Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Final Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment 6:13-cv-01834-MC

8/12/2019 Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Final Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment 6:13-cv-01834-MC

1/40

Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Supportof Motion for Summary Judgment

Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213

[email protected]

LAW WORKS LLC1906 SW Madison Street

Portland, OR 97205-1718

Telephone: (503) 227-1928Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

Lea Ann Easton, OSB No. 881413

[email protected] & EASTON LLP

1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 440

Portland, OR 97258

Telephone: (503) 790-9060Facsimile: (503) 790-9068

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Geiger, Nelson, Duehmig and Griesar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DEANNA L. GEIGER andJANINE M.

NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG andWILLIAM GRIESAR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacityas Governor of Oregon, ELLENROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as

Attorney General of Oregon, JENNIFER

WOODWARD, in her official capacity as

State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics,

Oregon Health Authority, and RANDYWALRUFF, in his official capacity asMultnomah County Assessor,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

(Lead Case)

PLAINTIFFS GEIGER, NELSON,

DUEHMIG AND GRIESARSFIRST

AMENDED MEMORANDUM INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/40

Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Supportof Motion for Summary Judgment

PAUL RUMMELLand BENJAMIN

WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and

CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS

EDUCATION FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity

as Governor of Oregon, ELLEN

ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity asAttorney General of Oregon, JENNIFER

WOODWARD, in her official capacity as

State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics,Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY

WALRUFF, in his official capacity as

Multnomah County Assessor,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-TC


3/40i - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2

I. THE PLAINTIFFS...................................................................................................2

II. THE DEFENDANTS...............................................................................................5III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS...........................................................................7

A. Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a ..............................................................7B. Oregons Marriage Statutes ............................................................................8

C. Oregon Domestic Partnership Statute .............................................................9

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .........................................................................10

ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................10

I. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS VIOLATEDUE PROCESS BECAUSETHEY INFRINGE ON EACH PLAINTIFFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO MARRY A PERSON OF HIS OR HER CHOICE .........................................11

A. Marriage is a Fundamental Right Protected Under the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...........................................................12

1. United States Supreme Courts Jurisprudence Recognizes

Marriage As A Fundamental Right ..........................................................12

2. The Right Is Not Dependent On Gender .................................................14

II. OREGONSMARRIAGE LAWS DO NOT SURVIVE STRICT

SCRUTINY; OREGON OFFERS NO REASON TO EXCLUDE GAYAND LESBIAN COUPLES FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO MARRY...........................................................................................................17

III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS ALSO VIOLATE THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT .................20

A. Excluding Gays and Lesbians from a Fundamental Right the

Government Offers to Heterosexuals Violates the EqualProtection Clause ..........................................................................................21


4/40ii - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment

B. Oregons Marriage Laws Violate the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment Because They Irrationally Target Gayand Lesbian Couples and Treat Them as Inferior without

Justification ...................................................................................................22

C. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Irrational and Based on Prejudice.................25

D. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Unconstitutional Under Windsor..................27

IV. THE LIMITATION ON FULL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES FROM

OTHER JURISDICTIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 15, 5A OF THE

OREGON CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE

SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN WINDSOR................................................29

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................10

Bishop v. US EX ROL. HOLDER,

Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D. Oklahoma Jan. 14, 2014) ...........................15

Boddie v. Connecticut,

401 U.S. 371 (1971) ...................................................................................................13

Bolling v. Sharpe,

347 U.S. 497 (1954) ...................................................................................................22

Bostic v. Rainey,

Case No. 2:13CV395 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) .........................................................15

Bourke v. Beshear,

Case No. 2:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Kentucky Feb. 12, 2014) .......................................15

Brown v. Board of Education,347 U.S. 483 (1954) ...................................................................................................19

Carey v. Population Servs. Intl,

431 U.S. 679 (1977) ...................................................................................................17


5/40iii - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................10

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur414 U.S. 632 (1974) ...................................................................................................13

Eisenstadt v. Baird,

405 U.S. 438 (1972) ...................................................................................................21

F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia,

253 U.S. 412 (1920) ...................................................................................................20

Garrett v. Chapman,

449 P.2d 856 (Or. 1969) .............................................................................................29

Griego v. Oliver,

2014 NMSC 3 - NM: Supreme Court 2014 ...............................................................15

Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S. 479 (1965) .............................................................................................13,21

Hodgson v. Minnesota,497 U.S. 417 (1990) ..................................................................................................13

Kitchen v. Herbert,

Case No. 2:13-cv-217 (D. Utah 2013) ......................................................................15

Lawrence v. Texas,

539 U.S. 558 (2003) .........................................................................11,12,14,16,21,28

Li v. State,

110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005) .........................................................................................7,8,18

Loving v. Virginia,

388 U.S. 1 (1967) ..................................................................................11,13,15,16,28

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.

475 U.S. 574 (1986) ..................................................................................................10

Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190 (1888) ...................................................................................................12


6/40iv - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support ofMotion for Summary Judgment

Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390 (1923) ...................................................................................................14

M.L.B. v. S.L.J.,

519 U.S. 102 (1996) ..................................................................................................13

Obergefell v. Wymyslo,

Case No. 1:13-cv-501, (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) .....................................................15

Plessy v. Ferguson,

163 U.S. 537 (1896) ..................................................................................................20

Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505 U.S. 833 (1992) ..................................................................................................14

Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609 (1984) ..................................................................................................13

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson,

316 U.S. 535 (1942) ...................................................................................................12

SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories

740 F3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................22,23,24

Turner v. Safley,

482 U.S. 78 (1987) ...............................................................................................13,14

United States v. Carolene Prods. Co.,

304 U.S. 144 (1938) ...................................................................................................20

United States v. Windsor,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ....................................................................................... passim

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624 (1943) ....................................................................................................1

Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S. 702 (1997) ........................................................................................11,17,21

Zablocki v. Redhail,

434 U.S. 374 (1978) ..............................................................................13,15,17,18,21


7/40

v - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Constitutional Provisions

United States Constitution ......................................................................................... passimU.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 1 .......................................................................................11,20Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a ......................................................................... passim

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..........................................................................................................10

OAR 105-010-0018 .............................................................................................................3

Statutes

ORS 40.135, Rule 311 .........................................................................................................9ORS 40.255, Rule 505 .........................................................................................................9

ORS 106.020 .......................................................................................................................8

ORS 106.041 .......................................................................................................................8

ORS 106.150 ...................................................................................................................8,10

ORS 106.300 ........................................................................................................................9

ORS 106.305(3) ..................................................................................................................9

ORS 106.305(2) ................................................................................................................15

ORS 106.305(4) ..................................................................................................................9

ORS 106.305(6) ..................................................................................................................9

ORS 106.325 .....................................................................................................................10

ORS 106.340 ...........................................................................................................10,19,20

ORS 107.105 ........................................................................................................................4

ORS 107.635(2)(b) .............................................................................................................4

ORS 108.010 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.020 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.030 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.040 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.045 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.050 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.060 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.080 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.090 ........................................................................................................................8

ORS 108.100 ........................................................................................................................9


8/40

vi - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

ORS 108.110 ........................................................................................................................9

ORS 108.510 ........................................................................................................................9

ORS 108.530 ........................................................................................................................9

ORS 108.550 ........................................................................................................................9ORS 112.025 ...................................................................................................................3,29

ORS 112.035 ........................................................................................................................3

ORS 127.635(2) ..................................................................................................................4

ORS 174.100(6) ..................................................................................................................1

ORS 432.030 ........................................................................................................................5

ORS 432.030(d) ...................................................................................................................5

ORS 432.030(e) ...................................................................................................................5

ORS 432.405 ........................................................................................................................5

ORS 659A.030 .....................................................................................................................1

Other Authorities

Brief of Massachusetts, California, et al, as Amici Curiae In Support of Appellants(Case No 12-17668, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, October 25, 2013........................6,18


9/40

1 - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

INTRODUCTION

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the

vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities

and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

Ones right to life, liberty. . .and other fundamental rights may not be submitted tovote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

Ten years ago a slim majority of Oregon voters passed Measure 36 to amend the State

Constitution to exclude gay and lesbian people from marriage. The Plaintiffs are gay and

lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships. Plaintiffs Geiger and Nelson wish to

marry in Oregon. Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar want their marriage that was solemnized in

another jurisdiction fully recognized in Oregon.

Plaintiffs challenge Measure 36, Oregonsvoter-enacted prohibition against same-

gender1marriages codified in Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution, as well as all Oregon

Revised Statutes that refer to husband and wife (collectively, Oregons Marriage Laws).

Enforcement of these laws denies Plaintiffs the fundamental right to marry and violates their

due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution to enter civil

marriages and to enjoy the concomitant legal rights, protections, and responsibilities of

marriage. These rights were wrongly made subject to the vicissitudes of political controversy

ten years ago. There is no constitutionally adequate justification for the government to deny

gay and lesbian couples the same access to marriage that the state affords heterosexual couples.

Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment, declare

that Oregons Marriage Lawsviolate the United States Constitution, and enjoin Defendants

1Oregon civil rights and anti-discrimination laws recognize that sexual orientation includes an

individuals gender identity. ORS 174.100(6),ORS 659A.030.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+virginia+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+virginia+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+virginia+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/174.100http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/174.100http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/174.100http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+virginia+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


10/40


in their respective official capacities from enforcing Oregons Marriage Laws in a manner

that excludes Plaintiffs.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. THE PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson have been partners for 31 years and want

to marry one another in Oregon. Plaintiffs Robert Duehmig and William Griesar have been

together for 25 years and are the parents of two children. They seek full legal recognition

under Oregon law of their marriage that was legally officiated in Canada in 2003.

Except for the single fact that each couple is of the same gender, Plaintiffs meet all

the eligibility requirements for marriage in Oregon. See Geiger Decl., 8, 22, 24-25 (Dkt.

25); Nelson Decl., 8, 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl., 2, 11 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 4,

6, & 22 (Dkt. 28).

Oregons refusal to recognize same-gender marriage denies Plaintiffs access to the

one universally recognized legal hallmark of a couple's commitment to build and to plan a

family life together. This denial touches every aspect of their lives. Plaintiffs struggle to

correct confusion about the nature, depth, and permanence of their relationships. See Geiger

Decl., 10, 24, 16-22 (Dkt. 25); Nelson Decl., 9-10,12, & 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl.,

17-19, 20, 23-24, & 27 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 12-13, 17, 22, 29, 39, & 46 (Dkt. 28).

Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar worry that Oregon's relegation of same-gender couples to

second-class status sends profoundly hurtful messages to their children, teaching them that

their family does not deserve the same societal status and respect as other families. See

Duehmig Decl., 12-13 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 27-34, 39 & 48 (Dkt. 28). Plaintiffs

have incurred considerable expenses and financial losses and have suffered tremendously


11/40


because the current state of Oregon law denies them equal marriage recognition. See Geiger

Decl., 17 (Dkt. 25);Nelson Decl., 13-14 (Dkt 26); Duehmig Decl., 15, 17-18 (Dkt.

27); Griesar Decl., 46, 49 (Dkt. 28).

On September 23, 2013, Plaintiffs Geiger and Nelson applied for a marriage license

from the office of Defendant Randy Walruff, Multnomah County Assessor, but were denied

a marriage license solely because they are both women. Geiger Decl., 26 (Dkt. 25);

Nelson Decl., 15 (Dkt. 26), and Defendant Walruff Answer to Amended Complaint, 27

(Dkt. 13).

Plaintiffs Griesar and Duehmig were legally married in Canada on December 29,

2003. See Duehmig Decl., 10 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 22 (Dkt. 28).

On October 16, 2013, the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative

Services directed state agencies to recognize same-gender marriages performed outside of

Oregon in the administration of their programs. See States Answer(Dkt. 9), and States

Exhibit A, (Dkt.10). On December 23, 2013, this directive was codified as temporary

administrative ruleOAR 105-010-0018. The rule applies to state agencies and does not apply

to state courts or to local governmental entities.

Plaintiffs are unable to file state tax returns as married individuals. This has caused

them to incur tax obligations that they would not have incurred if Oregon law permitted them

to marry or recognized their legal marriage. SeeNelson Decl., 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl.,

22 (Dkt. 27). Plaintiffs have been forced to incur sizeable legal costs to create legal

documents to enable their partners to inherit their property. See Geiger Decl., 17 (Dkt. 25);

Nelson Decl., 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl., 22 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 49 (Dkt. 28).

ORS 112.025,ORS 112.035.
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_105/105_010.htmlhttp://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_105/105_010.htmlhttp://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_105/105_010.htmlhttp://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.025http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.025http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.035http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.035http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.035http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.035http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/112.025http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_105/105_010.html


12/40


Plaintiffs also are ineligible for favorable insurance rates and other discounts offered to

married couples by various businesses. See Geiger Decl., 16 (Dkt. 25); Duehmig Decl., 15

(Dkt. 27).Plaintiffs are not mutually responsible for supporting their same-gender partner in

the event that they separate. See ORS107.105(disposition of property, maintenance of

parties, determination of spousal support, and other obligations upon divorce).UnderORS

127.635(2),Plaintiffs partnerscannot make medical decisions automatically by operation of

law like heterosexual married couples. Instead, Plaintiffs must take the extra step of procuring

advanced medical directives indicating that their partners can make medical decisions on their

behalf.

Plaintiffs are forced to go to great expense and effort to ensure that they have the

necessary legal documents in place to create the same rights and obligations between them that

are automatically created for opposite-sex couples through marriage. Moreover, family

members and others may still challenge Plaintiffs authority to make decisions for their partner

if he or she becomes incapacitated or dies. See Geiger Decl., 17; Nelson Decl., 13;

Duehmig Decl., 21; Griesar Decl., 49;see alsoORS 107.635(2)(b)(spousal authority for

major health care decisions).

Plaintiffs feel shame, stigma, and humiliation every day as a result of Oregons

Marriage Laws. Plaintiffs have been singled out for discriminatory treatment and treated as

second-class citizens. Oregons Marriage Laws reflect the States rejection of their decision to

marry one another and classify their families as inferior to those of opposite-gender families.

See Geiger Decl., 16, 21, 22, 25-27 (Dkt. 25); Nelson Decl., 10, 14-15 (Dkt 26); Duehmig

Decl., 14-21& 27 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 27-35, 39, 46-48 (Dkt 28).
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.105http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.105http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.105http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.632http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.632http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.632http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.632http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.635http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/107.105


13/40


It is undisputed that Plaintiffs suffer economical and emotional harm as a result of their

legal inability to fully access the rights and to assume the obligations of civil marriage afforded

by state law to similarly situated heterosexual couples.

II. THE DEFENDANTS

Defendant John Kitzhaber is vested with the executive power as the Governor of Oregon.

It is his responsibility to ensure that the States laws are enforced fairly, uniformly, and

constitutionally. Defendant Ellen Rosenblum, as the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, is

the chief legal officer of the State of Oregon. It is also her duty to ensure the States laws are

enforced fairly, uniformly, and constitutionally. Defendant Jennifer Woodward is the State

Registrar for the State of Oregon. She also is the manager of Oregons Center for Health

Statistics and is custodian of its records. She directs, supervises, and controls the operation of

the system of vital statistics.ORS 432.030(d). Additionally, she develops and conducts training

programs to promote uniformity of policy and procedures throughout the state in matters

pertaining to the system of vital statistics. ORS 432.030(d). She also prescribes and provides

the rules necessary to implement the policies of the Department and the forms required to record

marriage under state law. ORS 432.030(e). See also,ORS 432.030,432.405. Defendant Randy

Walruff is the Multnomah County Clerk who oversees the Countys issuance of marriage

licenses and is responsible for issuing marriage licenses, certifies persons who may solemnize a

marriage, and maintains marriage-related records as mandated by state law.ORS 432.405. All

Defendants are state actors who are required to uphold the obligations of the United States

Constitution to ensure that plaintiffs fundamental rights are not infringed by their actions.

The State admits that it cannot present evidence of any narrowly tailored, compelling,

legitimate, or rational governmental interest that is being served by denying Plaintiffs Geiger
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.405http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/432.030


14/40


and Nelson their fundamental right to marry one another. SeeStates Answer, Exhibit A, (Dkt.

10). Exhibit A is a letter from the Deputy Attorney General to Michael Jordan, Chief

Operating Officer of Oregons Department of Administrative Services, which responds to Mr.

Jordans question as to whether Oregon agencies can recognize same-sex marriages from other

jurisdictions for purposes of administering Oregon law. In an amicus brief submitted to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs, Defendant General Rosenblum also

acknowledges that exclusion of same sex couples from marriageis unconstitutional. See

Second Declaration of Lea Ann Easton in Support of Motion, Exhibit A at page 2; Brief for

the States of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District Court Of Columbia,

Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode

Island, Vermont, and Washington, in Support of Appellants Sevcik, Case No. 12-17668 (9th

Cir. October 13, 2013). Defendants admit they cannot present evidence of any narrowly

tailored, compelling, legitimate or rational governmental interest that is being served by

refusing to fully recognize the legal marriage of plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar. Id.

The State acknowledges that it cannot identify any legitimate (muchless compelling)

state interest in requiring that each marriage recognized in Oregon contain one partner of each

sex. Id. at 6.

The State acknowledges that there is no reason to legally recognize same-gender

relationships in the form of domestic partnerships while simultaneously refusing to recognize

same-gender marriages.Id.

In his Answer to the Amended Complaint, Defendant Walruff summarizes Multnomah

Countys recognition of same-gender marriages in 2004 and the County Clerks issuance of

more than 3,000 marriage licenses to same-gender couples during that time. Walruffs


15/40


Answer, Dkt.13 at 2-3. Consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court decision inLi v. State, 110

P.3d 91 (Or. 2005),and the subsequent passage of Measure 36 amending Oregons

constitution to prohibit marriage equality for gay and lesbians, Multnomah County and

Defendant Walruffs office stoppedgranting marriage licenses to same-gender couples. Id. at

3.

III. OREGONSMARRIAGE LAWS

A. Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a.

It is beyond dispute that gay and lesbian individuals have historically been, and

continue to be, subjected to persecution and discrimination. Indeed, Oregon has a dark

history of extraordinarily public discrimination against gay and lesbian people. This

discriminatory animus is expressed profoundly in the 35 anti-gay and anti-lesbian ballot

measures on Oregons ballots since 1978, more than any other state in the country. See

George T. Nicola, Oregon Anti-Gay Ballot Measures, available at

http://www.glapn.org/6013OregonAntiGayMeasures.html,last viewed Dec. 27, 2013.

Oregon voters passed Measure 36 to amend the state constitution in 2004. See

Declaration of Lea Ann Easton, Exhibit A, (Dkt. 29-1).Oregons constitution now bars

same-gender couples from access to marriage: "[o]nly a marriage between one man and one

woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." OR.CONST. art. 15,5A.

During the 2004 campaign to enact Measure 36, many of the messages used to persuade

voters to amend the State's constitution relied on false and stigmatizing messages that same-

gender couples are inferior to opposite-gender couples and that both the institution of

marriage and children need to be protected from same-gender marriages.Id., Exhibit B,

(Dkt. 29-2) (2004 Oregon Voters Guide).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.glapn.org/6013OregonAntiGayMeasures.htmlhttp://www.glapn.org/6013OregonAntiGayMeasures.htmlhttp://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.htmlhttp://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.htmlhttp://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.htmlhttp://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.htmlhttp://www.glapn.org/6013OregonAntiGayMeasures.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=Li+v+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


16/40


Deputy Attorney General Williams in her October 16, 2013 letter, recognizes that

[p]roponentsand opponents [of marriage equality] alike understand that the law targets gays

and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation by denying recognition of only their

valid marriages. That is the laws express purpose. States Answer, Exhibit A, Dkt. 10 at 6.

B. Oregons Marriage Statutes.

While Oregon statutes do not specifically prohibit same-gender couples from

marrying, Article 15, 5a of Oregons Constitution forces an interpretation of the words

husbandand wife used in state statutes to exclude same-gender couples from all the

rights associated with marriage. In litigation that arose after Multnomah County issued

marriage licenses to over 3000 gay and lesbian couples in 2004, the Oregon Supreme Court

held that, as a statutory matter, access to civil marriage is available only to heterosexual

couples.Li v. State, 110 P.3d 91, 96 (Or. 2005)(en banc).

Oregons Marriage Statues include: ORS 106.020,Prohibited and void marriage;

ORS 106.041,Marriage License; application; record;ORS 106.150,Form of solemnization;

witnesses; solemnization before congregation;ORS 108.010,Removal of wifes civil

disabilities; wifes civil rights same as husbands;ORS 108.020,Non-liability for other

spouses obligations;ORS 108.030,Liability of husband for civil injuries caused by wife;

ORS 108.040,Liability of parents for expenses of family and education of children;ORS

108.045,Liability of stepparent for expenses of family and education of children;ORS

108.050,Non-liability of wifes property for husbands obligations;ORS 108.060,

Noninterest of one spouse in property of other;ORS 108.080,Civil remedies between

spouses in respect of separate property;ORS 108.090,Conveyances, transfers and liens

between spouses; creation and dissolution of estates by entireties; validation of prior
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=110+p3d+91&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=110+p3d+91&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=110+p3d+91&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=110+p3d+91&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.041http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.041http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.010http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.010http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.010http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.040http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.040http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.060http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.060http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.060http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.080http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.080http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.080http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.090http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.090http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.090http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.090http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.080http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.060http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.050http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.045http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.040http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.030http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.020http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.010http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.041http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.020http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12650913401714974104&q=110+p3d+91&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38


17/40


dissolutions;ORS 108.100,Husband and wife as attorney in fact for each other;ORS

108.110,Petition for support of spouse and children; rules,ORS 108.510,Revocation of

election to come under terms of Community Property law of 1943;ORS 108.530,Removal

of community property status by agreement; andORS 108.550,Reliance on spouses right to

deal with property in spouses name. The Oregon Evidence Code also uses the terms

husband and wife inORS 40.135,Rule 311, Presumptions; andORS 40.255;Rule 505,

Husband and wife privilege.

C. Oregon Domestic Partnership Statute.

In 2007, the Oregon legislature adopted the Oregon Family Fairness Act (the Act).

ORS 106.300,et seq. which creates separate but unequal treatment for same-gender couples

that is similar, but not equal, to marriage. The Acts legislative findings acknowledge that

[l]egal recognition of marriage by the state is the primary and, in a number of instances, the

exclusive source of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities available to married

individuals under Oregon law.ORS 106.305(3). This state has a strong interest in

promoting stable and lasting families, including the families of same-sex couples and their

children. All Oregon families should be provided with the opportunity to obtain necessary

legal protections and status and the ability to achieve their fullest potential.ORS

106.305(4). The Act was established to ensure more equal treatment of gays and lesbians

and their families under Oregon law.ORS 106.305(6).

The Act provides that

[a]ny privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute,administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law

to an individual because the individual is or was married, orbecause the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to

another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and

procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.100http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.100http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.100http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.510http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.510http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.510http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.530http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.530http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.530http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.550http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.550http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.550http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.135http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.135http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.135http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.300http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.300http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.300http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.135http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.550http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.530http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.510http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.110http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/108.100


18/40


domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on

a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another

individual.ORS 106.340.

While there are only a few exceptions to the Actspolicy of more equaltreatment

for same-gender registered domestic partners, the exceptions are legally significant and

demonstrate how domestic partnerships are afforded a separate and unequal status when

compared to marriages. For example, marriages must be solemnized pursuant to state law.

ORS 106.150.In contrast, there is no state requirement to solemnize a registered domestic

partnership. Rather, same-gender couples must register as domestic partners by filing a

declaration with the county clerk. ORS 106.325. Additionally, domestic partnership status

does not entitle gay and lesbian couples to access more than 1,000 federal benefits that are

available solely to married couples.United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

This Court must grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(A).

The movant has the initial burden of demonstrating to the Court that there is no genuine issue

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321-322 (1986). The non-movant(s)

must then present specific facts by affidavit or other admissible evidence sufficient to raise a

genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-

87 (1986). If that evidence is merely colorable, or not significantly probative, this court

may grant summary judgment.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).

ARGUMENT

Oregons Marriage Lawsviolate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, and Oregons MarriageLaws infringe on Plaintiffs fundamentalliberties and
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.340http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.340http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.340http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.325http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.325http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=774572446857633137&q=celotex&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=774572446857633137&q=celotex&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=774572446857633137&q=celotex&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Anderson+v.+Liberty+Lobby,+Inc.,+477+U.S.+242,+249-50+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Anderson+v.+Liberty+Lobby,+Inc.,+477+U.S.+242,+249-50+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Anderson+v.+Liberty+Lobby,+Inc.,+477+U.S.+242,+249-50+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Anderson+v.+Liberty+Lobby,+Inc.,+477+U.S.+242,+249-50+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Anderson+v.+Liberty+Lobby,+Inc.,+477+U.S.+242,+249-50+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3152975315662722042&q=Matsushita+Elec.+Indus.+Co.+v.+Zenith+Radio+Corp.,+475+U.S.+574,+586-87+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=774572446857633137&q=celotex&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.325http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.150http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.340


19/40


privacy rights in violation of the Due Process Clause and also fail to provide each Plaintiff

equal protection under the law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs ask this Court to strike down Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution and to

order that Oregons Marriage lawsthat refer to husband and wife be applicable equally

to gay and lesbian couples.

I. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWSVIOLATE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE

THEY INFRINGE ON EACH PLAINTIFFSFUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO MARRY A PERSON OF HIS OR HER CHOICE

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that [No] State

[shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law... U.S.

CONST.AMEND.XIV,1. Due Process protects not only basic procedural rights, but also

protects the fundamental, substantive rights of individuals from arbitrary intrusions by the

government into their private lives and liberty interests. SeeWashington v. Glucksberg, 521

U.S. 702, 719-20 (1997)(The DueProcess Clause guarantees more than fair process . . . .

The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain

fundamental rights and liberty interests.).

The freedom to marry has long been held a fundamental liberty and privacy right

protected by the Due Process Clause. SeeLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)

([O]urlaws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to

marriage . . . .)(citation omitted). The choice of whether to marry, and whom to marry, is

protected by the Due Process Clause from coercive state limitations. Id.;see also, e.g.,

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)(Under our Constitution, thefreedom to marry, or

not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by

the State.).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v.+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,+574+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v.+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,+574+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v.+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,+574+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v.+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,+574+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=Loving+v.+Virginia,+388+U.S.+1,+12+(1967)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=Loving+v.+Virginia,+388+U.S.+1,+12+(1967)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=Loving+v.+Virginia,+388+U.S.+1,+12+(1967)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=Loving+v.+Virginia,+388+U.S.+1,+12+(1967)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v.+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,+574+(2003)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17920279791882194984&q=Washington+v.+Glucksberg+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


20/40


The United States Supreme Court in Windsoraffirmed that state marriage laws are

subject to constitutional guarantees and must respect the constitutional rights of persons.

Windsor133 S.Ct. at 2691 (2013).The Court citedLawrence v. Texas in affirming that the

Constitution protects the moral and sexual choices of gay and lesbian couples. The

Supreme Courtheld that intimate relationships, including the relationships of legally married

gay and lesbian couples, have the same constitutional protections as others and are entitled to

be treated by the government with equal dignity.Id.at 2693-94.

Marriage is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 213 (1888). Civil marriage is an evolving legal institution.

Societal changes have resulted in alterations of marriage eligibility rules and to societys

collective understanding of the relative roles of the government and of the people within a

marriage. SeeYamin Declaration, Dkt. 30.

Oregons Marriage Lawsexclude Plaintiffs from participating in this great public

institutionand thereby violate their rights under the Due Process Clause.

A. Marriage Is a Fundamental Right Protected Under the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

1. United States Supreme Courts Jurisprudence Recognizes MarriageAs A Fundamental Right.

Over the past 80 years, in multiple decisions, the United States Supreme Court has

consistently recognized that the freedom to marry without government restraint or coercion is

a fundamental and constitutionally protected right under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment because this right affects an individuals life in many profoundly

intimate ways. Marriage involves private decision making about fundamental ways in which a

person lives his or her life, See, Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4952619509602282484&q=Maynard+v.+Hill,+125+U.S.+190,+213+(1888)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4952619509602282484&q=Maynard+v.+Hill,+125+U.S.+190,+213+(1888)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4952619509602282484&q=Maynard+v.+Hill,+125+U.S.+190,+213+(1888)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8050731321644873759&q=skinner+v.+oklahoma+ex+rell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8050731321644873759&q=skinner+v.+oklahoma+ex+rell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8050731321644873759&q=skinner+v.+oklahoma+ex+rell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4952619509602282484&q=Maynard+v.+Hill,+125+U.S.+190,+213+(1888)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=Windsor+v.+United+States,+133+S.+Ct.+2675,+2691+(2013)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


21/40


(1942) (M]arriage is one of the basiccivil rights of man.); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S.

374, 384-85 (1978)([T]heright to marry is part of the fundamental right ofprivacy implicit

in the Fourteenth Amendments DueProcess Clause. . . . [I]t is clear that among the decisions

that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal

decisions relating to marriage . . . .) (quotationand citation omitted);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519

U.S. 102, 116 (1996)(Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children

are among associational rights this Court has ranked as of basic importance in our society);

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990)(the decision of whom a person shall marry

is constitutionally protected);Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987)(holding that prison

inmates have a fundamental right to marry protected by the Due Process Clause);Roberts v.

United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620 (1984)(the right of intimate association limits the

States powerto control the selection of ones spouse);Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur,

414 U.S. 632, 639- 40 (1974)(ThisCourt has long recognized that freedom of personal

choice in the matter of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.);Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 380

81 (1971)(filing fees for divorce actions violated the due process rights of indigents unable

to pay the fees, by burdening the freedom of indigents to marry another person);Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1967)(The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of

the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. Marriage is one of the

basic rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.);Griswold v.

Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)(Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse,

hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that

promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8050731321644873759&q=skinner+v.+oklahoma+ex+rell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15890213352888117836&q=Hodgson+v.+Minnesota,+497+U.S.+417,+435+(1990)+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15890213352888117836&q=Hodgson+v.+Minnesota,+497+U.S.+417,+435+(1990)+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15890213352888117836&q=Hodgson+v.+Minnesota,+497+U.S.+417,+435+(1990)+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner+v.+Safley&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner+v.+Safley&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner+v.+Safley&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner+v.+Safley&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597&q=388+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7056835094703499903&q=401+us+371&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18058011438707911451&q=414+U.S.+632&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6786088316489842364&q=roberts+v.+United+States+Jaycees,+468+U.S.+609,+620+(1984)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner+v.+Safley&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15890213352888117836&q=Hodgson+v.+Minnesota,+497+U.S.+417,+435+(1990)+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6197792152629923222&q=M.L.B.+v.+S.L.J.,&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8050731321644873759&q=skinner+v.+oklahoma+ex+rell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


22/40


not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any

involved in our prior decisions.);Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)(Without

doubt, [the Due Process Clause] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the

right of the individual . . . to marry . . . according to the dictates of his own conscience...).

2. The Right Applies to Sexual Orientation.

The autonomous liberty decisions incident to marriage that make it a fundamental right

are not dependent on a spouses gender any more than they are dependent upon a persons

status as a prisoner. SeeTurner, 482 U.S. at 95-96(holding attributes of marriage, after

considering prison life limitations, were sufficient to form constitutionally protected marital

relationships). Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the rights of gay and lesbian

individuals are not distinct from those of heterosexual individuals with respect[to what] the

Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making choices [relating to

marriage]:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in alifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's

own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they

formed under compulsion of the State.Ibid.

**2482 Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, justas heterosexual persons do.

Lawrence v. Texas at 574(quotingPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).

Oregons Marriage Lawsadvance the view that while gay and lesbian individuals have

the fundamental right to form enduring, private bonds of mutual love and support through the

more equal, but not equal, Oregon Family Fairness Act, they are not entitled to access the

admitted significant and fundamental right to marriage, solely because of the gender of their
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16175793893966768030&q=Meyer+v.+Nebraska,+262+U.S.+390,+399+(1923)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16175793893966768030&q=Meyer+v.+Nebraska,+262+U.S.+390,+399+(1923)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16175793893966768030&q=Meyer+v.+Nebraska,+262+U.S.+390,+399+(1923)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16175793893966768030&q=Meyer+v.+Nebraska,+262+U.S.+390,+399+(1923)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner,+482+U.S.+at+95-96+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner,+482+U.S.+at+95-96+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner,+482+U.S.+at+95-96+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner,+482+U.S.+at+95-96+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,++574+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,++574+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,++574+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=At+the+heart+of+liberty+is+the+right+to+define+one%E2%80%99s+own+concept+of+existence,+of+meaning,+of+the+universe,+and+of+the+mystery+of+human+life.+Beliefs+about+these+matters+could+not+define+attributes+of+personhood+were+they+formed+under+compulsion+of+the+S&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=At+the+heart+of+liberty+is+the+right+to+define+one%E2%80%99s+own+concept+of+existence,+of+meaning,+of+the+universe,+and+of+the+mystery+of+human+life.+Beliefs+about+these+matters+could+not+define+attributes+of+personhood+were+they+formed+under+compulsion+of+the+S&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=At+the+heart+of+liberty+is+the+right+to+define+one%E2%80%99s+own+concept+of+existence,+of+meaning,+of+the+universe,+and+of+the+mystery+of+human+life.+Beliefs+about+these+matters+could+not+define+attributes+of+personhood+were+they+formed+under+compulsion+of+the+S&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=At+the+heart+of+liberty+is+the+right+to+define+one%E2%80%99s+own+concept+of+existence,+of+meaning,+of+the+universe,+and+of+the+mystery+of+human+life.+Beliefs+about+these+matters+could+not+define+attributes+of+personhood+were+they+formed+under+compulsion+of+the+S&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=At+the+heart+of+liberty+is+the+right+to+define+one%E2%80%99s+own+concept+of+existence,+of+meaning,+of+the+universe,+and+of+the+mystery+of+human+life.+Beliefs+about+these+matters+could+not+define+attributes+of+personhood+were+they+formed+under+compulsion+of+the+S&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=Lawrence+v+Texas,+539+U.S.+558,++574+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15686747716085264205&q=Turner,+482+U.S.+at+95-96+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16175793893966768030&q=Meyer+v.+Nebraska,+262+U.S.+390,+399+(1923)+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


23/40


chosen partner.ORS 106.305(2).Marriage is a key, personal decision, and the protections of

the United States Constitution shield individuals against the government serving as their state-

sponsored marriage broker.

Judge Shelby of the United States District for the Central District of Utah citingLoving

v. Virginia said instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that

individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of

the race of their chosen partner.Kitchen v. Herbert, Case No. 2:13-cv-217 (D. Utah 2013) at

12.2InKitchen, Judge Shelby applied this same reasoning to gay and lesbian couples and held

that [b]othsame-sex and opposite-sex marriage are simply manifestations of one right

the right to marryapplied to people with different sexual identities. Id.

Like all other fundamental rights, the right to marriage vests in every American citizen.

SeeZablocki, 434 U.S. at 384("AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination,

2 Since Plaintiffs filed this case, four other federal district courts in addition to Judge Shelby

have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples who asserted that the government had violatedtheir constitutional rights by failing to recognize their right to marriage. Obergefell v. Wymyslo,

Case No. 1:13-cv-501, (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013)(ruled that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage

was unconstitutional and ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictionson death certificates.);Bishop v. US EX REL. HOLDER,Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D.

Oklahoma Jan. 14, 2014)(Held that Oklahomas same-sex marriage ban violates equal

protection);Bourke v. Beshear, Case No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Kentucky Feb. 12,2014)(Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions because

withholding recognition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection) and,

Bostic v. Rainey, Case No. 2:13CV395 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014)(Virginia's laws that prohibit

same-sex marriage or that do not recognize a couple's right to marry are unconstitutional underthe Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.) Additionally, the New Mexico Supreme Court

inGriego v. Oliver, 2014 NMSC 3 - NM: Supreme Court 2014 held "civil marriage" shall be

construed to mean the voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. In addition,all rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply

equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=kitchen+v.+herbert&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=kitchen+v.+herbert&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014https://casetext.com/case/bostic-v-rainey#.UwGKOXlUUr8https://casetext.com/case/bostic-v-rainey#.UwGKOXlUUr8https://casetext.com/case/bostic-v-rainey#.UwGKOXlUUr8http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4201337810321652858&q=griego+new+mexico+bill+of+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4201337810321652858&q=griego+new+mexico+bill+of+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4201337810321652858&q=griego+new+mexico+bill+of+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4201337810321652858&q=griego+new+mexico+bill+of+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4201337810321652858&q=griego+new+mexico+bill+of+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32https://casetext.com/case/bostic-v-rainey#.UwGKOXlUUr8http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15203616851299402467&q=bourke&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1429355051973198453&q=bishop+oklahoma&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2014http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839958848055482717&q=obergefell&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38&as_ylo=2013http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286124172413088195&q=434+U.S.+374&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=kitchen+v.+herbert&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405943336551332299&q=herbert+v.+kitchen+utah&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305


24/40


prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental

importance for all individuals.").

The importance of the liberty interest is made clearin the United States v. Windsor

decision in which the Court analyzed whether section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act

(DOMA), the federal ban on the recognition of same-gender marriages, violated due process. In

its analysis, the Court framed the issue as whether the resulting injury and indignity [from

section 3 of DOMA] is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth

Amendment. Id. at 2692. Ultimately, the Court held that Congress could not deny the

liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and thatDOMA is

unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment

of the Constitution. Id. at 2695.

The Supreme Courts decision was based on a profound respect for the fundamental

liberty of gay and lesbian individuals to form intimate relationships - without being

demeaned or degraded by the government - based upon the personal, private, and

constitutionally protected choices, akin to those set forth inLoving andLawrence:

. . . [DOMA] tells [same-gender] couples, and all the world, that their otherwise

valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex

couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The

differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices theConstitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed.

2d 508,and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates

tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. Thelaw in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the

integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in

their community and in their daily lives.

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15714610278411834284&q=lawrence+v+texace&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609&q=us+v.+windsor&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38


25/40


The denigration and humiliation suffered by legally married gay and lesbian couples and

the children whom they are raising described in Windsor as the result of DOMA mirrors the

persisting denigration and humiliation Plaintiffs suffer as a result of Oregons Marriage Laws.

II. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS DO NOT SURVIVE STRICTSCRUTINY; OREGON OFFERS NO REASON TO EXCLUDE

GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT TO MARRY.

The State of Oregon holds a monopoly over the fundamental right of civil marriage

within the state. Having assumed this monopoly over a fundamental right, the State cannot

categorically deny marriage to a discrete class of its citizens unless it can prove that the denial

of the fundamental right is the least restrictive means of meeting the strongest of government

interests. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388.When a statutory classification significantly interferes

with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by

sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only t

Documents

Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Final Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment 6:13-cv-01834-MC