Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:13-cv-00217 #32

2:13-cv-00217 #32

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 32 - Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with attached appendix
Doc 32 - Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with attached appendix

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Peggy A. Tomsic (3879)tomsic@mgpclaw.com James E. Magleby (7247)magleby@mgpclaw.com Jennifer Fraser Parrish (11207)parrish@mgpclaw.com 
M
 AGLEBY
&
 
G
REENWOOD
,
 
P.C.
170 South Main Street, Suite 850Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-3605Telephone: 801.359.9000Facsimile: 801.359.9011 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISIONDEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDISBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER,individually, KATE CALL, individually;LAURIE WOOD, individually; and KODYPARTRIDGE, individually,Plaintiffs,v.PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENTGARY R. HERBERT, in his officialcapacity as Governor of Utah; JOHNSWALLOW, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and SHERRIESWENSEN, in her official capacity asClerk of Salt Lake County, Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJSDefendants. Honorable Robert J. Shelby
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 32 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 72
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ vii
STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... viii
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................... xiv
 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 1
I.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .................................................................. 1
II.
UTAH’S MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION LAWS VIOLATE DUE PROCESSBECAUSE THEY INFRINGE ON EACH PLAINTIFFS’ FUNDAMENTALRIGHT TO MARRY A PERSON OF HIS OR HER CHOICE ................................ 1
 A.
Marriage Is a Fundamental Right Protected Under the Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment ....................................................... 4
1.
Marriage Is a Fundamental Right to Marry the Person of Your Choice .................................................................................... 6
B.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Cannot Survive StrictScrutiny, as the State of Utah Has Failed to Meet Its Burden of Showing That the Laws Are Narrowly Tailored to Achieve aCompelling State Interest ......................................................................... 14
III.
UTAH’S MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTBECAUSE THEY DENY EQUAL ACCESS TO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND THE STATE CANNOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STRICTSCRUTINY STANDARD .................................................................................... 16
IV.
UTAH’S MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTBECAUSE THEY DENY GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS EQUALPROTECTION OF THE LAW ............................................................................. 18
 A.
Post
Windsor 
, Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Fail Under AnyStandard of Review Because Prejudice Is Irrational, and TheseLaws Are Based on Prejudice .................................................................. 20
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 32 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 72
 
ii1.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Were Enacted toFurther Private Moral Views That the Relationships of Gayand Lesbian Individuals Are Immoral and Inferior – Not toFurther Any Legitimate Purpose.................................................... 21
2.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Are UnconstitutionalUnder 
Windsor 
.............................................................................. 23
B.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Also Fail Under theHeightened Scrutiny Applicable to Classifications Based UponSexual Orientation and Gender ............................................................... 26
1.
Under the Supreme Court’s Binding Precedent,Classifications Based on Sexual Orientation Meet theCriteria for a Quasi-Suspect Class ................................................ 26
2.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws, Which Burden aSuspect Classification Based on Sexual Orientation, CannotSurvive Heightened Scrutiny ......................................................... 34
3.
Utah’s Marriage Discrimination Laws Also Fail Under theHeightened Scrutiny Applicable to Classifications Based onGender .......................................................................................... 35
V.
UTAH’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROMOTHER JURISDICTIONS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THESUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN
WINDSOR
................................................ 37
VI.
UTAH’S MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE ACTIONABLEUNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 ................................................................................... 39
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 39
 
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 32 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 72

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->