2:13-cv-00217 #62

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

1/12

PHILIP S. LOTT (5750)STANFORD E. PURSER (13440)Assistant Utah Attorneys General

JOHN E. SWALLOW (5802)Utah Attorney General160 East 300 South, Sixth FloorP.O. Box 140856Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856Telephone: (801) 366-0100Facsimile: (801) 366-0101Email: [email protected]: [email protected] for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John E. Swallow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

DEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDISBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER,individually; KATE CALL, individually;LAURIE WOOD, individually; andKODY PARTRIDGE, individually,

Plaintiffs,vs.

GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacityas Governor of Utah; JOHN SWALLOW, inhis official capacity as Attorney General ofUtah; and SHERRIE SWENSEN, in herofficial capacity as Clerk of Salt LakeCounty,

Defendants.

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF STATE

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS

Judge Robert J. Shelby

TAB 74h

(1459 - 1463)

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 62 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 12

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

2/12

ii

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tab # Description Page

PART ONE

LEGAL MATERIALS1. Utah Code 30-1-2 1

2. Utah Code 30-1-4.1 2

3. Utah Constitution Art. 1, 29 (Amendment 3) 3

4. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (as originally filed) 4

5. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (Senate Floor Amendments) 6

6. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (final, reflecting Senate amendments) 7

7. Chart: The definition of marriage: State statutory and constitutionalprovisions

9

8. Chart: The definition of marriage: State ballot measures 13

9. Chart: The language of State constitutional bans on domestic partnership and

other non-marital unions

18

10. Chart: Court decisions on the marriage issue 23

11. Chart: Pending cases on the marriage issue 25

12. Jurisdictional Statement,Baker v. Nelson, No. 71-1027 (U.S. Supreme CourtFeb. 11, 1971)

27

13. Amicus curiaebrief of Social Science Professors,Hollingsworth v. Perry, No.12-144, and United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (U.S. Sup. Ct. January2013)

40

14. Amicus curiae brief of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines,

Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 (U.S. Sup. Ct. January 2013)

81

15. [Reserved]

16. [Reserved]


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

3/12

iii

PART TWO

MATERIALS ON ADJUDICATIVE FACTS17. Affidavit of William C. Duncan and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 127

18. Excerpts from Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, General Election,November 2, 2004 15019. Vote count on Amendment 3, by county, with totals, and with percentages 155

20. Campaign materials for Amendment 3 156

21. Campaign materials against Amendment 3 171

22. New accounts, press releases, and editorials regarding Amendment 3 183

23. Fund-raising and expenditures in the Amendment 3 campaign 222

24. Affidavit of Dr. Joseph P. Price and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 223

25. [Reserved]

26. [Reserved]

PART THREE

MATERIALS ON LEGISLATIVE FACTS27. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES,WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: THIRTY

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (3d ed. 2011).232

28. THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE,MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD:TENPRINCIPLES (2008).

280

29. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES,MARRIAGE AND THE LAW:ASTATEMENTOF PRINCIPLES (2006).

318

30. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES (DAN CERE, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR),THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW:LAW AND THE MARRIAGE CRISIS INNORTHAMERICA (2005).

362

31. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES ET AL.(ELIZABETH MARQUARDT,PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR),THE REVOLUTION IN PARENTHOOD:THE EMERGINGGLOBAL CLASH BETWEEN ADULT RIGHTS AND CHILDRENSNEEDS (2006).

413

32. COMMISSION ON PARENTHOODS FUTURE &INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN

VALUES (ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR),ONE PARENTORFIVE:A GLOBAL LOOK AT TODAYSNEW INTENTIONAL FAMILIES (2011).

457

33. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES (ELIZABETH MARQUARDT,NOVAL D.GLENN,&KAREN CLARK, CO-INVESTIGATORS),MY DADDYSNAME ISDONOR:ANEW STUDY OF YOUNG ADULTS CONCEIVED THROUGH SPERMDONATION (2010).

529


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

4/12

iv

34. Margaret Somerville, What About the Children, in DIVORCING MARRIAGE:UNVEILING THE DANGERS OF CANADASNEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT 63-78(Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrows eds., 2004).

669

35. Margaret Somerville, Childrens human rights and unlinking child-parentbiological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive

technologies, 13 J.FAM.STUD.179-201(2007).

687

36. Margaret Somerville, Childrens Human Rights to Natural Biological Originsand Family Structure, 1 INTL J.JURISPRUDENCE FAM.35(2010). 710

37. Don Browning & Elizabeth Marquardt, What About the Children? LiberalCautions on Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 173-192(Robert P. George & Jean BethkeElshtain, eds., 2006).

732

38. Maggie Gallagher, (How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?, in THEMEANING OF MARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 197-212(Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006).

752

39. Seana Sugrue, Soft Despotism and Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OFMARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 172-96(Robert P.

George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006).

770

40. THE SOCIOLOGY OF GEORGE SIMMEL 128-32(Kurt H. Wolff, trans. & ed.,1950).

797

41. CLAUDE LVI-STRAUSS,THE VIEW FROM AFAR39-42 (Joachim Neugroschel& Phoebe Hoss trans. 1985)

804

42. G.ROBINA QUALE,A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE SYSTEMS 1-3(1988). 810

43. EDWARD O.LAUMANN ET AL.,THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY:SEXUAL PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES 310-13(1994).

815

44. CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE:COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGINGINSTITUTION 7-8(Kingsley Davis, ed., 1985).

819

45. JAMES Q.WILSON,THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM 40-41,168-170(2002). 823

46. BRONISLAW MALINOWSKI,SEX,CULTURE, AND MYTH 10-11(1962). 831

47. DADDY DEAREST?ACTIVE FATHERHOOD AND PUBLIC POLICY 57 (KateStanley ed., 2005).

834

48. DAVID POPENOE,LIFE WITHOUT FATHER:COMPELLINGNEW EVIDENCE THATFATHERHOOD AND MARRIAGE ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR THE GOOD OFCHILDREN AND SOCIETY 139-63(1996).

837

49. William J. Doherty et al.,Responsible Fathering: An Overview andConceptual Framework, 60J.MARRIAGE &FAM.277-292(1998).

852

50. KRISTIN ANDERSON MOORE ET AL.,MARRIAGE FROM A CHILDS PERSPECIVE:HOW DOES FAMILY STRUCTURE AFFECT CHILDREN, AND WHAT CAN WE DOABOUT IT?,a Child Trends Research Brief (2002).

868

51. Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, Unintended Pregnancy in the UnitedStates: incidence and disparities, 2006, 84 CONTRACEPTION 478-85(2011).

876


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

5/12

v

52. ELIZABETH WILDSMITH ET AL.,CHILDBEARING OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE:ESTIMATES AND TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES,a Child Trends ResearchBrief (2011).

884

53. SAMUEL W.STURGEON,THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY STRUCTUREAND ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ACTIVITY, a familyfacts.org Special Report(November 2008).

890

54. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., Administration for Children &Families, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation,Distribution of Abuseand Neglect by Family Characteristics, in FOURTHNATIONAL INCIDENCESTUDY OF CHILD ABUSE ANDNEGLECT (NIS-4)

892

55. Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15THE FUTURE OFCHILDREN 75-96(2005).

936

56. Douglas W. Allen,High school graduation rates among children of same-sexhouseholds, 11 Rev. of Econ. Of the Household (published on-line September26, 2013).

959

57. Mark Regnerus,How different are the adult children of parents who have

same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752-70(2012).

983

58. Mark Regnerus, Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, andsubsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new

family structures study with additional analyses, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCERESEARCH 1367-77(2012).

1002

59. Loren Marks, Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closerexamination of the American psychological associations brief on lesbian and

gay parenting, 41SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 735-51(2012).

1013

60. WILLIAM C.DUNCAN,MISPLACED RELIANCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCEIN THE PROPOSITION 8CASE,Vol. 5, No. 6, an Institute for Marriage and

Public Policy Research Brief (2012).

1030

61. JOHN R.SEARLE,THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY 4-5,27-29,31-37,55-57,59-60,76-104,117-120,227-28(1995).

1035

62. JOHN R.SEARLE,MAKING THE SOCIAL WORLD:THE STRUCTURE OF HUMANCIVILIZATION 6-16,84-93,102-08,143-44(2010).

1089

63. Douglas Farrow, Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?, TOUCHSTONE,Jan.Feb.2012

1121

64. Ross Douthat, Gay Parents and the Marriage Debate, THENEW YORKTIMES,June 11, 2002.

1128

65. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES (BENJAMIN SCAFIDI, PRINCIPALINVESTIGATOR),THE TAXPAYERCOSTS OF DIVORCE AND UNWED

CHILDBEARING:FIRST-EVERESTIMATES FOR THENATION AND ALL FIFTYSTATES (2008).

1131

66. BEYOND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:A NEW STRATEGIC VISION FOR ALL OURFAMILIES & RELATIONSHIPS (July 26, 2006).

1175

67. SHERIF GIRGIS,RYAN T.ANDERSON, AND ROBERT P.GEORGE,WHAT ISMARRIAGE? MAN AND WOMAN:ADEFENSE 1-2,6-12,23-36(2012).

1202


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

6/12

vi

68. DAVID BLANKENHORN,THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE 3-4,11-21,55,91-106,120-25,171-75,179-201(2007).

1227

69. [Reserved]

70. [Reserved]

PART FOURCANADIAN AND BRITISH LAW JOURNAL ARTICLES

71. Matthew B. OBrien, Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage:Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family, 1 BRIT.J.AM.L.STUDIES (Issue2, Summer/Fall 2012, May 1, 2012).

1291

72. F.C. DeCoste, Courting Leviathan: Limited Government and Social Freedomin Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, 42 ALTA.L.REV.1099(2005).

1352

73. F.C. Decoste, The Halpern Transformation: Same-Sex Marriage, CivilSociety, and the Limits of Liberal Law, 41 ALTA.L.REV.619(2003).

1377

74. Monte Neil Stewart,Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 CAN.J.FAM.L.11(2004).

1403

Dated this 11th day of October, 2013.

JOHN E. SWALLOWUtah Attorney General

/s/ Philip S. LottPhilip S. LottStanford E. PurserAssistant Utah Attorneys GeneralAttorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert

and John Swallow

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of October, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the

following:

Peggy A. Tomsic [email protected] E. Magleby [email protected] Fraser Parrish [email protected] & GREENWOOD, P.C.170 South Main Street, Suite 850Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3605


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

7/12

vii

Ralph Chamness [email protected] M. Goddard [email protected] Lake County District Attorneys2001 South State, S3500Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1210

/s/ Philip S. Lott


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

8/12

21 CANJFL 11 Page 5721 Can. J. Fam. L. 11

or goals-based. Ibid. 171-77.[FN264J. Ibid.[FN265J. Ibid. at 180.[FN266J. Ibid. The broad range of arguable derivative rights and goals identified by Dworkin himself foreshadows later concerns with the indeterminacy of the right of equal concern and respect.[FN267J. Ibid. at 182.[FN268l. Ibid. at 273.[FN269J. Ibid. at 273-74.[FN2701. Ibid. at 275-76.[FN271J. Ibid. at 277.[FN2721. Ibid. at 275-76.[FN2731. Ibid. at 273.[FN2741. Ibid.[FN275J. Ibid.[FN276J. J. Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980).[FN2771. See e.g. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 91, 191,269.[FN2781. Finnis, supra note 276 at 218. [emphasis in original][FN279J. Ibid. at 222.[FN280l. Ibid.[FN28ll. J. Ely, "Professor Dworkin's External/Personal Preference Distinction" (1983) Duke L.J. 959 (providing some criticisms and referencing others by Hart, Sager, and Regan).

[FN282]. R. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice ofEquality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,2000).[FN2831. Ibid. at 481, n. 9. It is a commonplace that Dworkin is a moving target. What is important for purposes of Canadianequality jurisprudence is the content of Dworkin's right to equal concern and respect as the SCC adopted it in 1989, with itsreiterations since.[FN2841. Mv. H supra note 24.

2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 001459


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

9/12


[FN285J. Ibid. at para. 124, Iacobucci J, u; Ibid. at para. 254, Gonthier J, dissenting; Ibid. at para. 282, Major J, s 15(1);Ibid. at paras. 316, 321, Bastarche J, u.[FN286J. Supra note 17 at, ss. 7, 10, 36(1), 39(1).[FN2871. Law v. Canada, supra note 85 at para. 51.[FN288J. Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 42[FN289]. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 275-77.[FN290J. Ibid. at 273.[FN291J. EGALE, supra note 2 at para. 130; Halpern, supra note 3 at paras. 100-107.[FN292J. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 273 (the right to equal treatment is "perhaps" properly applicable in the reapportionment cases).[FN293l. Ibid.[FN294J. See e.g. Kotch v. Board o[River Port Pilot Comrs. 330 U.S. 552. 67 S.Ct. 910 (1947).[FN295]. Nixon v. Administrator ofGeneral Sen1ices. 433 U.S. 425 at 506. 97 S.Ct. 2777 (1977).[FN296J. Ibid. ("[T]his Court has held that the presumption of constitutionality does not apply with equal force where thevery legitimacy of the composition of representative institutions is at stake.") (citing Revnolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533. 84 S.Ct.1362 (1964)).[FN297J. Ibid. Ofcourse, a court that has adopted Dworkin's right to equal concern and respect into its equality jurisprudencemay assert that its adoption was of some "core concept" and not of all the elements of the theory as promulgated; in otherwords, that the court is not necessarily bound by the theory's self-limitations. In such a case, however, it would seem that thecourt would be under a duty to publicly demonstrate the severability of the limitation. That would be especially so where, ashere, the theory is a carefully integrated and unitary piece of legal craftsmanship that does not suggest any rational or logicalbasis for severance of the limitation. To jettison a part of the theory that stands in the way of a particular end (genderless marriage) on unpersuasive grounds may fairly open such a court to serious charges against its institutional integrity.[FN298]. Romer v. Evans. 517 U.S. 620. 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996) at 633.[FN299J. Sunstein, "Foreword", supra note 58 at 53. For a penetrating analysis of the United States Supreme Court's use of"animus", see Steven D. Smith, "Conciliating Hatred" First Things 144 (June/July 2004): 17, online: [FN300]. Goodridge, supra note 4 at 341-42, quoting Palmore v. Sidoti. 466 U.S. 429. 104 S.Ct. 1879 (1984). Almost immediately (in its n. 33), however, the plurality opinion acknowledges that there is no need to address intent; discriminatory effectis enough.[FN301l. See e.g. M. Bonauto, "The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples in the United States of America" in Win-



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

10/12


temute & Andenaes, supra note 6, 177 at 205.[FN302J. Law v. Canada, supra note 85 at para. 51[FN303]. Ibid. at para. 88[FN304J. Halpern, supra note 3 at paras. 84-87,94, 107.[FN305J. Even the impulse to magnanimity would come to condemn the judicial action if, in time, the societal costs incurred(and judicially denied at the outset) mount and mount.[FN306J. Romer v. Evans, supra note 298[FN307J. Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. 106 S.Ct. 2841 (1986), overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, supra note 42.[FN308]. Romer v. Evans, supra note 298 at 641.[FN309]. Sunstein, "Foreword", supra note 58 at 64-69.[FN310l. Ibid. at 67-69.[FN311l. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra note 138.[FN312J. Ibid. at 486; 1682. Tradition, as Sunstein notes, plays no comparable limiting role in equality jurisprudence. Sunstein, supra note 58 at 69. The most famous American equal protection case, Brown v. Board ofEducation (together with itsprogeny), demonstrates this difference; the long and wide-spread American tradition of race-segregated schools (de jure andde facto) was not a constraint on the court's power but rather the very target of that power. The limitations on a court's powerunder an equality guarantee reside not in tradition but in the polity's equality jurisprudence.[FN313J. Constitution of he Republic ofSouth Africa, Act 108 of 1996, s. 10.[FN314l. See e.g. Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113. 93 S.Ct. 705 0973).[FN315l. See e.g. Baehr v. Lewin, supra note 33 at 551-57.[FN316J. A good beginning point might be Kant; his treatment of dignity is discussed in Finnis, supra note 136 at 441-42 andin T. Hill, "Humanity as an End in Itself' (1980) 91 Ethics 84 at 91-92; also see J. Rabkin, "What We Can Learn About Human Dignity from International Law" (2003) 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 145.[FN317J. Supra note 4.[FN318]. Supra note 46 .[FN319J. Dworkin, supra note 260.[FN320]. Rawls, supra note 261.[FN321J. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 160.



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

11/12


[FN322J. Ibid. at 155-56.[FN323J. Ibid. at 156.[FN324J. Ibid. at 160.[FN325J. Ibid.[FN326l. Ibid.[FN327J. Ibid.[FN328J. Ibid.[FN329l. Ibid. at 161.[FN330J. Ibid. at 160.[FN331l. Ibid. at 162.[FN332J. Ibid. at 163.[FN333J. Ibid. at 163-68.[FN334J. Ibid. at 166.[FN335J. Ibid.[FN336J. Ibid. at 168.[FN337J. Ibid.[FN338J. Ibid.[FN339l. Goodridge, supra note 4 at 344-51.[FN340J. See e.g./bid. at 351-53, Spina J. dissenting; ibid. at 365-66, 368-75, Cordy J. dissenting.[FN341l. Ibid. at 375-79, Cordy J. dissenting.[FN342J. Ibid. at 350, n. 6.[FN343J. Ibid.[FN344J. Ibid.



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #62.

12/12


[FN345J. Ibid. at 349-50. To the extent this was an invitation to the dissenters to abandon the constructive model and convertto the "right thing", the invitation was rejected: "However minimal the risks of that redefinition of marriage may seem to usfrom our vantage point, it is not up to us to decide what risks society must run, and it is inappropriate for us to arrogate thatpower to ourselves merely because we are confident that 'it is the right thing to do."' ibid. at 362, Sosman J dissenting.[FN346J. Re Opinions of he Justices, supra note 46.[FN3471. Ibid. at 570.[FN348J. Ibid.[FN349l. Dworkin, supra note 260 at 161.[FN350J. Ibid.[FN351J. Ibid. at 163.[FN352J. Ibid. at 167.[FN353l. Ibid. at 168.[FN354J. Ibid.[FN355J. Ibid. at 166.21 Can. J. Fam. L. 11END OF DOCUMENT



2:13-cv-00217 #62

Documents