[goodnesswins]

You can read the ruling here....

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=707

[Captain Rhino]

Applying the current case law that governs our decision and the narrow issues on which the plaintiffs requested we rule, we hold that the plaintiffs HAVE NOT established that the Washington State Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the state privileges and immunities clause, article I, section 12, the state due process clause, article I, section 3, the state constitution’s privacy 61 No. 75934-1 (consol. w/75956-1) provision, article I, section 7, or the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, article XXXI, section 1. We reverse the decision of the King County Superior Court in Andersen and the decision of the Thurston County Superior Court in Castle. Justice Barbara A. Madsen AUTHOR: WE CONCUR: Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander Justice Charles W. Johnson

The critical portion of the ruling(emphasis added). The justices seem to have foreclosed multiple avenues of reattack by gay marriage activists in broadly ruling that the DOMA is within current case in state privileges and immunities, state due process, state privacy, and the state’s Equal Rights Amendment.

[beelzepug]

These individual opinions are well worth reading as they paint a pretty good picture of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of our state justices.
While the fact that three of the four dissenting were women may or may not mean anything, the two (Bridge and Fairhurst) who wrote opinions show that there was a lot of "feeling" going on but not much thinking. Fairhurst's writing, in particular, is just a mess. It starts out with the erroneous statement that heterosexuals in Washington have the right to mary anyone they choose and goes down hill from there.
We're lucky to have managed a 5-4 decision.