(dissenting) — I am compelled in conscience to disagree respectfully with some of the views expressed in the majority opinion and to dissent therefrom. There is a fine line of distinction between my views and the views of the majority, which the judicial system must recognize and preserve.
The only portion of the trial court’s permanent injunction from which Mr. Dickson seeks relief in this court is that which prohibits him from representing that Mrs. Dickson is his wife. This relief has been sought on the basis — as I understand it — that he adheres to the religious conviction that neither the State of Washington nor any other power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, has the authority to truly dissolve the marriage relationship, which he believes was contracted between Mrs. Dickson and himself when they were sacramentally married many years ago. He acknowledges that legally he and Mrs. Dickson are divorced and that she is no longer his legal wife. Thus, he acknowledges that the civil decree of divorce, granted by the State of Washington through its judicial system, does have a serious and controllable effect upon the external aspects of the marital relationship between these two parties, but he steadfastly maintains that the decree does not and cannot affect the fundamental relationship which was created when he and Mrs. Dickson were validly married. Incidentally, the record does not reflect that Mrs. Dickson holds to any contrary view.
Mr. Dickson is a scoundrel. I do not for one moment condone any of his past actions which have in fact harassed Mrs. Dickson. Nevertheless, he is entitled to such protections as are afforded by the constitution. Preliminarily, it should be stated that he does not seek to modify the portion of the permanent injunction which permanently enjoins *193him from harassing her “in any way”; from “contacting, speaking to or communicating with [Mrs. Dickson] or otherwise interferring [sic] with her freedom and personal enjoyment,” or “from accusing her of being insane.” However, I would most certainly stay the chancellor’s hand from imposing the broad restraints set forth in this modified injunction.
The majority opinion grants nothing more than token acknowledgement that Mr. Dickson has the right to express his religious beliefs. Because of the continued viability of the unchallenged portion of the injunction — that he may not harass Mrs. Dickson in any way — I must assume that the continuation of restraints on his future speech applies even though his statements are neither intended to nor do not in fact harass Mrs. Dickson. Thus, under the terms of the injunction as modified, he may never unqualifiedly express his belief to anyone at any time during the life of the injunction even though that assertion is not intended to nor does it harass Mrs. Dickson. Indeed, under any factual circumstances, however far removed from any semblance of harassment of Mrs. Dickson, the injunction leaves suspect the simple assertion, “I believe she is my wife,” or “Conscientiously, I must declare that she is my wife.” Either he may make those statements, or he may not make those statements. If he may make either of those statements without risking the wrath of the chancellor then there is no reason why he may not express that belief by declaring, “She is my wife.” If he may not make either of those statements, then he is being deprived of rights guarantied to him by the First Amendment.
One final word. The majority opinion itself appears to ácknowledge that the challenged portion of the injunction cannot be supported on the theory of defamation. Certainly, it cannot be said that every future assertion by Mr. Dickson that he regards Mrs. Dickson as his wife will characterize her, in the words of the majority, “as a loose woman, as adulterous, or as bigamous.” Granted that defamatory statements are not protected by the First Amend*194ment. Neither can they provide the basis for imposition of injunctive relief.
The fundamental error of the majority opinion is that it presupposes that because Mrs. Dickson has been harassed in the past by Mr. Dickson’s conduct, every future expression of his belief that she is his wife also will constitute an unwarranted harassment and, somehow, an invasion of her privacy.
With utmost respect for the views and sensibilities of my two associates who have signed the majority opinion — ■ both of whom I hold in the highest esteem — I view the purported exercise of authority now sanctioned by this court as a most flagrant usurpation of judicial authority.
For the reasons asserted herein, I dissent from the opinion of the majority of this court.
Petition for rehearing denied January 6, 1975.
Review denied by Supreme Court February 25, 1975.