Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 12

PHILIP S. LOTT (5750) STANFORD E. PURSER (13440) Assistant Utah Attorneys General JOHN E. SWALLOW (5802) Utah Attorney General 160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 140856 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856 Telephone: (801) 366-0100 Facsimile: (801) 366-0101 Email: phillott@utah.gov Email: spurser@utah.gov Attorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John E. Swallow IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

DEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDI SBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER, individually; KATE CALL, individually; LAURIE WOOD, individually; and KODY PARTRIDGE, individually, Plaintiffs, vs.

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah; JOHN SWALLOW, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and SHERRIE SWENSEN, in her official capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake County, Defendants. Judge Robert J. Shelby

TAB 74h (1459 - 1463)

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 12

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tab # Description Page

PART ONE LEGAL MATERIALS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Utah Code 30-1-2 Utah Code 30-1-4.1 Utah Constitution Art. 1, 29 (Amendment 3) H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (as originally filed) H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (Senate Floor Amendments) H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (final, reflecting Senate amendments) Chart: The definition of marriage: State statutory and constitutional provisions Chart: The definition of marriage: State ballot measures Chart: The language of State constitutional bans on domestic partnership and other non-marital unions Chart: Court decisions on the marriage issue Chart: Pending cases on the marriage issue Jurisdictional Statement, Baker v. Nelson, No. 71-1027 (U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 11, 1971) Amicus curiae brief of Social Science Professors, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, and United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (U.S. Sup. Ct. January 2013) Amicus curiae brief of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 (U.S. Sup. Ct. January 2013) [Reserved] [Reserved] 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 13 18 23 25 27 40

14. 15. 16.

81

ii

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 12

PART TWO MATERIALS ON ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Affidavit of William C. Duncan and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) Excerpts from Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, General Election, November 2, 2004 Vote count on Amendment 3, by county, with totals, and with percentages Campaign materials for Amendment 3 Campaign materials against Amendment 3 New accounts, press releases, and editorials regarding Amendment 3 Fund-raising and expenditures in the Amendment 3 campaign Affidavit of Dr. Joseph P. Price and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) [Reserved] [Reserved] 127 150 155 156 171 183 222 223

PART THREE MATERIALS ON LEGISLATIVE FACTS

27. 28. 29. 30. INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES, WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: THIRTY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (3d ed. 2011). THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE, MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD: TEN PRINCIPLES (2008). INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES, MARRIAGE AND THE LAW: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (2006). INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES (DAN CERE, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR), THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW: LAW AND THE MARRIAGE CRISIS IN NORTH AMERICA (2005). INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES ET AL. (ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR), THE REVOLUTION IN PARENTHOOD: THE EMERGING GLOBAL CLASH BETWEEN ADULT RIGHTS AND CHILDRENS NEEDS (2006). COMMISSION ON PARENTHOODS FUTURE & INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES (ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR), ONE PARENT OR FIVE: A GLOBAL LOOK AT TODAYS NEW INTENTIONAL FAMILIES (2011). INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES (ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, NOVAL D. GLENN, & KAREN CLARK, CO-INVESTIGATORS), MY DADDYS NAME IS DONOR: A NEW STUDY OF YOUNG ADULTS CONCEIVED THROUGH SPERM DONATION (2010). iii 232 280 318 362

31.

413

32.

457

33.

529

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 4 of 12

34.

35.

36. 37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Margaret Somerville, What About the Children, in DIVORCING MARRIAGE: UNVEILING THE DANGERS OF CANADAS NEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT 63-78 (Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrows eds., 2004). Margaret Somerville, Childrens human rights and unlinking child-parent biological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive technologies, 13 J. FAM. STUD. 179-201 (2007). Margaret Somerville, Childrens Human Rights to Natural Biological Origins and Family Structure, 1 INTL J. JURISPRUDENCE FAM. 35 (2010). Don Browning & Elizabeth Marquardt, What About the Children? Liberal Cautions on Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE: FAMILY, STATE, MARKET, AND MORALS 173-192 (Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006). Maggie Gallagher, (How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?, in THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE: FAMILY, STATE, MARKET, AND MORALS 197-212 (Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006). Seana Sugrue, Soft Despotism and Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE: FAMILY, STATE, MARKET, AND MORALS 172-96 (Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006). THE SOCIOLOGY OF GEORGE SIMMEL 128-32 (Kurt H. Wolff, trans. & ed., 1950). CLAUDE LVI-STRAUSS, THE VIEW FROM AFAR 39-42 (Joachim Neugroschel & Phoebe Hoss trans. 1985) G. ROBINA QUALE, A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE SYSTEMS 1-3 (1988). EDWARD O. LAUMANN ET AL., THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY: SEXUAL PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES 310-13 (1994). CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGING INSTITUTION 7-8 (Kingsley Davis, ed., 1985). JAMES Q. WILSON, THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM 40-41, 168-170 (2002). BRONISLAW MALINOWSKI, SEX, CULTURE, AND MYTH 10-11 (1962). DADDY DEAREST? ACTIVE FATHERHOOD AND PUBLIC POLICY 57 (Kate Stanley ed., 2005). DAVID POPENOE, LIFE WITHOUT FATHER: COMPELLING NEW EVIDENCE THAT FATHERHOOD AND MARRIAGE ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR THE GOOD OF CHILDREN AND SOCIETY 139-63 (1996). William J. Doherty et al., Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework, 60 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 277-292 (1998). KRISTIN ANDERSON MOORE ET AL., MARRIAGE FROM A CHILDS PERSPECIVE: HOW DOES FAMILY STRUCTURE AFFECT CHILDREN, AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?, a Child Trends Research Brief (2002). Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006, 84 CONTRACEPTION 478-85 (2011). iv

669

687

710 732

752

770

797 804 810 815 819 823 831 834 837

49. 50.

852 868

51.

876

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 5 of 12

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67.

ELIZABETH WILDSMITH ET AL., CHILDBEARING OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE: ESTIMATES AND TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES, a Child Trends Research Brief (2011). SAMUEL W. STURGEON, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY STRUCTURE AND ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ACTIVITY, a familyfacts.org Special Report (November 2008). U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., Administration for Children & Families, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation, Distribution of Abuse and Neglect by Family Characteristics, in FOURTH NATIONAL INCIDENCE STUDY OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT (NIS-4) Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN 75-96 (2005). Douglas W. Allen, High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households, 11 Rev. of Econ. Of the Household (published on-line September 26, 2013). Mark Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752-70 (2012). Mark Regnerus, Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 1367-77 (2012). Loren Marks, Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological associations brief on lesbian and gay parenting, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 735-51 (2012). WILLIAM C. DUNCAN, MISPLACED RELIANCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE IN THE PROPOSITION 8 CASE, Vol. 5, No. 6, an Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Research Brief (2012). JOHN R. SEARLE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY 4-5, 27-29, 31-37, 55-57, 59-60, 76-104, 117-120, 227-28 (1995). JOHN R. SEARLE, MAKING THE SOCIAL WORLD: THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION 6-16, 84-93, 102-08, 143-44 (2010). Douglas Farrow, Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?, TOUCHSTONE, Jan.Feb. 2012 Ross Douthat, Gay Parents and the Marriage Debate, THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 11, 2002. INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES (BENJAMIN SCAFIDI, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR), THE TAXPAYER COSTS OF DIVORCE AND UNWED CHILDBEARING: FIRST-EVER ESTIMATES FOR THE NATION AND ALL FIFTY STATES (2008). BEYOND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A NEW STRATEGIC VISION FOR ALL OUR FAMILIES & RELATIONSHIPS (July 26, 2006). SHERIF GIRGIS, RYAN T. ANDERSON, AND ROBERT P. GEORGE, WHAT IS MARRIAGE? MAN AND WOMAN: A DEFENSE 1-2, 6-12, 23-36 (2012). v

884

890

892

936

959

983

1002

1013

1030

1035 1089 1121 1128 1131

1175 1202

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 6 of 12

68. 69. 70.

DAVID BLANKENHORN, THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE 3-4, 11-21, 55, 91-106, 120-25, 171-75, 179-201 (2007). [Reserved] [Reserved]

1227

PART FOUR CANADIAN AND BRITISH LAW JOURNAL ARTICLES

71. Matthew B. OBrien, Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage: Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family, 1 BRIT. J. AM. L. STUDIES (Issue 2, Summer/Fall 2012, May 1, 2012). F.C. DeCoste, Courting Leviathan: Limited Government and Social Freedom in Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, 42 ALTA. L. REV. 1099 (2005). F.C. Decoste, The Halpern Transformation: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law, 41 ALTA. L. REV. 619 (2003). Monte Neil Stewart, Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 CAN. J. FAM. L. 11 (2004). Dated this 11th day of October, 2013. JOHN E. SWALLOW Utah Attorney General /s/ Philip S. Lott Philip S. Lott Stanford E. Purser Assistant Utah Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John Swallow CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 11th day of October, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Peggy A. Tomsic James E. Magleby Jennifer Fraser Parrish MAGLEBY & GREENWOOD, P.C. 170 South Main Street, Suite 850 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3605 vi tomsic@mgplaw.com magleby@mgplaw.com parrish@mgplaw.com 1291

72. 73. 74.

1352 1377 1403

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 7 of 12

Ralph Chamness Darcy M. Goddard Salt Lake County District Attorneys 2001 South State, S3500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1210

rchamness@slco.org dgoddard@slco.org

/s/ Philip S. Lott

vii

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 8 of 12

21 CANJFL 11 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 Page 57

or goals-based. Ibid. 171-77. [FN264J. Ibid. [FN265J. Ibid. at 180. [FN266J. Ibid. The broad range of arguable derivative rights and goals identified by Dworkin himself foreshadows later concerns with the indeterminacy of the right of equal concern and respect. [FN267J. Ibid. at 182. [FN268l. Ibid. at 273. [FN269J. Ibid. at 273-74. [FN2701. Ibid. at 275-76. [FN271J. Ibid. at 277. [FN2721. Ibid. at 275-76. [FN2731. Ibid. at 273. [FN2741. Ibid. [FN275J. Ibid. [FN276J. J. Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980). [FN2771. See e.g. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 91, 191,269. [FN2781. Finnis, supra note 276 at 218. [emphasis in original] [FN279J. Ibid. at 222. [FN280l. Ibid. [FN28ll. J. Ely, "Professor Dworkin's External/Personal Preference Distinction" (1983) Duke L.J. 959 (providing some criticisms and referencing others by Hart, Sager, and Regan). [FN282]. R. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000). [FN2831. Ibid. at 481, n. 9. It is a commonplace that Dworkin is a moving target. What is important for purposes of Canadian equality jurisprudence is the content of Dworkin's right to equal concern and respect as the SCC adopted it in 1989, with its reiterations since. [FN2841. Mv. H supra note 24.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

001459

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 9 of 12

21 CANJFL 11 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 Page 58

[FN285J. Ibid. at para. 124, Iacobucci J, Ibid. at paras. 316, 321, Bastarche J, u.

u; Ibid. at para. 254, Gonthier J, dissenting; Ibid.

at para. 282, Major J, s 15(1);

[FN286J. Supra note 17 at, ss. 7, 10, 36(1), 39(1). [FN28 71. Law v. Canada, supra note 85 at para. 51. [FN288J. Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 42 [FN289]. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 275-77. [FN290J. Ibid. at 273. [FN291J. EGALE, supra note 2 at para. 130; Halpern, supra note 3 at paras. 100-107. [FN292J. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 273 (the right to equal treatment is "perhaps" properly applicable in the reapportionment cases). [FN293l. Ibid. [FN294J. See e.g. Kotch v. Board o[River Port Pilot Comrs. 330 U.S. 552. 67 S.Ct. 910 (1947). [FN295]. Nixon v. Administrator of General Sen 1ices. 433 U.S. 425 at 506. 97 S.Ct. 2777 (1977). [FN296J. Ibid. ("[T]his Court has held that the presumption of constitutionality does not apply with equal force where the very legitimacy of the composition of representative institutions is at stake.") (citing Revnolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533. 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). [FN297J. Ibid. Of course, a court that has adopted Dworkin's right to equal concern and respect into its equality jurisprudence may assert that its adoption was of some "core concept" and not of all the elements of the theory as promulgated; in other words, that the court is not necessarily bound by the theory's self-limitations. In such a case, however, it would seem that the court would be under a duty to publicly demonstrate the severability of the limitation. That would be especially so where, as here, the theory is a carefully integrated and unitary piece of legal craftsmanship that does not suggest any rational or logical basis for severance of the limitation. To jettison a part of the theory that stands in the way of a particular end (genderless marriage) on unpersuasive grounds may fairly open such a court to serious charges against its institutional integrity. [FN298]. Romer v. Evans. 517 U.S. 620. 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996) at 633. [FN299J. Sunstein, "Foreword", supra note 58 at 53. For a penetrating analysis of the United States Supreme Court's use of "animus", see Steven D. Smith, "Conciliating Hatred" First Things 144 (June/July 2004): 17, online: < www.flrstthings.com/ftissues/ft0406/articles/smith.htm.> [FN300]. Goodridge, supra note 4 at 341-42, quoting Palmore v. Sidoti. 466 U.S. 429. 104 S.Ct. 1879 (1984). Almost immediately (in its n. 33), however, the plurality opinion acknowledges that there is no need to address intent; discriminatory effect is enough. [FN301l. See e.g. M. Bonauto, "The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples in the United States of America" in Win-

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

001460

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 10 of 12

21 CANJFL 11 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 Page 59

temute & Andenaes, supra note 6, 177 at 205. [FN302J. Law v. Canada, supra note 85 at para. 51 [FN303]. Ibid. at para. 88 [FN304J. Halpern, supra note 3 at paras. 84-87,94, 107. [FN305J. Even the impulse to magnanimity would come to condemn the judicial action if, in time, the societal costs incurred (and judicially denied at the outset) mount and mount. [FN306J. Romer v. Evans, supra note 298 [FN307J. Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. 106 S.Ct. 2841 (1986), overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 42. [FN308]. Romer v. Evans, supra note 298 at 641. [FN309]. Sunstein, "Foreword", supra note 58 at 64-69. [FN310l. Ibid. at 67-69. [FN311l. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra note 138. [FN312J. Ibid. at 486; 1682. Tradition, as Sunstein notes, plays no comparable limiting role in equality jurisprudence. Sunstein, supra note 58 at 69. The most famous American equal protection case, Brown v. Board of Education (together with its progeny), demonstrates this difference; the long and wide-spread American tradition of race-segregated schools (de jure and de facto) was not a constraint on the court's power but rather the very target of that power. The limitations on a court's power under an equality guarantee reside not in tradition but in the polity's equality jurisprudence. [FN313J. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, s. 10. [FN314l. See e.g. Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113. 93 S.Ct. 705 0973). [FN315l. See e.g. Baehr v. Lewin, supra note 33 at 551-57. [FN316J. A good beginning point might be Kant; his treatment of dignity is discussed in Finnis, supra note 136 at 441-42 and in T. Hill, "Humanity as an End in Itself' (1980) 91 Ethics 84 at 91-92; also see J. Rabkin, "What We Can Learn About Human Dignity from International Law" (2003) 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 145. [FN317J. Supra note 4. [FN318]. Supra note 46 .. [FN319J. Dworkin, supra note 260. [FN320]. Rawls, supra note 261. [FN321J. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 160.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

001461

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 11 of 12

21 CANJFL 11 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 Page 60

[FN322J. Ibid. at 155-56. [FN323J. Ibid. at 156. [FN324J. Ibid. at 160. [FN325J. Ibid. [FN326l. Ibid. [FN327J. Ibid. [FN328J. Ibid. [FN329l. Ibid. at 161. [FN330J. Ibid. at 160. [FN331l. Ibid. at 162. [FN332J. Ibid. at 163. [FN333J. Ibid. at 163-68. [FN334J. Ibid. at 166. [FN335J. Ibid. [FN336J. Ibid. at 168. [FN337J. Ibid. [FN338J. Ibid. [FN339l. Goodridge, supra note 4 at 344-51. [FN340J. See e.g./bid. at 351-53, Spina J. dissenting; ibid. at 365-66, 368-75, Cordy J. dissenting. [FN341l. Ibid. at 375-79, Cordy J. dissenting. [FN342J. Ibid. at 350, n. 6. [FN343J. Ibid. [FN344J. Ibid.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

001462

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 12 of 12

21 CANJFL 11 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 Page 61

[FN345J. Ibid. at 349-50. To the extent this was an invitation to the dissenters to abandon the constructive model and convert to the "right thing", the invitation was rejected: "However minimal the risks of that redefinition of marriage may seem to us from our vantage point, it is not up to us to decide what risks society must run, and it is inappropriate for us to arrogate that power to ourselves merely because we are confident that 'it is the right thing to do."' ibid. at 362, Sosman J dissenting. [FN346J. Re Opinions of the Justices, supra note 46. [FN34 71. Ibid. at 570. [FN348J. Ibid. [FN349l. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 161. [FN350J. Ibid. [FN351J. Ibid. at 163. [FN352J. Ibid. at 167. [FN353l. Ibid. at 168. [FN354J. Ibid. [FN355J. Ibid. at 166. 21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11 END OF DOCUMENT

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

001463