Kitchen v. Herbert
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179331
D. Utah2013Background
- Three Utah couples seek to marry or have their marriages recognized; Utah prohibits same-sex marriage under Amendment 3.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Utah asserts state regulation of marriage is a traditional state prerogative subject to constitutional limits.
- Court analyzes Windsor’s impact, Baker v. Nelson’s precedential value, and binding Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent.
- Amendment 3 defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars any domestic union with substantially equivalent effects.
- Plaintiffs present extensive evidence of dignity, identity, and harms from denial of marriage rights, including effects on families and children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amendment 3 violate the Due Process Clause by denying same-sex marriage? | Amendment 3 burdens a fundamental right to marry for LGBT citizens. | States may define marriage; Amendment 3 reflects democratic choice and tradition. | Amendment 3 violates due process |
| Does Amendment 3 violate the Equal Protection Clause? | Denial of same-sex marriage discriminates based on sex/sexual orientation and demeans plaintiffs. | Regulation applies equally; rational basis supports preserving traditional marriage. | Amendment 3 violates equal protection |
| Is Baker v. Nelson still controlling authority on this question? | Baker is outdated after Windsor and evolving due process/equality jurisprudence. | Baker forecloses consideration of same-sex marriage as a substantial federal question. | Baker is no longer controlling; merits proceed |
| If Amendment 3 burdens a fundamental right, is there a rational basis to uphold it? | No rational basis; harms to same-sex couples and children are arbitrary and unjustified. | Amendment 3 rationally advances interests like procreation and child-rearing. | No rational basis; invalid under rational basis review |
| Does Utah’s denial of recognition for same-sex marriages performed in other states violate equal protection? | Recognition is part of equal protection; denial harms same-sex couples generally. | Recognition policies respect state sovereignty and definitions of marriage. | Court would reach the same conclusion; state denial unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (fundamental right to marry cannot be denied on basis of race; equal protection and liberty)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (strict scrutiny for certain marriage restrictions; right to marry protected)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (inmate marriage rights; marriage as fundamental)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (privacy and liberty extend to intimate relations; supports same-sex rights)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (discrimination based on sexual orientation invalid; rational basis with bite concept)
- Windsor (United States v. Windsor), 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (analysis of federalism and equality; invalidates DOMA on liberty/equal protection grounds)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (U.S. 1972) (summary dismissal; not controlling after Windsor)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (federal district court holding same-sex marriage violates due process/equal protection)
- Casey v. Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa., 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (liberty and intimate privacy; strong protection for marriage decisions)