Geiger v. Kitzhaber
994 F. Supp. 2d 1128
D. Or.2014Background
- Four same-sex Oregon couples sued after being denied marriage licenses under Oregon constitutional and statutory provisions limiting marriage to "one man and one woman." Plaintiffs challenge the laws under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs are long-term, committed couples (some with children); Oregon had created domestic partnerships (2007) but plaintiffs argue those are unequal and impose practical and financial burdens.
- Multnomah County briefly issued same-sex marriage licenses in 2004; Oregon voters adopted Measure 36 amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
- After U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, Oregon agencies began recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages administratively, but state constitutional and statutory provisions still barred in-state marriage and full recognition.
- Defendants (state officials) conceded the laws were indefensible but maintained an obligation to enforce them until declared unconstitutional; parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court held Oregon’s marriage ban violated equal protection because it discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the provisions at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon laws limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman violate the Equal Protection Clause | Ban singles out same-sex couples and discriminates on basis of sexual orientation; denies equal access to marriage benefits | State defended traditional marriage definition and interests in protecting children and stable families; argued laws applied equally to men and women | Court held the ban violates Equal Protection — it discriminates on sexual orientation and lacks a rational relation to a legitimate government interest |
| Proper level of scrutiny for sexual-orientation classifications | Plaintiffs urged heightened scrutiny (or relied on Windsor showing greater than rational basis) | Defendants argued rational-basis review applies under Ninth Circuit precedent | Court reasoned Windsor and related authority support heightened review but concluded ban fails even under rational-basis review |
| Whether tradition or moral disapproval justify the classification | Tradition and moral views insufficient as legitimate state interests | State urged tradition and moral considerations as legitimate bases | Court held tradition/moral disapproval are not legitimate justifications under Equal Protection and Lawrence/Romer principles |
| Whether preserving "stable families" or promoting procreation justify the ban | Plaintiffs: denying marriage to same-sex couples harms children and families; domestic partnerships formalize recognition of same-sex families | State: restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples promotes responsible procreation and child welfare | Court held protecting children/families is legitimate but the exclusion of same-sex couples is not rationally related and in fact harms those interests; ban fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) (describing marriage as a public institution in which the state has a significant interest)
- Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) (states' interest in marital status and marriage regulation)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (striking down race-based marriage restrictions under Equal Protection)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (laws singling out a group for disfavored treatment violate Equal Protection when not rationally related to legitimate interests)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate basis to criminalize or disadvantage a group)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (federal DOMA provision invalidated for demeaning same-sex marriages recognized by states)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (tradition does not immunize a law from rational-basis attack)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (marriage restrictions implicating fundamental interests subject to scrutiny under Equal Protection)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (limitations on inmates' rights to marry reviewed for constitutionality)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (outlining rational-basis review criteria for Equal Protection challenges)