UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-213

GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROY COOPER, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STATE DEFENDANTS
ANSWER, DEFENSES AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROY
COOPERS MOTION TO INTERVENE


NOW COME Defendants, ROY COOPER, RONALD L. MOORE, ROXANN
VANEEKHOVEN, NED MANGUM, BRADLEY K. GREENWAY and ANDREW MURRAY,
(State Defendants) all sued in their official capacities, and without waiving any motions or
defenses not set out herein, answer Plaintiffs Amended Complaint.
Answer to Enumerated Paragraphs

Paragraphs 1-4.
Upon information and belief, the factual allegations of these Paragraphs are admitted. It is
admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 15
2
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.
Paragraphs 5-7.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that the Court has jurisdiction over
the 1
st
Amendment claims which should be dismissed as moot, or that either Roy A. Cooper, in
his official capacity as the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in
their official capacities, are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. The
remaining allegations are admitted.
Paragraphs 8-72.
Upon information and belief, admitted.
Paragraph 73.
To the extent the allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive
Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the United States
Constitution, those allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and
therefore are denied. The remaining factual allegations are admitted, upon information and
belief.
Paragraphs 74-77.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Roy A. Cooper, in his official
capacity as the North Carolina Attorney General, is a proper party to this action, those
allegations are denied. The remaining allegations are admitted.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 15
3
Paragraphs 78-80.
The allegations of these Paragraphs do not call for a response from the State Defendants.
Paragraphs 81-82.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Ronald L. Moore, in his
official capacity as the District Attorney for Buncombe County, is a proper party to this action,
those allegations are denied. To the extent allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free
Exercise and Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of
the United States Constitution, the allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic
v. Schaefer, and therefore are denied. Except as denied, the factual allegations of these
paragraphs are admitted.
Paragraphs 83-85.
The allegations of these Paragraphs do not call for a response from the State Defendants.
Paragraphs 86-87.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Roxann Vaneekhoven, in her
official capacity as the District Attorney for Cabarrus County, is a proper party to this action,
those allegations are denied. To the extent allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free
Exercise and Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of
the United States Constitution, the allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic
v. Schaefer, and therefore are denied. Except as denied, the factual allegations of these
paragraphs are admitted.
Paragraphs 88-90.
The allegations of these Paragraphs do not call for a response from the State Defendants.

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 15
4
Paragraphs 91-92.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Bradley Greenway, in his
official capacity as the District Attorney for McDowell County, is a proper party to this action,
those allegations are denied. To the extent allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free
Exercise and Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of
the United States Constitution, the allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic
v. Schaefer, and therefore are denied. Except as denied, the factual allegations of these
paragraphs are admitted.
Paragraphs 93-95.
The allegations of these Paragraphs do not call for a response from the State Defendants.
Paragraphs 96-97.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Andrew Murray, in his official
capacity as the District Attorney for Mecklenburg County, is a proper party to this action, those
allegations are denied. To the extent allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise
and Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the
United States Constitution, the allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v.
Schaefer, and therefore are denied. Except as denied, the factual allegations of these paragraphs
are admitted.
Paragraphs 98-100.
The allegations of these Paragraphs do not call for a response from the State Defendants.
Paragraphs 101-102.
To the extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that Ned Mangum, in his official
capacity as the District Attorney for Wake County, is a proper party to this action, those
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 15
5
allegations are denied. To the extent allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise
and Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the
United States Constitution, the allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v.
Schaefer, and therefore are denied. Except as denied, the factual allegations of these paragraphs
are admitted.
Paragraphs 103-104.
Denied.
Paragraphs 105-119.
It is admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent that
the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as
the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities,
are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 5 of 15
6
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.
Paragraph 120.
Denied.
Paragraph 121.
The State Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1-120 as though fully set forth
herein.
Paragraphs 122-128.
It is admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent that
the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as
the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities,
are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 6 of 15
7
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.
Paragraph 129.
The State Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1-128 as though fully set forth
herein.
Paragraphs 130-136.
It is admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent that
the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as
the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities,
are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 7 of 15
8
Paragraph 137.
The State Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1-136 as though fully set forth
herein.
Paragraphs 138-144.
It is admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent that
the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as
the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities,
are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.
Paragraph 145.
The State Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1-144 as though fully set forth
herein.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 8 of 15
9
Paragraphs 146-153.
It is admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S. Constitutional
rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage between same-
sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples. The
opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014
WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____,
2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment issues raised by
Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this Court. As a
consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of these
paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the extent that
the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as
the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities,
are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the extent the
allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights of
these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States Constitution, those
allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and therefore are
denied.
Paragraph 154.
The State Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1-153 as though fully set forth
herein.
Paragraphs 155-156.
Upon information and belief, the factual allegations set out in these Paragraphs are admitted. It
is further admitted that Plaintiffs have brought this suit to allege violations of their U.S.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 9 of 15
10
Constitutional rights as a consequence of North Carolinas current laws that prohibit marriage
between same-sex couples, or prohibit recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex
couples. The opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __
F.3d __, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic,
___ S.Ct. ____, 2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), addresses and resolves the 14
th
amendment
issues raised by Plaintiffs in their complaint. That opinion constitutes binding precedent on this
Court. As a consequence, and in accordance with Bostic v. Schaefer, the legal conclusions of
these paragraphs, as they pertain to Plaintiffs 14
th
Amendment rights, are admitted. To the
extent that the allegations of these Paragraphs suggest that either Roy A. Cooper, in his official
capacity as the North Carolina Attorney General, or the named District Attorneys, in their
official capacities, are proper parties to this action, those allegations are denied. Further, to the
extent the allegations of these paragraphs pertain to the Free Exercise and Expressive
Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United States
Constitution, those allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer, and
therefore are denied.
Affirmative Defense: Motion To Dismiss Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b) (1), (2) and (6)

A motion filed under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests a courts
jurisdiction over an individual. In response to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that jurisdiction is proper. Dean v.
Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269, 1272 (6th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs Complaint fails to
allege any facts sufficient to draw the necessary connection between the State Defendants and
the enforcement of North Carolinas marriage laws. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to allege
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 10 of 15
11
that State Defendants have taken, or have threatened to take, any particular action against any of
them to prevent their marriages as same-sex couples. Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983
should be dismissed pursuant to Rules 12(b) (2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Further, to the extent the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint pertain to the Free Exercise and
Expressive Association rights of these Plaintiffs pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United
States Constitution, those allegations have been rendered moot by the opinion in Bostic v.
Schaefer, and therefore should be dismissed pursuant to Rules 12(b) (1) and (6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Affirmative Defense: Motion to Dismiss
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b) (6)

The Attorney Generals duties are prescribed by statute and common law. The Attorney General
maintains no specific enforcement authority over marriage proceedings. Moreover, opinions of
the Attorney General do not constitute enforcement, but are instead advisory. District
Attorneys assume no enforcement role with respect to marriage proceedings. District Attorneys
are not charged with any statutory authority over the issuance of marriage licenses. Plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate that any of the State Defendants have a connection with the
enforcement of Amendment One or the marriage statutes alleged to be unconstitutional, or that
any of the State Defendants threatened them with criminal sanctions in connection with marriage
proceedings.
Motion to Intervene
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 24

Although not a proper party defendant to this action, the Attorney General seeks to intervene in
future proceedings in this matter, if any, in a representative capacity on behalf of the State of
North Carolina for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 11 of 15
12
for argument on the question of constitutionality of North Carolinas statutes and constitutional
amendment challenged in this action. In any action in which statutory construction is at issue, 28
U.S.C. 2403(b) permits the State to intervene... for argument on the question of
constitutionality. Likewise, N.C. Gen. Stat. 114-2 provides that it is the duty of the Attorney
General to appear for the State in any [other] court or tribunal in any case or matter, civil or
criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. Pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, intervention by the Attorney General in this matter is by right. The
proper participation of the Attorney General in any further proceeding would be as an Intervenor
in furtherance of his constitutional and common law duty to represent the States position
regarding the challenged State statutes and State constitutional provision, not as a named party-
defendant.
Response to Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief
Paragraphs A D.
1. As it pertains to their 14
th
Amendment rights, Plaintiffs should be afforded appropriate
relief in accordance with the law as described by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Bostic v. Schaefer.
2. Given the implications of Bostic v. Schaefer, Plaintiffs claims related to the Free
Exercise and Expressive Association rights pursuant to the 1
st
Amendment of the United
States Constitution have been rendered moot, and should be dismissed with prejudice.
3. Given that neither Roy A. Cooper, in his official capacity as the North Carolina Attorney
General, nor the named District Attorneys, in their official capacities, are proper party-
Defendants to this action, the claims against those public officials should be dismissed,
with prejudice.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 12 of 15
13
4. Given that the District Attorneys who express no dominion over the right of Plaintiffs to
marry, or have their out-of-state marriages recognized, and given that Plaintiffs claims
related to the Free Exercise and Expressive Association rights pursuant to the 1
st

Amendment of the United States Constitution have been rendered moot by Bostic v.
Schaefer, the actions against District Attorneys should be dismissed, with prejudice.
Paragraph E.
The State Defendants deny that any assessment of Plaintiffs attorneys fees or costs against them
is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988, or any authority.
Paragraph F.
Except as admitted herein, the State Defendants deny that any other relief is authorized or
required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray unto the Court that:

1. The Court enter the Order allowing the caption of the Complaint to reflect that North
Carolina Attorney General Cooper appears in this matter, in his official capacity, for all
purposes as an Intervenor rather than as a Defendant, and granting Attorney Generals
Motion to Intervene.
2. The Court order such further relief as it deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this the 9th day of October, 2014.

ROY COOPER
North Carolina Attorney General

/s/ Amar Majmundar
Amar Majmundar
Special Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina State Bar No. 24668
N.C. Department of Justice
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 13 of 15
14
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6821
Facsimile: (919) 716-6759
Email: amajmundar@ncdoj.gov

/s/ Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito
Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito
Special Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina State Bar No. 31846
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-0185
Facsimile: (919) 716-6759
Email: ovysotskaya@ncdoj.gov

/s/ Charles Whitehead
Charles G. Whitehead
Special Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina State Bar No. 39222
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6840
Email: cwhitehead@ncdoj.gov



Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 14 of 15
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 9, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing Answer and
Defenses with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of
such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito
Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito
Special Deputy Attorney General



Case 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH Document 104 Filed 10/09/14 Page 15 of 15