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
1:14-cv-00347 #17

1:14-cv-00347 #17

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 17 - Plaintiffs’ Motion For Declaratory Judgment And Permanent
Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support (Corrected)
Doc 17 - Plaintiffs’ Motion For Declaratory Judgment And Permanent
Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support (Corrected)

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 23, 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

07/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MICHELLE GIBSON, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. LANCE HIMES, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:14-cv-347 Judge: Michael R. Barrett ______________________________________________________________________________
 
PLAINTIFFS’ CORRECTED MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ______________________________________________________________________________
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/19/14 Page: 1 of 48 PAGEID #: 564
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
 
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.2 (a)(3)…1 II.
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………...2 A.
 
Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem………………………………………………2 B.
 
Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler………………………………………………3 C.
 
Ronald Kastner Beck and David Beck……………………………………………..3 D.
 
Andrew Hickam and Ethan Fletcher……………………………………………….5 E.
 
Gary Goodman and Karl Rece, Jr………………………………………………….6 F.
 
Rhonda Craig and Kendra Dukes………………………………………………….6 G.
 
Plaintiffs Cannot Get Married in Ohio…………………………………………….7 III.
 
STANDARD FOR GRANTING INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
 
RELIEF………………………………………………………………………………….9 IV.
 
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………10
 
A.
 
Ohio’s Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional Under
Windsor
……………………11 1.
 
The marriage bans constitute “discrimination[] of an unusual character” requiring “careful consideration” by the Court……………………………..14 2.
 
The primary purpose and practical effect of Ohio’s marriage bans is to disparage and demean same-sex couples and their families………………..15 3.
 
The state regulation of marriage is subject to constitutional limits and the central rationale of
Windsor
 applies here. …………………………………..18 B.
 
Ohio’s Marriage Bans Are Subject To Heightened Scrutiny Under Both The Due Process And Equal Protection Clauses Because They Infringe Upon Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Right To Marry……………………………………………………..18 C.
 
Ohio’s Marriage Bans Are Subject To Heightened Scrutiny Because They Deny Equal Protection Based On Sexual Orientation…………………………………21 1.
 
The level of scrutiny for sexual-orientation classifications is an open question in this Circuit. …………………………………………………………………21 2.
 
Sexual-orientation classifications require heightened scrutiny under the traditional criteria examined by the Supreme Court. ………………………23 D.
 
Ohio’s Marriage Bans Are Subject To Heightened Scrutiny Because They Deny Equal Protection Based On Sex……………………………………………………26 E.
 
Ohio’s Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional Under Any Standard Of Review..28
 
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/19/14 Page: 2 of 48 PAGEID #: 565
 
ii
1.
 
Under rational-basis review, excluding same-sex couples from marriage must have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose…………28 2.
 
Ohio’s marriage bans cannot be justified by an asserted interested in proceeding cautiously…………………………………………………………..30 3.
 
Ohio’s marriage bans cannot be justified by an asserted interest in preserving traditional discrimination…………………………………………32 4.
 
The marriage bans cannot be justified by an asserted interest in channeling the procreative potential of heterosexual couples into marriage……………33 5.
 
Ohio’s marriage bans cannot be justified by an asserted interest in “optimal” childrearing……………………………………………………………………..35 V.
 
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………..38
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/19/14 Page: 3 of 48 PAGEID #: 566

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)//-->