Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020 (2026)

Prohibited marriages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

(a) When either party thereto has a spouse or registered domestic partner living at the time of such marriage, unless the registered domestic partner is the other party to the marriage; or

(b) When the spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a) or (2) of this section.

(4) A legal union, other than a marriage, between two individuals that was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction and that provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a marriage, does not prohibit those same two individuals from obtaining a marriage license in Washington.

(5) No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, license, or refuse to contract with any religious organization based on the opposition to or refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, service, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

(6) No religiously affiliated educational institution shall be required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, service, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, including a use of any campus chapel or church. A religiously affiliated educational institution shall be immune from a civil claim or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW, based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, service, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage under this subsection shall be immune for civil claim or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW.

[ 2012 c 3 s 2 (Referendum Measure No. 74, approved November 6, 2012); 1998 c 1 s 4; 1927 c 189 s 1; Code 1881 s 949; 1866 p 81 s 2; 1854 p 96 s 115; RRS s 8438.]

Notes:

Notice—2012 c 3: See note following RCW 26.04.010.

Finding—Intent—1998 c 1: See notes following RCW 26.04.010.

Bigamy: RCW 9A.64.010.

Incest—Penalties: RCW 9A.64.020.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases, 1975–2020 · leading case: Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 12× “Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties "other than a male and a female"â i.”

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 11× “) Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”— i.”

United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). · cites it 2× “19 (2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice).”

Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). · cites it 3× “Wash. Rev.Code § 26.04.010 (1998). (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: * * * (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.”

Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). “3; Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020 (1)(c); W. Va.”

Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004). “020 (2002); Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020 (2002); W. Va.”

In Re Parentage of LB, 89 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(1) (1998); RCW 26.04.020(1)(c) (1998); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.”

Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wash. App. 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(1); RCW 26.04.020(1)(c); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn.”

Leskovar v. Nickels, 166 P.3d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “010, RCW 26.04.020, and other governing law. ¶ 5 Following consolidation of the two cases, the City moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6).”

Vasquez v. Hawthorne, 994 P.2d 240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “We hold that these limitations are relevant in determining whether a relationship *368 is sufficiently “marital-like” to be meretricious. To marry, parties must be over the age of 18 and mentally competent.”

IBEW Pac. Coast Pension v. Cleta M. Lee, 462 F. App'x 546 (6th Cir. 2012). “3 Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020 (l)(a); Seizer v.”

In Re Marriage of Akon, 248 P.3d 94 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Marriages performed in accord with common religious practices are also valid if the appropriate paperwork is filed.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(1) — 2 cases

Leskovar v. Nickels, 166 P.3d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “010, RCW 26.04.020, and other governing law. ¶ 5 Following consolidation of the two cases, the City moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6).”

Leskovar v. Nickels, 140 Wash. App. 770 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(1)(a) — 2 cases

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). “Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties "other than a male and a female"â i.”

Rotana Ek v. Layheang San (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(1)(b) — 2 cases

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). “Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties "other than a male and a female"â i.”

State Of Washington v. M.d. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(1)(c) — 5 cases

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). “Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties "other than a male and a female"â i.”

In Re Parentage of LB, 89 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(1) (1998); RCW 26.04.020(1)(c) (1998); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.”

Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wash. App. 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(1); RCW 26.04.020(1)(c); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn.”

In Re Marriage of Bureta, 164 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Thornton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Wash. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(3) — 6 cases

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). “Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties "other than a male and a female"â i.”

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). “) Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”— i.”

In Re Marriage of Akon, 248 P.3d 94 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Marriages performed in accord with common religious practices are also valid if the appropriate paperwork is filed.”

Alonso Veliz v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(4) — 1 case

Alonso Veliz v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(l)(a) — 1 case

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). “) Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”— i.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(l)(b) — 1 case

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). “) Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”— i.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.020(l)(c) — 3 cases

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). “) Then, amending RCW 26.04.020, DOMA explicitly prohibited marriage between parties “other than a male and a female”— i.”

Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). “Wash. Rev.Code § 26.04.010 (1998). (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: * * * (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.”

In re the Marriage of Bureta, 140 Wash. App. 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.