Kitchen v. Herbert

Decision Date20 December 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 2:13–cv–217.
Citation961 F.Supp.2d 1181
PartiesDerek KITCHEN, Moudi Sbeity, Karen Archer, Kate Call, Laurie Wood, and Kody Partridge, Plaintiffs, v. Gary R. HERBERT, John Swallow, and Sherrie Swensen, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Utah

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Held Unconstitutional

West's U.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 29; West's U.C.A. §§ 30–1–2, 30–1–4.1

Recognized as Unconstitutional

1 U.S.C.A. § 7

Peggy A. Tomsic, James E. Magleby, Jennifer F. Parrish, Magleby & Greenwood PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.

Stanford Edward Purser, Utah Attorney General's Office, Philip S. Lott, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

ROBERT J. SHELBY, District Judge.

The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are three gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry, but are currently unable to do so because the Utah Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. The Plaintiffs argue that this prohibition infringes their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State of Utah defends its laws and maintains that a state has the right to define marriage according to the judgment of its citizens. Both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment.

The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah's current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution.

Few questions are as politically charged in the current climate. This observation is especially true where, as here, the state electorate has taken democratic action to participate in a popular referendum on this issue. It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action. But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah's laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself, and on the interpretation of that document contained in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah's prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State's current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.

BACKGROUND
I. The Plaintiffs

The three couples in this lawsuit either desire to be married in Utah or are already legally married elsewhere and wish to have their marriage recognized in Utah. The court summarizes below the relevant facts from the affidavits that the couples filed in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

A. Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity

Derek Kitchen is a twenty-five-year-old man who was raised in Utah and obtained a B.A. in political science from the University of Utah. Moudi Sbeity is also twenty-five years old and was born in Houston, Texas. He grew up in Lebanon, but left that country in 2006 during the war between Lebanon and Israel. Moudi came to Logan, Utah, where he received a B.S. in economics from Utah State University. He is currently enrolled in a Master's program in economics at the University of Utah.

Derek testifies that he knew he was gay from a young age, but that he did not come out publicly to his friends and family for several years while he struggled to define his identity. Moudi also knew he was gay when he was young and came out to his mother when he was sixteen. Moudi's mother took him to a psychiatrist because she thought he was confused, but the psychiatrist told her that there was nothing wrong with Moudi. After that visit, Moudi's mother found it easier to accept Moudi's identity, and Moudi began telling his other friends and family members. Moudi testifies that he was careful about whom he told because he was concerned that he might expose his mother to ridicule.

Derek and Moudi met each other in 2009 and fell in love shortly after meeting. After dating for eighteen months, the two moved in together in Salt Lake City. Derek and Moudi run a business called “Laziz” that they jointly started. Laziz produces and sells Middle Eastern spreads such as hummus, muhammara, and toum to Utah businesses like Harmon's and the Avenues Bistro. Having maintained a committed relationship for over four years, Derek and Moudi desire to marry each other. They were denied a marriage license from the Salt Lake County Clerk's office in March 2013.

B. Karen Archer and Kate Call

Karen Archer was born in Maryland in 1946, but spent most of her life in Boulder, Colorado. She received a B.A. and an M.D. from the University of Texas, after which she completed her residency in OB/GYN at the Pennsylvania State University. She worked as a doctor until 2001, when she retired after developing two serious illnesses. Karen experienced a number of hardships due to her sexual identity. Karen came out to her parents when she was twenty-six years old, but her parents believed that her sexual orientation was an abnormality and never accepted this aspect of Karen's identity. Karen was one of thirteen women in a medical school class of 350, and she recalls that her male classmates often referred to the female students as “dykes.” Karen also testifies that she was once present at a gay bar when it was raided by the police, who assaulted the bar patrons with their batons.

Kate Call is sixty years old and spent her earliest years in Wisconsin and Mexico, where her parents were mission presidents for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When she was eight years old, Kate moved to Provo, Utah, where her father worked as a professor at Brigham Young University. Kate received her B.A. from BYU in 1974. While she was in college, she dated several men and was even engaged twice. Although she hoped that she would begin to feel a more intimate connection if she committed herself to marriage, she broke off both engagements because she never developed any physical attraction to her fiancés. Kate began to realize that she was a lesbian, a feeling that continued to develop while she was serving a mission in Argentina. She wrote a letter sharing these feelings to her mission president, who, without Kate's consent, faxed Kate's message to church authorities and her parents. Kate's family was sad and puzzled at first, but ultimately told her that they loved her unconditionally.

During her professional life, Kate owned a number of businesses. In 2000, she bought a sheep ranch in San Juan County and moved there with D., her partner at the time. Kate worked seasonally for the National Park Service and D. found a job at the Youth Detention facility in Blanding. But when rumors surfaced that D. was a lesbian, D.'s boss told her that she needed to move away from Kate's ranch if she wished to keep her job. While Kate was helping D. move, someone from D.'s work saw Kate's vehicle at D.'s new trailer. That person reported the sighting to D.'s boss, and D. was fired. Several weeks later, Kate's supervisor also told her that her services were no longer needed. Kate never found out why she was let go, but she surmises that her supervisor may have been pressured by D.'s boss, who was one of her supervisor's mentors. Kate and D. moved back to the Wasatch Front, and Kate was eventually forced to sell the ranch. Kate testifies that she and D. split up as a result of the difficult challenges they had faced, and Kate eventually moved to Moab.

Karen and Kate met online through a dating website and were immediately attracted to each other when they first met in person. Karen moved from Colorado to Utah, and the couple now lives in Wallsburg. The two are both concerned about how they will support each other in the event that one of them passes away, a consideration that is especially urgent in light of Karen's illness. Karen has had difficult experiences with the legal aspects of protecting a same-sex union in the past. Before meeting Kate, Karen had two partners who passed away while she was with them. While partnered to a woman named Diana, Karen had to pay an attorney approximately one thousand dollars to draw up a large number of legal documents to guarantee certain rights: emergency contacts, visitation rights, power of attorney for medical and financial decisions, medical directives, living wills, insurance beneficiaries, and last wills and testaments. Despite these documents, Karen was unable to receive Diana's military pension when Diana died in 2005.

Karen and Kate have drawn up similar legal papers, but they are concerned that these papers may be subject to challenges because they are not legally recognized as a couple in Utah. In an attempt to protect themselves further, Karen and Kate flew to Iowa to be wed in a city courthouse. Because of the cost of the plane tickets, the couple was not able to have friends and family attend, and the pair had their suitcases by their side when they said, “I do.” Kate testifies that the pragmatism of their Iowa wedding was born out of the necessity of providing whatever security they could for their relationship. Under current law, Utah does not recognize their marriage performed in Iowa.

C. Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge

Laurie Wood has lived in Utah since she was three years old. She grew up in American Fork, received a B.A. from the University of Utah, and received her Master's degree from BYU. She spent over eleven years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Protectmarriage.com-Yes On 8, Renewal v. City of Montgomery
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 20, 2014
    ...from enforcing various statutory provisions that “prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1216 (D.Utah 2013). A few hours after that order was issued, the State of Utah filed a motion to stay the order. See Kitchen v. Herbert,......
  • Obergefell v. Wymyslo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • December 23, 2013
    ...the equality demanded by the Equal Protection Clause of the New Mexico Constitution.”); see also Kitchen v. Herbert, 2:13–CV–00217, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 2013 WL 6697874 (D.Utah Dec. 20, 2013) (“Utah's prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution's guarantees......
  • SWEPI, LP v. Mora Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • January 19, 2015
    ...may only apply if the disadvantaged class “has a history of oppression and political powerlessness.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1208 (D.Utah 2013) (Shelby, J.). In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, the Supreme Court noted that the mentally disabled had been subject to......
  • McGee v. Cole
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • January 29, 2014
    ...of Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, holding that Utah's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, No. 2:13–CV–217, 2013 WL 6697874 (D.Utah Dec. 20, 2013). The second is a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Obergefell v. Wymyslo, ho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • "a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 68-6, 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...Hively, 853 F.3d at 345-47.90. Id. at 347. 91. Cunningham-Parmeter, supra note 20, at 1133.92. Id. at 1137.93. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1206 (D. Utah 2013) (holding that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is constitutionally impermissible sex discrimination); Perry......
  • The Loadstone Rock: the Role of Harm in the Criminalization of Plural Unions
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 64-6, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...support for their assertion that denying marriage to same-sex couples positively affects childrearing."); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1214 (D. Utah 2013) ("[T]he State has not shown any effect of the availability of same-sex marriage on the number of children raised by either ......
  • Our Court Masters
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 94, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...archived at http://perma.unl.edu/7LA8-AEET. 6. Id. 7. See generally Complaint, Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013) (No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS), 2013 WL 8. Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1215. 9. I practiced law in Utah for nearly ten years prior to teaching and had some glancin......
  • BOSTOCK V. CLAYTON COUNTY AND THE FOLLY OF TEXTUALISM: A UTAH CASE STUDY.
    • United States
    • Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law Vol. 22 No. 1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...SALT LAKE TRIB., (Feb. 8, 2013 2:01 PM), https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=55790742&itype=CMSID. (87) Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah (88) PRINCE, supra note 80, at 227-28 ("Judge Robert Shelby's stunning decision in Kitchen v. Herbert at the end of 2013 result......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT