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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4:14-cv-04081 #24

4:14-cv-04081 #24

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 24
Doc 24

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 08, 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

07/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
 D
ISTRICT OF
S
OUTH
D
AKOTA
 S
OUTHERN
D
IVISION
 Rosenbrahn, et al.
,
 Plaintiffs, vs.
Daugaard, et al.
,
 Defendants.
 Court File No. 14–CV–4081–KES Case Type: Civil Rights / § 1983
PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OPPOSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 2
4
 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 61
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3 A.
 
South Dakota’s Marriage Bans and Anti-Recognition Laws ............................. 3 B.
 
The Plaintiffs in this Action ............................................................................... 5 LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 8 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8 I.
 
SOUTH DAKOTA’S MARRIAGE BANS VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS ............................................... 8 A.
 
South Dakota’s Marriage Bans Violate Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Right to Marry .................................................................... 8 1.
 
The Constitutional Right to Marry is Rooted in and Protects Each Person’s Fundamental Interests in Privacy, Autonomy, and Freedom of Association .............................. 9 2.
 
Same Sex Couples Share Equally in the Fundamental Right to Marry .................................................................................. 10 B.
 
South Dakota’s Marriage Bans Deny Plaintiffs Equal Protection of the Laws ........................................................................... 14 1.
 
The Marriage Bans Explicitly And Purposefully Discriminate on the Basis of Sexual Orientation ........................... 15 2.
 
South Dakota’s Marriage Bans Violate Equal Protection Under The Heightened Scrutiny Required  by Windsor for Laws That Purposefully Treat Same-Sex Couples Unequally .................................................................. 17 3.
 
The Marriage Bans Deny Plaintiffs Equal Protection of the Laws on the Basis of Gender and Rely on Outdated Gender-Based Expectations ........................................... 19 4.
 
South Dakota’s Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional Under Any Standard of Review Because They Do Not Rationally Advance a Legitimate Purpose ..................................... 22
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES
Document 24 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 61
 
 
ii a.
 
There Is No Rational Connection Between South Dakota’s Marriage Bans and Any Asserted State Interests Related to Procreation or Parenting .......................... 24  b.
 
There Is No Rational Connection Between South Dakota’s Marriage Bans and Any Asserted Interest in Promoting Opposite-Sex Parent Families as the Ideal ................................................................ 26 C.
 
Baker v. Nelson Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims .................................. 29 D.
 
Citizens v. Bruning Did Not Address the Constitutional Claims Made by Plaintiffs In This Case and Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims ................................................................................... 33 E.
 
Section Two of DOMA Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims ...................... 35 II.
 
SOUTH DAKOTA’S ANTI-RECOGNITION LAWS VIOLATE THE MARRIED PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND INTERSTATE TRAVEL ................................................................................ 36 A.
 
History of South Dakota’s Recognition Laws ....................................... 37 B.
 
South Dakota’s Anti-Recognition Laws Violate the Fundamental Right to Stay Married ....................................................... 40 C.
 
South Dakota’s Anti-Recognition Laws Violate the Married Plaintiffs’ Right to Equal Protection of the Laws .................... 42 D.
 
South Dakota’s Anti-Recognition Laws Violate the Right to Travel ................................................................................................. 43 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 49
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES
Document 24 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 61

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)//-->