regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included.”). As the Utah court in Kitchen noted: [I]t 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. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. 961 F.Supp.2d at 1211, 2013 WL 6697874, at *25. Defendants’ preferred rationale presumes that same-sex couples cannot be good parents — this is the same type of unconstitutional and unfounded presumption that the Supreme Court has held “cannot stand.” See, e.g. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 653, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds same-sex couples can be just
holding a state could not conclusively presume that any particular unmarried father is unfit to raise a child holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child holding that an illinois statute that conclusively presumed every father of a child born out of wedlock to be an unfit person to have custody of his children violated the due process clause and that due process required the father to be given an opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding that unmarried father is entitled to show that he could not have reasonably expected his biological child to be born in utah after biological mother left california immediately prior to childs birth without informing father where birth would occur