Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-4178 #3872

13-4178 #3872

Ratings: (0)|Views: 76 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
[10163872] Utah's Response to Plaintiffs' citing DeBoer v. Snyder as supplemental authority
[10163872] Utah's Response to Plaintiffs' citing DeBoer v. Snyder as supplemental authority

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 05, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

04/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
S
TATE
 
OF
 U
TAH
 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 
SEAN D. REYES
 
ATTORNEY GENERAL
 
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
S
PENCER
E.
 
 A
USTIN
 P
 ARKER
D
OUGLAS
 B
RIDGET
K.
 
R
OMANO
 B
RIAN
L.
 
T
 ARBET
 
Chief Criminal Deputy General Counsel & Chief of Staff Solicitor General Chief Civil Deputy
 __________________________________________________________________________________________
160 East 300 South • P.O. Box 140856 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856 - Telephone: (801) 366-0100 - Fax: (801) 366-0101
 April 4, 2014
Via electronic filing
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Byron White U.S. Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 Re:
 Kitchen v. Herbert,
No. 13-4178 Response to Rule 28(j) citation of
 DeBoer v. Snyder
, No. 2:12-cv-10285 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2014),
 
as supplemental authority Ms. Shumaker,
 DeBoer
 does not undermine Utah’s showing that its man-woman marriage definition satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. Like the district court here,
 DeBoer
proceeds on a misunderstanding of rational-basis review—especially the principle that legislative choices are “not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation” even if “unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”
Heller v. Doe,
509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993). Thus, the court’s “findings of fact” and its purported credibility determinations are irrelevant—both in that case and here. 2. Even so,
 DeBoer
made one key conclusion—ignored by the Plaintiffs— that reinforces the rationality of Utah’s man-woman definition. Addressing whether social science evidence establishes that there are “no differences” between same-sex parenting and man-woman parenting,
 DeBoer
acknowledged (at 17-18) that the testimony by Professors Marks, Price, and Allen had, on its face, shown “that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proved with scientific
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019229366 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1
Docket Reference Number: [10163872]

You're Reading a Free Preview

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