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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:14-cv-00024 #70

2:14-cv-00024 #70

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 70
Doc 70

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 06, 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

07/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S
HAWN
K.
 
A
IKEN
 2390 East Camelback RoadSuite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 248-8203docket@ashrlaw.com ska@ashrlaw.com ham@ashrlaw.com whk@ashrlaw.com sml@ashrlaw.com Shawn K. Aiken - 009002 Heather A. Macre - 026625William H. Knight - 030514Stephanie McCoy Loquvam - 029045 H
ERB
E
LY
3200 North Central Avenue Suite 1930 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone:
 
602-230-2144
 
HerbEly@eburlaw.com Herb Ely – 000988 M
IKKEL
(M
IK
)
 
 J
ORDAHL
P.C. 114 North San Francisco Suite 206 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Telephone: (928) 214-0942 mikkeljordahl@yahoo.com 
 
Mikkel Steen Jordahl - 012211 D
ILLON
L
AW
O
FFICE
 PO Box 97517 Phoenix, Arizona 85060 Telephone: (480) 390-7974 dillonlaw97517@gmail.comMark Dillon - 014393 G
RIFFEN
&S
TEVENS
L
AW
F
IRM
,
 
PLLC 609 North Humphreys St. Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Telephone: (928) 226-0165 stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com Ryan J. Stevens -026378
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 Joseph Connolly and Terrel L. Pochert; Suzanne Cummins and Holly N. Mitchell; Clark Rowley and David Chaney; R. Mason Hite, IV and Christopher L. Devine; Meagan and Natalie Metz; Renee Kaminski and Robin Reece; Jeffrey Ferst and Peter Bramley, Plaintiffs, v. Chad Roche, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Pinal County, Arizona; Michael K. Jeanes, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Maricopa County, Arizona; and Deborah Young, In Her Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Coconino County, Arizona, Defendants.Case No. 2:14-cv-00024-JWS 
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY  JUDGMENT -AND- REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 70 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 26
 
 
i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 2 I. A
FTER
O
VER
F
ORTY
Y
EARS OF
D
OCTRINAL
D
EVELOPMENT
,
 
 B
 AKER V 
.
 
 N 
 ELSON 
 
N
O
L
ONGER
C
ONTROLS
D
ISPOSITION OF THE
E
QUAL
P
ROTECTION
O
R
D
UE
P
ROCESS
C
LAIMS
R
AISED
H
ERE
. ............................................................................. 2 II. T
HE
M
ARRIAGE
D
ISCRIMINATION
L
AWS
F
AIL AN
E
QUAL
P
ROTECTION
C
HALLENGE
B
ECAUSE
T
HEY
A
RE
N
OT
S
UBSTANTIALLY
R
ELATED TO
A
CHIEVING
A
NY
I
MPORTANT
—M
UCH
L
ESS
L
EGITIMATE
—G
OVERNMENT
I
NTEREST
. .......... 5 A. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in
SmithKline Beecham
 Compels Heightened Scrutiny of the Marriage Discrimination Laws. 5 B. The Marriage Discrimination Laws Fail Heightened Scrutiny. 6 III. T
HE
M
ARRIAGE
D
ISCRIMINATION
L
AWS
D
ENY
P
LAINTIFFS
T
HEIR
F
UNDAMENTAL
R
IGHT TO
M
ARRY
. ........................................................................ 8 A. Plaintiffs Seek Access to an
 Existing 
 Fundamental Right—the Freedom to Marry the Partner of One’s Choosing—Triggering Strict Scrutiny Under the Due Process Clause. 8 B.
Turner v. Safley
 Stands For the Fundamental Right to Marry Regardless of Procreative Capability or Desire. 9 C. Defendants’ Procreative Potential and Childrearing Arguments Actually Militate in Favor of Marriage Equality. 10 D. Fundamental Rights Such As Marriage Cannot Be Infringed By Policy Choices. 11 IV. T
HE
M
ARRIAGE
R
ECOGNITION
P
LAINTIFFS
H
AVE
S
TANDING TO
C
HALLENGE THE
M
ARRIAGE
D
ISCRIMINATION
L
AWS
. ..................................................................... 14 V. T
HE
C
OURT
S
HOULD
D
ENY
D
EFENDANTS
 
A
PPLICATION FOR
S
TAY
B
ECAUSE
T
HEY
F
AIL TO
D
EMONSTRATE A
S
TRONG
S
HOWING OF
S
UCCESS ON
A
PPEAL OR
A
NY OF THE
O
THER
T
RADITIONAL
R
EQUIREMENTS
F
OR
E
NTRY OF A
S
TAY
. ...... 16 CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................... 18
 
Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 70 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 26
 
 
Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.
ii
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
T
ABLE OF
A
UTHORITIES
 
Cases
 
 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp
., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)
 .......... 16
 Awad v. Ziriax 
, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012)
 .................................................................. 18
 Baker v. Nelson
, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971)
 ................................................................ 2, 3
 Baker v. Nelson
, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
 ........................................................................... 2, 3, 4
 Baskin v. Bogan
, 2014 WL 1814064 (S.D. Ind. May 8, 2014)
 .............................................. 4
 Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder 
, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2014)
 .................................................................................... 4, 7, 11
 Bostic v. Rainey
, 2014 WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014)
 ............................................ 4, 7
 Bostic v. Schaefer 
, Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006 (10th Cir.)
 ........................................................... 4
 Bourke v. Beshear 
, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014)
 ........................................... 4
 Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.
, 387 U.S. 118 (1967)
................................... 3
 Bowers v. Hardwick 
, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
 ............................................................................. 2
 Bronson v. Swensen,
 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007)
 ......................................................... 14
Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l 
, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)
 .......................................................... 11
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr 
., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)
 .............................................. 7
Collins v. Harker Heights 
, 503 U.S. 115 (1992)
 ..................................................................... 9
 De Leon v. Perry
, 2014 WL 715741 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014)
 .................................. 4, 7, 15
 DeBoer v. Snyder 
, 2014 WL 1100794 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014)
 ................................... 4, 7
 Doe v. Commonwealth’s Att’y for Richmond 
, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Va. 1975)
 ............. 4
 Doe v. Commonwealth’s Att’y for Richmond 
, 425 U.S. 901 (1976)
 ........................................ 4
 Edelman v. Jordan
, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)
 ............................................................................... 3
 Eisenstadt v. Baird 
, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
 ........................................................................ 9, 10
 Ex parte Burrus 
, 136 U.S. 586 (1890)
 ................................................................................. 12
Geiger v. Kitzhaber 
, 2014 WL 2054264 (D. Or. May 19, 2014)
 ....................................... 4, 7
Griswold v. Connecticut 
, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
.............................................................. 1, 9, 10
Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 70 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 26

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)//-->