UT Marriage Equality #18!!! *Legalese Version* (Long Version)

Taking a part the UT decision Kitchen v Herbert

So Anne once told me she was visiting UT to see her wife’s family there. It sent a shiver down my spine to think of what UT has plenty of and little of. Mormons and black people. So I thought to myself: Do I wanna skip UT on my 48 state journey (AL and MS are currently the ones I DO NOT wanna go to and TX is close to becoming number 3 if Wendy Davis isn’t elected as governor but I might revise it later) or just take a look at what they have to offer? UT also gave us Mia Love who was looked at as the Republican BlackFace that told us that the President’s policies were making people dependent on government and lazy. However, her parents worked their way up in a better economy than we have here. She lost UT-4 in 2012. So, imagine my surprise after some time goes by and the Windsor case struck down DOMA and movement all over the country is mobilizing to get marriage equality. Prior to this MN beat back a constitutional amendment barring marriage equality and giving its 10 electoral votes to President Obama (a 180 degree turn from CA 4 years earlier) but also legalizing it when Democrats reversed both chambers and put them under Democratic control. We saw CO pass civil unions because they’re prevented by Amendment 36 from having a marriage bill before voters can approve such a law should it be passed to the people. We saw Virginia and Arkansas two states that I never would’ve thought we’d see marriage cases. We saw one in MI preceded post-Windsor and the flurry was exciting and a bit soon. However, when momentum is on your side the only thing to do is ride it and keep on pushing.

So what does this have to do with UT? Three words: Judge Robert Shelby. In a 53 page opinion he struck down voter approved Amendment 3 passed in 2004 when anti-gay was hip, and was being pushed by the gay guy. It was the gay guy being the MC of the homohatred! How surprising is that?

So let me break it down for you

Derek Kitchen 25 and Moudi Sbeity 26

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. The couple met in 2009 and own and operate a business  together. They both were denied a marriage license in March 2013

 

Karen Archer 67 and Kate Call 60

Karen Archer is a retired nurse and has fought her way through oppression. Being 1 of 13 female students in a class of 350 they were often called dykes by the male students. Archer has been in a bar as it was raided by police

Kate Call was engaged twice and broke off both engagements. When she realized she is a lesbian she wrote letters of this to her mission president who without Ms. Call’s knowledge faxed them to her parents, it was a long road to unconditional love for them. She’s owned a number of businesses and has experienced discrimination when her partner D was told to move out of her house and as she was helping D move out, someone noticed Kate’s vehicle near D’s new residence and D was fired. Kate was fired from her job several weeks later (D and Kate has separate workplaces) as a result Kate had to sell the ranch house she owned and eventually D and Kate split up

Along with that, she has known firsthand the financial tailspin that happens when a spouse dies, and knows that the documents that they file may not be enough. She wants a guaranteed way to know that her wishes regarding her wife will be honored and the only way to do that is with marriage. The ruling said it best on pages 5-6   “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.”

Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge 46

Wood has been a school teacher over the course of 11 years, and has her Master’s Degree from BYU. She teaches undergraduate courses as an Associate Professor of English in the English and Literature Department, and also works as the Concurrent Enrollment Coordinator supervising high school instructors who teach as UVU adjuncts in high schools across Utah County. She didn’t come out because she was afraid of being let go. After not feeling authentic in her relationships with men, she began dating women

Kody Partridge is forty-seven years old and moved to Utah from Montana in 1984 to attend BYU. She received her B.A. in Spanish and humanities and later obtained a Master’s degree in English. She earned a teaching certificate in 1998 and began teaching at Butler Middle School in Salt Lake County. She realized that she was a lesbian while she was in college, and her family eventually came to accept her identity. She did not feel she could be open about her identity at work because of the worry that her job would be at risk. While she was teaching at Butler, Kody recalls that the story of Wendy Weaver was often in the news. Ms. Weaver was a teacher and coach at a Utah public school who was fired because she was a lesbian. Kody also became aware that the pension she was building in Utah Retirement Systems as a result of her teaching career could not be inherited by a life partner. Given these concerns, Kody applied and was accepted for a position in the English department at Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s, a private school that provides benefits for the same-sex partners of its faculty members. She was another couple that was denied a marriage license in March 2013

 

Amendment 3 History

UT law was amended in 1977 to state that any marriage between two persons of the same sex is “prohibited and void” that was a statute 30-1-2.

Utah legislature passed Section 30-1-4.1 of the Utah Code, which provides:

(1) (a) It is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only the legal union of a man and a woman as provided in this chapter.

(b) Except for the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman recognized pursuant to this chapter, this state will not recognize, enforce, or give legal effect to any law creating any legal status, rights, benefits, or duties that are substantially equivalent to those provided under Utah law to a man and woman because they are married.

In the 2004 General Session, the Utah legislature also passed a Joint Resolution on

Marriage, which directed the Lieutenant Governor to submit the following proposed amendment

to the Utah Constitution to the voters of Utah:

(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.

(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

The Amendment passed with 66% of the vote.

The reasons that this came to pass were five   fold

1.      Baehr v Miike HI State Supreme Court said that the government had produced no proof that denying gay and lesbian couples a license protected a government interest

2.      In 1996, Congress passed DOMA Section 2 said that states would decide for themselves if they would allow same sex marriages but Section 3 said that the federal definition of marriage for any such purposes under federal law meant man and woman as husband and wife

3.      In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court required the state to offer ALL the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples in Baker v. Vermont

4.      In 2003, Lawrence v Texas said that sodomy (often defined as mouth to penis or vagina and penis to anus but mostly applied to anal sex between men) and laws that targeted gay people as sodomy is often connected to gay sexual expression were unconstitutional. TX law Homosexual conduct law was in question

5.      In 2003, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued the Goodridge decision overturned a state statute that said that marriage is between a man and a woman. This created a flurry because people knew that folks would go to MA and go back to their states and fight through the courts to get marriage legalized there. Which was addressed by Sec 2 of DOMA

 

Judge Shelby gives some other background information to the challenge of Amendment 3 and he talks of the Windsor and Perry cases on June 26, 2013 and the history of those cases.

This sets up the background for the opinion fully

 

                 I.            Standard of Review

A Summary Judgment is basically like a trial-less ruling. The Judge doesn’t see that there is need for one, there may be more to that but I’m trying to simplify it for the layman

             II.            Effect of Windsor

State argues that the regulation of the definition of marriage is free from federal intervention quoting 1975 case Sosna v Iowa when it said that domestic relations have been the exclusive province of the states. So they say by this definition they can’t ignore a state the recognizes gay marriage but can’t force a state to recognize gay marriages either

Plaintiffs argue that the SCOTUS didn’t rule on Tenth Amendment grounds which says that the powers not granted to the federal government are given to the states and the people, it was on Due Process (Fifth Amendment) From Page 12 of the ruling: “The Plaintiffs argue that for the same reasons

the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from differentiating between same-sex

and opposite-sex couples, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from making

this distinction.”

 

III. Baker v. Nelson Is No Longer Controlling Precedent

Now for my legalese brain here, or from what I understand from what I’ve researched, Baker v. Nelson has never been precedent. Let me explain: In 1971 Two men who sought to get married were told by the MN Supreme Court that the marriage statutes didn’t violate the Plaintiffs 14^th Amendment rights. The Supreme Court said it was for “for want of a substantial federal question.” That this case was dismissed and in Pederson v OPM case the judges said that Baker v Nelson’s dismissal is a "rather slender reed" on which to rest future decisions (Morse v. Republican Party, 1995). Pretty much very little to rest on. A dismissal doesn’t indicate precedence.

Judge Shelby then goes on “But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding “when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise.” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975).” He points to Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) and Craig v. Boren in which the Supreme Court certified sex a suspect class and but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Romer v. Evans (1996).

Also, the Prop 8 case didn’t reach the merits that the case before him has reached. So therefore the State argues Baker still survives the weight of the Frontiero, Craig, Romer & Lawrence cases...it gets reduced to a pile of rubble with the following

Given the Supreme Court’s disposition of both Windsor and Perry, the court finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal law. As a result, Baker v. Nelson is no longer controlling precedent and the court proceeds to address the merits of the question presented here. Let me insist: It was NEVER controlling precedent but at least he gives this the benefit of the doubt so that other judges who come to the same conclusion as he does can draw off of this case and demolish it brilliantly

 

IV. Amendment 3 Violates the Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights

From Page 16

“The State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit is the State’s right to define marriage free from federal interference. The Plaintiffs counter that what is really at issue is an individual’s ability to protect his or her fundamental rights from unreasonable interference by the state government. As discussed above, the parties have defined the two important principles that are in tension in this matter. While Utah exercises the “unquestioned authority” to regulate and define marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens…The court must then decide whether the State’s definition and regulation of marriage impermissibly infringes those rights.

The part that gets me is on page 17 an individual’s fundamental rights “may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943). That demolishes EVERY “Let The People Vote” argument I’ve ever heard. He also says that 14^th Amendment Due Process Clause takes aim at the states

 

Supreme Court Cases Protecting Marriage as a Fundamental Right

The Judge talks about a few cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v Virginia and Maynard v Hill, Meyer v Nebraska and one of the most well-known quotes about marriage from Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, the Court ruled that marriage is “one of the basic

civil rights of man.” (1942). Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Going further: In addition to the anti-miscegenation laws the Supreme Court struck down in Loving, the Supreme Court has held that other state regulations affecting marriage are unconstitutional where these laws infringe on an individual’s access to marriage. In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Court considered a Wisconsin statute that required any Wisconsin resident who had children that were not currently in the resident’s custody to obtain a court order before the resident was permitted to marry.

 This is what happens when the states’ rights and individual rights butt heads

 Regarding the Redhail v Zablocki case this is said: The Court found that, while the State had a legitimate and substantial interest in the welfare of children in Wisconsin, the statute was nevertheless unconstitutional because it was not “closely tailored to effectuate only those interests” and “unnecessarily impinge[d] on the right to marry”

 

Application of the Court’s Jurisprudence to Amendment 3

After the analysis above, and the cases having to do with prisoners (Turner v. Safley) Deadbeat Dads in the Redhail case, interracial marriage in the Loving case he concludes that even though they arose in different circumstances, the right to marry is for everyone—the individual, not the state. To confer it to the state “would violate a person’s right to marry because such arrangements would infringe an individual’s rights to privacy, dignity, and intimate association”

Therefore, the state’s assertion that the Plaintiffs have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex is meaningless. He then cites the Plaintiffs realization of their sexuality and the great pains they took to: mitigate discrimination or the discrimination they faced because of it.

Conclusion

While admitting that its prohibition of same-sex marriage harms the Plaintiffs, the State

argues that the court’s characterization of Amendment 3 is incorrect for three reasons:

(1) the Plaintiffs are not qualified to enter into a marriage relationship;

(2) the Plaintiffs are seeking a new right, not access to an existing right; and

(3) history and tradition have not recognized a right to marry a person of the same sex. The court addresses each of these arguments in turn.

 

He demolishes this by saying that

1. The Plaintiffs Are Qualified to Marry

The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the

bility to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a

defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view

Page 25 “The court sees no support for the State’s suggestion that same-sex couples are interested only in a “consent-based” approach to marriage, in which marriage focuses on the strong emotional attachment and sexual attraction of the two partners involved

 

2. The Plaintiffs Seek Access to an Existing Right

The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is

simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a

public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with

whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. This right is deeply rooted

in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an

individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government

interference….While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex; the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it

On LGBTQNation I posted this comment: Deadbeat dads and prisoners can marry and it wasn't about saying is there a right for deadbeat dads to marry or prisoners, it was Does the right to marry EXTEND to such groups of persons? A difference in semantics but one that is necessary to differentiate.

 

3. Tradition and History Are Insufficient Reasons to Deny Fundamental Rights to an Individual.

BOO-YAH COMING!!!

Finally, the State contends that the fundamental right to marriage cannot encompass the

right to marry someone of the same sex because this right has never been interpreted to have this

meaning in the past. The court is not persuaded by the State’s argument. The Constitution is not

so rigid that it always mandates the same outcome even when its principles operate on a new set

of facts that were previously unknown:

 

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth

Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding.

Summary Judgment

The only thing that the State is coming up with in order to justify the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from marriage is tradition and moral grounds. Page 29 “the Court confirmed that “our laws and tradition afford Constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education” and held that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do”… The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.

 

The court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry that

protects their choice of a same-sex partner.

 

Amendment 3 Does Not Survive Strict Scrutiny

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.

V. Amendment 3 Violates the Plaintiffs’ Right to Equal Protection

The State has failed to see how it is narrowly tailored to protect a government interest and has a rational relation to some legitimate end

Heightened Scrutiny

Page 35 The court finds that the fact of equal application to both men and women does not

immunize Utah’s Amendment 3 from the heightened burden of justification that the Fourteenth

Amendment requires of state laws drawn according to sex.

 

Sexual Orientation as a Suspect Class

The Court did not settle on heightened scrutiny binding a 10^th Circuit decision in Price-Cornelison in which an undersheriff refused to issue a protective order because the woman seeking it is a lesbian. They held that sexual orientation is not a protected class which would warrant heightened scrutiny. He refuses to do so until the Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court does so

 

Animus

When talking about the animus factor and whether this warrants heightened scrutiny he says that when looking at the Romer case which prevented any government branch to give protections based on sexual orientation he said this: If the principal purpose or effect of a law is to impose inequality, a court need not even consider whether the class of citizens that the law effects requires heightened scrutiny or a rational basis (lowest level of scrutiny) approach

Amendment 3 went beyond denying the right to marry it even imposed prohibition of ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT to delegate responsibilities to a same sex partner. He also says that the fact that the amendment makes no sense except for the fact that they thought the statutes were vulnerable due to the reasoning in the Goodridge decision of Massachusetts thereby making this a preemptive strike

The Court doesn’t need heightened scrutiny even though the voter guide pointed to “protecting public morality” and “preserving the definition of marriage”. Heightened scrutiny need not apply to find that

 

Amendment 3 violates Due Process

Rational Basis Review

Page 41 “When a law creates a classification but does not target a suspect class or burden a

fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it so long as it rationally

relates to some legitimate governmental purpose Heller v Doe (1993).”

It can’t imagine a rational basis; it must see the rational basis to the goal attained by the state. One can’t imagine something out of the sky (as NYS Court of Appeals did in the Hernandez v Robles case) it has to say I see how this relationship works as opposed to saying: The state can rationally conclude that this law has a legitimate aim…what’s the aim? It must make conclusive links, none are found in Amendment 3 and to the effect that it has on the gay and lesbian couples in question.

States argument that Amendment 3 somehow protects responsible child rearing but the court says: The state poses the wrong question. It is not if Amendment 3 helps straight couples get married, it doesn’t. It stops gay couples from doing so.

 

Page 44 “The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing

to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to

marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will

diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts.”

 

Optimal Child-Rearing

The state doesn’t offer any persuasive evidence as to how Amendment 3 furthers this when it has nothing to do with children and family structure.  The Court doesn’t even go into it because UT doesn’t prove its case

To the extent the State wishes to see more children in opposite-sex families, its goals are tied to laws concerning adoption and surrogacy, not marriage Amendment 3 “humiliates [] thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law 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. Amendment 3 “also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples,” id. at 2695, because it denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the federal government offer to families who are legally wed. Finally, Utah’s prohibition of same-sex marriage further injures the children of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples who themselves are gay or lesbian, and who will grow up with the knowledge that the State does not believe they are as capable of creating a family as their heterosexual friends

 

Proceeding with Caution

Palmore v Sidoti in 1984 was a FL case where Mr. Sidoti wanted Mrs. Palmore, his ex-wife to give him full custody of their daughter because Mrs. Palmore’s current husband is black. The state of FL gave Mr. Sidoti custody even though Mr. Palmore was a fine example of a Father for their daughter. The Supreme Court said no! This will not happen; Societal stigma isn’t a reason to deny custody. FL wanted to proceed with caution but even then they had no evidence that Mr. Palmore was a negative influence on her life, EVEN IF SHE GOT MADE FUN OF FOR HAVING A BLACK STEPFATHER! The Court doesn’t cite this case but I had to slip it in there because the court calls that argument toothless and no evidence to support its claim

 

Preserving the Traditional Definition of Marriage

I think that this following quote from Page 48 sums it up perfectly “Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970) (“[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

In the play 8, Kevin Bacon playing Charles Cooper talked about the millennia and about how gay couples were never included in the definition of marriage. However, when Brad Pitt playing Judge Vaughn Walker said “Let’s turn from the millennia to the 2 weeks in January what evidence do you have that this will harm same sex couples”

In coming to America, Eddie Murphy’s character says “It is tradition that traditions change” Of course there are a lot of traditions we forego like dowries, coverture which made a woman a legal nonentity and arranged marriages in this country. Appeals to tradition can’t save a law any more than it can save a practice that is now regarded as savage

And, as Justice Scalia has noted in dissent of Lawrence v. Texas ”preserving the traditional institution of marriage’” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

With the religious freedom aspect he says it will not infringe because churches will still have the same rights they had before the ruling got handed down. But in an interesting twist, he also makes a point that now many churches in UT may be able to perform and legally solemnize marriages of gay and lesbian couples by saying this: “By recognizing the right to marry a partner of the same sex, the State allows these groups the freedom to practice their religious beliefs without mandating that other groups must adopt similar practices.” Page 49

‘

Summary of Rational Basis Analysis

Like Charles Cooper the State of Utah “just didn’t know” what harm to opposite-sex couples would happen if gays were allowed to marry, couldn’t produce one single straight couple that would refuse to be married if Amendment 3 were repealed. They also didn’t make a valid connection between Amendment 3 and its stated legitimate interests. Like the Court said at best their answer was “We simply just don’t know” The argument is not persuasive and on Page 50 Judge Shelby states “Similarly, the State has not shown any effect of the availability of same-sex marriage on the number of children raised by either opposite-sex or same-sex partners” The Plaintiffs however were able to show evidence of how Amendment 3 hurts them and how it bears reasonable similarities to the discriminatory laws that were struck down in Romer & Windsor. Page 50 “But even without applying heightened scrutiny to Amendment 3, the court finds that the law discriminates on the basis of sexual identity without a rational reason to do so. Because Amendment 3 fails even rational basis review, the court finds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law”

 

VI. Utah’s Duty to Recognize a Marriage Validly Performed in Another State

Page 51 “Plaintiffs Karen Archer and Kate Call contend that their rights to due process and equal

protection are further infringed by the State’s refusal to recognize their marriage that was validly

performed in Iowa. The court’s disposition of the other issues in this lawsuit renders this

question moot. Utah’s current laws violate the rights of same-sex couples who were married

elsewhere not because they discriminate against a subsection of same-sex couples in Utah who

were validly married in another state, but because they discriminate against all same-sex couples

in Utah”

In conclusion, Page 52 “Moreover, the Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental

rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their

government. These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the

government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that

person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being. The Constitution

therefore protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of their sexual identity.”

ORDER

The court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) and

DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 33). The court hereby declares

that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process

and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The

court hereby enjoins the State from enforcing Sections 30-1-2 and 30-1-4.1 of the Utah Code and
Article I, § 29 of the Utah Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying
another person of the same sex.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2013.