Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,270 chars

a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married

persons.” (citation omitted)). 3

Here, Woods informed SUGM that he was involved in a same-sex relationship and

voiced a desire to someday marry a man. E.g., CP at 135 (Woods’ cover letter to SUGM

stated he could see “marrying and starting a family with another man.”); see also CP at

114 (Decl. of Matt Woods) (stating Woods informed SUGM “that [he] had a boyfriend,

and that [he] could see marrying a man”). Though this case also implicates the

fundamental right to marry whomever one chooses, it is not limited to this context. Also

implicated is the concomitant fundamental right to sexual orientation. Woods has

invoked these fundamental rights, satisfying the first prong of the article I, section 12 test.

Schroeder, 179 Wn.2d at 573.

Turning to the second prong of that test, we hold that reasonable grounds exist for

WLAD to distinguish religious and secular nonprofits. RCW 49.60.040(11) itself is

evidence of reasonable grounds. Courts routinely rely on statutory language to ascertain

and carry out legislative goals when construing statutory and constitutional provisions.