussion of the State’s interest in excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage and focuses exclusively on the State’s interest in marriage for opposite-sex couples. See, e.g., plurality at 41 (“[R]earing children in a home headed by their opposite-sex parents is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because children tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their biological children.”). The concurrence, on the other hand, more directly addresses the necessarily discriminatory correlative of that argument. See, e.g., concurrence at 40 (“Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children.”). As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 601, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003), “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same- sex couples.” (Scalia, J., dissenting (quoting id. at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). As much as the plurality would like to deny the discriminatory impact of its decision to uphold an unconstitutional law, that is the plurality’s result. - 2 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting opposite-sex parents--I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying same- sex couples the right to marry. I would hold further that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right, the denial of which has historically received heightened scrutiny. It is error to artificially limit the inquiry, as the plurality and concurrence do, to whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.3 It is equally incorrect to limit the definition of the right to marry to the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA’s) denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is not rationally related to any asserted state interest, it is also not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest. Therefore, for both of these reasons, I would affirm the two trial courts in declaring RCW 26.04.010(1) and .020(1)(c) unconstitutional. The plurality uses the excuse of deference to the legislature to perpetuate the existence of an unconstitutional and unjust law. I dissent. 3 The plurality and concurrence also incorrectly assert that by analyzing whether the fundamental right to marry extends to a class of individuals to whom it historically has been denied that I am somehow creating a new fundamental right. See plurality at 32; concurrence at 23-24. United States Supreme Court precedent has taught us again and again that framing the inquiry into a constitutional right in such a narrow way misunderstands and undermines the value of the right at stake. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567 (overruling a previous Supreme Court decision that framed the liberty interest in sexual privacy as whether there was a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, which disclosed that Court’s “failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.”). - 3 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting ANALYSIS Marriage is a right “older than the Bill of Rights--older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). “Without question, civil marriage enhances the ‘welfare of the community.’ It is a ‘social institution of the highest importance.’” Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 322, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) (quoting French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546, 195 N.E. 714 (1935)). Civil marriage is a legal status given to individuals who seek the State’s recognition of their committed relationships.4 See Wash. Statewide Org. of Stepparents v. Smith, 85 Wn.2d 564, 568-69, 536 P.2d 1202 (1975); In re Marriage of J.T., 77 Wn. App. 361, 363, 891 P.2d 729 (1995). This legal status is accompanied by numerous legal, social, and financial benefits and obligations, many of which cannot be secured outside of marriage.5 Indeed the Andersen 4 What is at issue here is solely civil marriage defined by RCW 26.04.010(1) as a “civil contract.” Granting same-sex couples the right to marry has no effect upon religious recognition of marriage or who is entitled to that recognition. 5 The trial court opinion in Andersen lists “but a few” examples of such rights and responsibilities afforded to married persons and the statutes in which they reside: rights to property and income under the community property laws (chapter 26.16 RCW); the right to inherit property (chapters 11.04 and 11.28 RCW); court oversight into dissolution of the relationship and equitable distribution of assets, as well as protection of the best interests of the children involved (chapter 26.09 RCW); benefits in the employment arena, such as renewing a deceased spouse’s commercial fishing license (chapter 77.65 RCW), health care services (chapter 48.44 RCW), retirement benefits (chapter 41.40 RCW), and state taxes (chapter 82.45 - 4 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting respondents reference 423 state statutes that grant rights or impose duties based in part on marital status. Br. of Resp’ts at 26. There is no substitute for the legal protections provided by the State to married couples and their families. There is no equally respected social union. Nor is there a comparable public acknowledgment of a couple’s decision to commit their lives to each other. But, in 1996, in response to Hawaii’s conclusion in Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was gender discrimination,6 the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (federal DOMA), Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996).7 The federal DOMA defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages authorized in other places.8 Id. In RCW); the right to bring wrongful death actions on behalf of one’s spouse (chapter 4.20 RCW); and the right to assert the spousal testimonial privilege (chapter 5.60.060 RCW). See CP (Andersen) at 881. 6 H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at *2, *4-6 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905, 2906, 2908-10. 7 The federal DOMA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, provides that: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. And at 1 U.S.C. § 7, defines “‘marriage’” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” 8 Among other justifications for denying same-sex couples the right to marry was moral disapproval: “Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective - 5 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting 1998, Washington followed suit, explicitly referencing the federal DOMA and enacting its own DOMA. LAWS OF 1998, ch. 1.9 Laws of 1998, chapter 1, section 2(1) states that “[i]t is a compelling interest of the state of Washington to reaffirm its historical commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife and to protect that institution.” Section 2(2) then recognized Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn. App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974), where the Court of Appeals held that the Washington marriage statute did not allow same-sex marriage and that the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Washington Constitution, article XXXI, section 1, did not require it, and stated the legislature’s intent to codify Singer. Further, that section explicitly “establish[ed] public policy against same-sex marriage in statutory law that clearly and definitively declares same-sex marriages will not be recognized in Washington.”10 LAWS OF 1998 ch. 1, § 2(2). To that end, DOMA amended RCW 26.04.010(1) to define marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at *15-16, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2919-20 (footnote omitted). 9 DOMA was codified in and amended RCW 26.04.010 and .020. 10 “It is clear that there is no question of legislative intent. . . . The legislature’s intent is to prohibit same-sex marriage as contrary to our civil law.” CP (Castle) at 96. - 6 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.” (emphasis added). Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”--i.e., same-sex couples. Thus, DOMA “defends” and “protects” marriage from an entire class of people, homosexuals. RCW 26.04.020(1)(c). Respondents argue that denial of their right to marry violates several provisions of the Washington Constitution: (1) article I, section 12, the privileges and immunities clause; (2) article I, section 7, the private affairs clause; (3) article I, section 3, the due process clause; and (4) article XXXI, section 1, the ERA. The plurality analyzes each argument in turn and concludes that no independent state constitutional analysis is appropriate, no heightened scrutiny is justified under any of respondents’ arguments, and that DOMA’s denial of the right to marry to same- sex couples is rationally related to the State’s interests in encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents. By doing so, the plurality shirks its responsibility to the people of this state to enforce the rule of law embodied in our constitution and to uphold the fundamental principles of justice. See CONST. art. IV, § 1. Although not explicit, our state’s constitution establishes a framework for the separation of powers. See - 7 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting CONST. art. II (“Legislative Department”); CONST. art. III (“The Executive”); CONST. art. IV (“The Judiciary”). However, the doctrine of separation of powers is also complemented and modified by the theory of checks and balances. See In re Salary of the Juvenile Dir., 87 Wn.2d 232, 238, 552 P.2d 163 (1976). While it is the legislature’s duty to make public policy decisions and enact laws, when the legislature enacts a law violative of our state’s constitutional guaranties this court can and must invalidate the law.11 See State v. Wheeler, 145 Wn.2d 116, 132, 34 P.3d 799 (2001) (Sanders, J., dissenting) (“‘[W]e must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,’ and it is the protection of the constitutional rights of the litigants before us which is our ultimate responsibility. The Constitution speaks the language of principle. And so must we.” (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). 11The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited ; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? . . . It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it ; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. . . . . [A]n act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1 Cranch), 176-77, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803); see also Wash. State Labor Council v. Reed, 149 Wn.2d 48, 62, 65 P.3d 1203 (2003) (Alexander, C.J.) (“The ultimate power to interpret, construe, and enforce the constitution of this state belongs to the judiciary. . . . This is so even when that interpretation serves as a check on the activities of another branch or is contrary to the view of the constitution taken by another branch.”) (citations omitted). - 8 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting As our nation’s history reflects, it is often left to the judicial branch to ensure acts of our legislature or the executive are not violative of the constitutional rights of the people. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954) (holding that segregation in public schools on the basis of race violated the federal constitution’s equal protection guaranty); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (holding Virginia’s antimiscegenation statutes violated federal equal protection and due process guaranties); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003) (holding Texas’ sodomy statute violated due process guaranties). This task is not one undertaken lightly, nor easily completed, but it is our task. A. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry fails rational basis review The challenged statutes do not rationally relate to nor further any legitimate governmental interest. DOMA creates a class-based distinction which grants opposite-sex couples certain and substantial “privileges” while explicitly denying those same privileges to same-sex couples.12 See CONST. art. I, § 12 (“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than 12 For the purposes of the analysis here, I assume, like the plurality, that article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution does not give greater protection than the federal equal protection clause in this situation. See Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791, 806-10, 83 P.3d 419 (2004) (Grant County II). Although I would not foreclose the possibility that article I, section 12 provides greater protection, I do not reach the issue because I would hold that DOMA fails even rational basis review. - 9 - Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 Fairhurst, J., dissenting municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.”).13 The privileges and immunities clause, like the federal constitution’s equal protection counterpart, requires that similarly situated persons receive like treatment--a statute may not grant a privilege to one class of persons that is denied to another class.14 See State v. Manussier, 129 Wn.2d 652, 672, 921 P.2d 473 (1996). For the purposes of article I, section 12, privileges are “those fundamental rights which belong to the citizens of the state by reason of [their state] citizenship.” State v. Vance, 29 Wash. 435, 458, 70 P. 34 (1902). A statutory classification must have a rational basis. Under rational basis review, the classification “must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and will be upheld unless the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of a legitimate state objective.” DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wn.2d 136, 144, 960 P.2d 919 (1998); see also Manussier, 129 Wn.2d at 673. However, a “reasonable ground must exist for making a distinction between 13 Respondents also argue that denial of the right to marry arbitrarily violates their substantive due process right to liberty. The same rational basis analysis applies to the same-sex couples’ due process claims. Because DOMA fails rational basis review under the privileges and immunities clause, it also fails rational basis review under the due process clause. 14 “The guaranty of ‘equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886)). - 10 -