Baker v. Nelson
precludes Plaintiffs’ equal-protection challengeto Michigan’s Marriage Amendment. Alternatively, if this Court should rule that
does not control, then their claim fails when analyzed under the applicablerational-basis standard for equal-protection challenges based on sexual orientation.Plaintiffs fail to negate every conceivable basis which might support theclassification, especially the notion that defining marriage as between one man andone woman furthers Michigan’s legitimate interests in attempting to provide theideal family setting for its children. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to establish a viableequal-protection claim based on a
Romer v. Evans
analysis because they fail to showthat passage of the Marriage Amendment was based on pure animus towardhomosexuals. As to their due-process claim, Plaintiffs fail to show that same-sexmarriage is a fundamental right. Accordingly, State Defendants respectfullyrequest this Honorable Court to grant their Motion to Dismiss.
The U. S. Supreme Court has never changed its positionregarding the holding in
Baker v. Nelson.
Just a few weeks ago, Judge Robert C. Jones reaffirmed the preclusive effectof U. S. Supreme Court’s summary dismissal in
to an equal-protectionchallenge of Nevada’s state marriage laws:[
] [t]he U.S. Supreme Court summarily dismissed the appeal[from the Minnesota Supreme Court] so this Court "had best adhere tothe view that" the question of whether a state's refusal to recognizesame-sex marriage offends the Equal Protection Clause isconstitutionally insubstantial and the Court is prevented from comingto an opposite conclusion. [
Sevcik v. Sandoval
, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS169643 at *17-18 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2012) (citations omitted, copyattached as Exhibit 1).]
2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 48 Filed 12/20/12 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 863