Bourke v. Beshear
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17457
W.D. Ky.2014Background
- Four same-sex couples lawfully married outside Kentucky sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Kentucky statutes and a 2004 state constitutional amendment that refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and deny state marriage benefits.
- Plaintiffs allege economic harms (inheritance tax, benefits, intestacy, workers’ comp, FMLA, Social Security) and dignitary/injury-to-children harms from unequal state recognition.
- Kentucky defends the laws as preserving the traditional institution of marriage and argues state public policy justifies nonrecognition; amici advanced additional rationales (procreation, optimal childrearing, caution in redefining marriage).
- Court framed the principal governing question as whether Kentucky may lawfully refuse recognition and attendant benefits to valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court applied rational-basis review (finding no clear controlling heightened-scrutiny rule from Windsor or Sixth Circuit law) but held that even under rational-basis the statutory and constitutional exclusions are unconstitutional because they are not rationally related to legitimate state interests and impose inequality and stigma.
- The Court granted relief but extended a stay of its order pending appeal to the Sixth Circuit to permit further review and avoid disruptive, potentially reversible implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky may refuse to recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) | Denial of recognition discriminates on sexual orientation, deprives rights/benefits, and stigmatizes—violates Equal Protection | State may preserve "traditional marriage" and public policy; nonrecognition furthers that interest | Court: Nonrecognition violates Equal Protection even under rational-basis; Kentucky laws unconstitutional |
| Standard of review: is sexual orientation a suspect class or is marriage-recognition a fundamental right? | Plaintiffs: heightened scrutiny or at least that rational-basis must be meaningful given Windsor and history of discrimination | State: rational-basis applies; no fundamental right to marry same-sex spouse recognized by Supreme Court | Court: Applied rational-basis (no clear directive from Windsor); result would be same under heightened scrutiny |
| Whether proffered state interests (tradition, procreation/childrearing, stability) provide a rational basis | Plaintiffs: these rationales do not rationally exclude married same-sex couples; many procreative/nonprocreative marriages are treated the same | State/amici: preserving traditional marriage, responsible procreation, optimal childrearing, caution in social change | Court: Tradition alone insufficient; procreation/child welfare rationales fail as applied; no rational relation shown—interests unavailing |
| Whether relief should be stayed pending appeal | Plaintiffs: irreparable harm from continued denial of rights; bureaucratic concerns minimal | State: irreparable "chaos," administrative disruption, public interest in stability; Supreme Court stays in related cases counsel caution | Court: Balancing factors mixed but granted stay pending Sixth Circuit review to allow fuller appellate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973) (early Kentucky case denying same-sex marriage license under "common usage" definition)
- Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971) (appeal dismissed by U.S. Supreme Court for want of substantial federal question)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (marriage is a fundamental right; racial marriage ban invalid under Equal Protection)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (overruled Bowers and recognized liberty in consensual sexual intimacy)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (law motivated by animus toward homosexual persons violates Equal Protection)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (Section 3 of DOMA violates principles of due process and equal protection; key analytic guidepost for marriage-recognition issues)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (California’s same-sex marriage ban violated Equal Protection and Due Process)
- Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013) (state ban on same-sex marriage held unconstitutional)
- Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (challenge to nonrecognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages on death certificates found unconstitutional)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (tradition alone does not satisfy rational-basis review)