They pretty much went the same direction as the NY court, that marriage is about breeding and raising children that are biologically related to you.
…limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.In other words, foster and adopted children, children who are raised by people other than their biological parents and all the children of gay and lesbian couples can merrily fuck off.
From Dan Savage at The Stranger:
There’s something perversely stingy about the WA and NY decisions. How does preventing same-sex couples from marrying make marriage a more stabilizing force in the lives of heterosexual couples? How does making my child’s life more insecure make the life of the kid with straight parents next door more secure? As one of the dissenting justices in NY pointed out, there is no shortage of marriage licenses—there are plenty to go around.Because it doesn't. Both of these decisions seem to pretend that families headed by same-sex couples don't exist yet, that they're just a wacky idea people have proposed. They offer no proof that anyone is harmed by the existence of these families, apparently their prejudice against them is enough.
Dissenting Justice Mary Fairhurst gets it.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 raising 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.