Love v. Beshear
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89119
W.D. Ky.2014Background
- Two same-sex Kentucky couples (Love/Ysunza; Blanchard/James) sought marriage licenses and were denied under Kentucky statutes and a 2004 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.
- Plaintiffs sued claiming denial of marriage and attendant state benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; they sought declarations and injunctive relief.
- The Court previously held (Bourke) that Kentucky could not refuse recognition to out-of-state same-sex marriages; these intervenors sought the right to marry in Kentucky itself.
- The Commonwealth defended the ban primarily on procreation/economic-stability grounds and argued Baker v. Nelson might bar the challenge.
- The district court rejected Baker as controlling in light of doctrinal developments (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor) and proceeded to decide the equal protection challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker v. Nelson bars the federal challenge | Baker is outdated after Romer, Lawrence, Windsor; claims present substantial federal question | Baker’s summary dismissal should preclude the federal claim | Baker is not controlling given subsequent doctrinal developments; plaintiffs may proceed |
| Whether same-sex marriage implicates a fundamental right to marry | Plaintiffs assert exclusion from civil marriage burdens the fundamental right to marry | State urges restraint; Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage as part of fundamental right | Court declines to decide whether right to marry includes same-sex marriage and resolves case on equal protection grounds |
| Whether sexual orientation is a suspect/quasi‑suspect classification | Plaintiffs: gays/lesbians meet factors (history of discrimination, immutability, political powerlessness, ability to contribute) | State contends sexual orientation is not suspect; Sixth Circuit precedent suggests rational-basis review | Court finds sexual orientation is a quasi‑suspect class and applies intermediate scrutiny, though it also resolves the case under rational basis |
| Whether Kentucky’s marriage ban survives review (rational basis and intermediate scrutiny) | Plaintiffs: ban has no rational relation to legitimate state interests; it demeans and disadvantages same‑sex couples | State: ban promotes procreation and economic stability; line-drawing permissibly imperfect | Ban fails even rational basis review; state procreation/economic arguments lack any rational relation to excluding same‑sex couples; statutes/constitutional provision are void as to in-state marriages (stay pending Sixth Circuit) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional; recent doctrinal pivot on sexual‑orientation equal protection/due process issues)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (struck down sodomy laws; repudiated Bowers and recognized liberty interests in sexual intimacy)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (invalidated law singling out homosexuals for disfavored treatment under Equal Protection)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (marriage is a fundamental right under Due Process and Equal Protection)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (framework for assessing when classifications substantially interfere with right to marry)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis review requires a legitimate relation between classification and governmental objective)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prisoners retain the fundamental right to marry; discussion of marriage "elements" and incidents)