Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,754 chars
includes same-sex couples and is protected by due process and equal protection clauses

of the Fourteenth Amendment. 576 U.S. at 672-74; see also State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d

17, 34, 195 P.3d 940 (2008) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388,

71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982) (plurality opinion); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S. Ct.

1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (stating that the right to marriage is fundamental)); see

also State v. Vance, 29 Wash. 435, 458, 70 P. 34 (1902) (identifying as a fundamental

right of state citizenship the right “to enforce other personal rights” (emphasis added));

Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551-52 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) (No. 3230) (listing the

right “to pursue and obtain happiness and safety” as a fundamental right).

As Lawrence, Obergefell, and Justice Stevens’ dissent in Bowers contemplate,

individuals possess the fundamental rights to their sexual orientation and to marry

whomever they choose. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, 577-78; Obergefell, 576 U.S. at

651-52 (“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes

certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express

their identity.” (emphasis added)), 664 (identifying and protecting fundamental rights

requires “courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so

fundamental that the State must accord them its respect”); Bowers, 478 U.S. at 216

(Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[I]ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are