## Facts

- John F. Singer and Paul C. Barwick, two adult men, applied to the King County Auditor for a marriage license.
- The auditor, Lloyd Hara, denied the application because Washington marriage law did not permit licensing a marriage between persons of the same sex.
- Singer and Barwick sought an order compelling issuance of the license through a motion to show cause in superior court.
- The trial court denied relief, finding no showing that Washington law permitted same-sex marriage and no constitutional violation from the denial.
- The appellate court treated a certiorari petition as a notice of appeal and reviewed the trial court’s order.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s marriage statutes (RCW 26.04.010 et seq.) authorize marriage between two persons of the same sex.
2. Whether denying a marriage license to two men violates the Washington Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment (Wash. Const. art. 31, § 1).
3. Whether denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple violates the U.S. Constitution, including the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (due process and equal protection).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order and upheld the auditor’s denial of the marriage license.
- The court held RCW 26.04 did not authorize same-sex marriage; “marriage,” as used in the statute, meant the legal union of one man and one woman.
- The court held the statutory limitation did not contravene the state Equal Rights Amendment.
- The court rejected federal constitutional challenges under the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Legal Principles

- Absent explicit authorization, “marriage” in Washington’s general marriage statute was construed as an opposite-sex union.
- A prohibition on same-sex marriage was not treated as sex discrimination under Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment where both men and women were equally barred from marrying a person of the same sex.
- Statutory classifications are presumed constitutional and are upheld if supported by a reasonable, rational basis; only inherently suspect classifications trigger heightened scrutiny.
- Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was upheld under rational-basis review based on the state’s asserted policy interest in marriage as a setting for procreation and rearing of children.
- Denial of a marriage license was not “punishment” and therefore did not implicate the Eighth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted Washington’s marriage statutes to authorize only opposite-sex marriage and held that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the state Equal Rights Amendment or federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.


Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)