No. 13-4178

 

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 

DEREK KITCHEN, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 

v.

 

GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah, and SEAN D. REYES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah, Defendants-Appellants, and SHERRIE SWENSON, as Salt Lake County Clerk, Defendant.

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 

On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, The Honorable Robert J. Shelby presiding, Case No. 2:13-CV-00217 RJS

 

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 

Brief of Appellants Gary R. Herbert and Sean D. Reyes

 

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 

JOHN J. BURSCH Warner Norcross & Judd LLP 111 Lyon Street, NW. Ste. 900 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 616-752-2474 MONTE N. STEWART 12550 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 100 Boise, ID 83713 208-345-3333 GENE C. SCHAERR Special Assistant Attorney General BRIAN L. TARBET

 

Chief Deputy Attorney General PARKER DOUGLAS Chief of Staff & Counsel General 160 East 300 South

 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0856

 

801-366-0100 (phone)

 

gschaerr@utah.gov

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019196784 Date Filed: 02/03/2014 Page: 1

1 of 178

EQCF#49 Docket Reference [10146285]

 

i

 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

STANFORD E. PURSER PHILIP S. LOTT  Asst. UT Attorneys General

 

160 East 300 South

 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856

 

801-366-0100

 

Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019196784 Date Filed: 02/03/2014 Page: 2

2 of 178

 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... iv

 

PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS .......................................................... xiv

 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

 

JURISDICTION ........................................................................................ 4

 

ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................ 4

 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENT ...................................... 4

 

 A.

 

The States’ traditional authority over marriage

 .......................... 4

 

B.

 

History of the man-woman definintion ........................................ 7

 

C.

 

History of Amendment 3 ............................................................. 10

 

D.

 

Other Utah laws encouraging mother-father parenting ............ 14

 

E.

 

Recent experimentation in other States ..................................... 17

 

F.

 

Procedural history of this case .................................................... 17

 

G.

 

The district court’s decision

 ........................................................ 18

 

H.

 

Stay proceedings ......................................................................... 21

 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 22

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................... 28

 

 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 28

 

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT UTAH LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN ITS GENDERED DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ................................... 28

 

 A.

 

The district dourt’s decision contravenes

 Baker v. Nelson

, which is both controlling and consistent with

Windsor

 and the federalism principles it reaffirms. .............................................. 28

 

1.

 

 Baker

 is controlling. .............................................................. 29

 

2.

 

The district court’s reasons for refusing to follow

 Baker

are misguided. ............................................................................. 32

 

Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019196784 Date Filed: 02/03/2014 Page: 3

3 of 178