14-124, 2014 WL 3841263 (Oct. 6, 2014), is the federal case that successfully challenged Utah's constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples and similar statutes.

Three same-sex couples filed suit in March 2013, naming as defendants Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen in their official capacities.

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review without comment and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay, putting into effect its order ending Utah's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban.

On March 25, 2013, attorneys from the Salt Lake City law firm Magleby & Greenwood filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of three same-sex couples, including one already married in Iowa, seeking to declare Utah's prohibition on the recognition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.

[1][2] The plaintiffs are Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge; and Karen Archer and Kate Call.

[4][5] He wrote:[6] 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.

[9] Baker v. Nelson was a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that upheld the state's denial of a marriage license to a male couple.

The court wrote that "the regulation of constitutionally protected decisions, such as ... whom [a person] shall marry, must be predicated on legitimate state concerns other than disagreement with the choice the individual has made", quoting Hodgson v.

"[15] The court added that the Constitution allows different outcomes "when its principles operate on a new set of facts that were previously unknown".

It quoted Lawrence v. Texas: "'[T]imes can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress'".

[17] Utah cited its legitimate government interests to be: responsible procreation, optimal child-rearing, proceeding with caution, and preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

"[22] Regarding the preservation of tradition, the court held that "[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack," quoting Williams v. Illinois.

The court did not find Utah's argument persuasive and ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage failed a rational basis review.

[25] Citing Loving v. Virginia, the court argued for but did not feel the need to apply intermediate scrutiny on the basis of sex discrimination "because Amendment 3 fails under even the most deferential level of review.

We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.

"[31] Because the state's lawyers had not filed a motion for a stay in district court by the time of the ruling,[32] some of Utah's county clerks began issuing marriage licenses immediately to same-sex couples.

[34] Several hundred people, gay and straight, crowded outside Salt Lake City and County Building on the lawns of Washington Square on the night of December 23 to cheer and laugh and listen to band music and to speakers celebrating the state's first same-sex marriages.

[50] After the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kitchen, Utah officials asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss its appeal in the case, ending its attempt to deny recognition to the December/January same-sex marriages.

The Tenth Circuit ordered the appeals process to be heard on an expedited basis[53] and set a briefing schedule to be completed by February 25.

Senators Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas filed a brief for the plaintiffs,[62] as did a group of 46 companies including Starbucks, Pfizer, eBay, Facebook, Google and Levi Strauss.

[61] The LDS Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod filed a joint brief in support of the state's position.

[66][67][68] The Court upheld the December 2013 decision by Judge Robert Shelby's that found Utah's Amendment 3, banning same-sex marriage, unconstitutional by stating: We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws.

[69][70]On July 9, State Attorney General Sean Reyes' office said that it would not request an en banc hearing by the full Tenth Circuit[71] and on August 5 filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.