The Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty rights of all citizens, and none of the
StateÂ’s arguments presents a compelling reason why the scope of that right should be greater for heterosexual individuals than it is for gay and lesbian individuals. If, as is clear from the Supreme Court cases discussing the right to marry, a heterosexual personÂ’s choices about intimate association and family life are protected from unreasonable government interference in the marital context, then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these same protections.
The courtÂ’s determination that the fundamental right to marry encompasses the PlaintiffsÂ’
right to marry a person of the same sex is not the end of the court’s analysis. The State may pass a law that restricts a person’s fundamental rights provided that the law is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). For instance, a state may permissibly regulate the age at which a person may be married because the state has a compelling interest in protecting children against abuse and coercion. Similarly, a state need not allow an individual to marry if that person is mentally incapable of forming the requisite consent, or if that prohibition is part of the punishment for a prisoner serving a life sentence. See Butler v. Wilson, 415 U.S. 953 (1974) (summarily affirming decision to uphold a state law that prohibited prisoners incarcerated for life from marrying).
The court finds no reason that the Plaintiffs are comparable to children, the mentally
incapable, or life prisoners. Instead, the Plaintiffs are ordinary citizens—business owners,
teachers, and doctors—who wish to marry the persons they love. As discussed below, the State of Utah has not demonstrated a rational, much less a compelling, reason why the Plaintiffs should be denied their right to marry. Consequently, the court finds that Amendment 3 violates the Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.