While Utah asserted that the plaintiffs were "still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex," the court held that Utah's prohibition of gay people's right to choose same-sex spouses renders their fundamental right to marry meaningless.
While Utah asserted that the plaintiffs were "still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex," the court found that a person's decision of whom to marry is constitutionally protected, citing "Hodgson v. Minnesota". The court held that Utah's prohibition of gay people's right to choose same-sex spouses renders their fundamental right to marry meaningless.