fact that states
[ve] never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
Yet the lack of a pre-
marital “procreation test”
does not undermine the legitimacy of
the state’s classifying couples as same
-sex or opposite-sex, and offering marriage only to the latter.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “[t]he rationality commanded by the Equal
Protection Clause does not require States to match . . . distinctions and the legitimate interests
they serve with razorlike precision”
Rather, classifications that
neither involve fundamental rights nor suspect classifications are “accorded a strong pre
For such classifications, the government is not required to “actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification,”
and a court should uphold it
against an Equal Protection challenge “if there is a
ny reasonably conceivable state of facts that
could provide a rational basis for the classification.”
Moreover, even if intermediate scrutiny applies (as for gender-based classifications) an exact fit is not required. Intermediate scrutiny mandates only a
“substantial relation” between the classification and the underlying objective,
See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger
, No. 3:09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 60, ECF No. 708.
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents
, 528 U.S. 62, 63-64 (2000) (age discrimination action brought by university employees).
Dandridge v. Williams
, 397 U.S. 471, 485 (1970) (quoting
Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
, 220 U.S. 61, 78 (1911)).
Heller v. Doe
, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993).
. at 320 (quoting
Nordlinger v. Hahn
, 505 U.S 1, 15 (1992)).
Federal Commc’ns Comm’n v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc.
, 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)).
Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 89 Filed 05/10/14 Page 3 of 25