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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply Brief by Utah in the Amendment 3 appeal

Reply Brief by Utah in the Amendment 3 appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 498 |Likes:
Published by Ben Winslow
A brief by the Utah Attorney General's Office replying to the plaintiffs in the appeal of Amendment 3, Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.
A brief by the Utah Attorney General's Office replying to the plaintiffs in the appeal of Amendment 3, Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

More info:

Published by: Ben Winslow on Mar 15, 2014
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

04/30/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 13-4178
 _____________________________________________________________ In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit  _____________________________________________________________ DEREK KITCHEN,
et
 
al
., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah, and SEAN D. REYES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah, Defendants-Appellants, and SHERRIE SWENSON, as Salt Lake County Clerk, Defendant.  __________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, The Honorable Robert J. Shelby presiding, Case No. 2:13-CV-00217 RJS  __________________________________________________________________
Reply Brief of Appellants Gary R. Herbert and Sean D. Reyes
 __________________________________________________________________ JOHN J. BURSCH Warner Norcross & Judd LLP 111 Lyon Street, NW. Ste. 900 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 616-752-2474 MONTE N. STEWART 12550 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 100 Boise, ID 83713 208-345-3333 GENE C. SCHAERR Special Ass
’t
 Attorney General BRIAN L. TARBET Chief Deputy Attorney General PARKER DOUGLAS Chief of Staff & General Counsel 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856 801-366-0100 (phone) gschaerr@utah.gov
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019218227 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 1
 
ii
 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
STANFORD E. PURSER PHILIP S. LOTT  Ass
t Attorneys General 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856 801-366-0100
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019218227 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 2
 
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... v
 
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
 
I.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT’S INVALIDATION OF UTAH’S MAN
-WOMAN DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE UNDER WHAT IT CONSIDERED RATIONAL-BASIS REVIEW MUST BE REVERSED. .................................................................................. 7
 
 A.
 
Even if the district court’s rational
-basis framework is correct, Utah advanced several interests that are well-supported and clearly served by retaining its traditional marriage definition. .. 9
 
1.
 
Child-centric marriage culture ............................................. 12
 
2.
 
Parenting arrangements ....................................................... 22
 
3.
 
Procreation ............................................................................ 34
 
4.
 
 Avoiding religion-based strife and protecting popular sovereignty .......................................................................... 38
 
B.
 
Rational-basis review does not require the state to justify the
“exclusion” of same
-sex couples from its marriage definition. ... 47
 
C.
 
 Baker
 retains vitality and is dispositive here. ............................ 57
 
II.
 
THE DECISION BELOW CANNOT BE AFFIRMED ON ANY
 ALTERNATIVE “HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY” GROUNDS
 ADVANCED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OR PLAINTIFFS. .. 63
 
 A.
 
Rather than subjecting Utah’s marriage laws to heightened
scrutiny,
Windsor
 supports their constitutionality. ................... 66
 
1.
 
Plaintiffs’ reading of
Windsor
 ignores its critical and repeated emphasis on State authority over marriage. ....... 66
 
2.
 
Windsor
 
does not support a finding of “animus” here.
 ......... 69
 
3.
 
Windsor
 does not require recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other States. .................................................. 74
 
B.
 
The district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs have a fundamental due-process right to marry someone of the same sex. ............................................................................. 77
 
C.
 
The district court erred in concluding that Utah’s marriage laws
discriminate on the basis of sex. ................................................. 89
 
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019218227 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
AMW2014 liked this

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)//-->