Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case PDF
Case PDF
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
(I)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Interest of the United States ........................................................ 2
Statement ......................................................................................... 2
Summary of argument ................................................................. 11
Argument:
The state marriage bans violate the Equal Protection
Clause ........................................................................................ 13
A. Classifications based on sexual orientation are
subject to heightened scrutiny ................................. 15
B. The state marriage bans fail heightened
scrutiny ........................................................................ 25
C. The reasoning of United States v. Windsor
confirms the invalidity of the state marriage
bans............................................................................... 31
Conclusion ...................................................................................... 36
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Adoption of Doe, In re, 719 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct.
App. 1998) ................................................................................ 7
Baker v. Nelson:
409 U.S. 810 (1972) ........................................................ 9, 21
191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) ........................................... 21
Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 316 (2014) .................... 17, 19, 20, 28
Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356
(2001) ..........................................................................................
Bottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995)..................... 5
Bowen v. Bowen, 688 So. 2d 1374 (Miss. 1997) ...................... 5
Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987) ............... 16, 17, 19, 20
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) ............................ 30
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic,
506 U.S. 263 (1993) ............................................................... 16
(III)
IV
Cases—Continued: Page
Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661
(2010) ...................................................................................... 16
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
432 (1985) ...................................................................... passim
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., 426 U.S. 668
(1976) ...................................................................................... 30
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469
(1989) ...................................................................................... 15
Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988) ............................ 15, 22, 25
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) .............................. 21
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) ......................................... 22
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ......... 16, 18, 20
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) ...................... 22
Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d
941 (Mass. 2003) ...................................................................... 7
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) ....................... 19
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)...................... 14
H.H., Ex parte, 830 So. 2d 21 (Ala. 2002) ............................... 5
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) ......................................... 30
J.E.B. v. Alabama T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) ....................... 30
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) ......................... 22
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 26 (2014) .................................. 23, 27
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ...................... passim
Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Comm., Inc. v. INS,
541 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Cal. 1982) ........................................ 4
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .......................... passim
Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635 (1986) .............................. 19, 20
Massachusetts Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307
(1976) ...................................................................................... 24
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976) .......................... 18, 19
V
Cases—Continued: Page
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ........................ 16, 31, 35
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1 (1973) ................................................................... 24
S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S., 265 S.W.3d 804 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008)......... 8
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ..................................... 25
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515
(1996) ........................................................15, 24, 25, 26, 30, 35
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ...... passim
Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457
(1982) ......................................................................................... 31
Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963) ................ 28
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012) ...... 21
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) .............................. 23
U.S. Const.:
Art. IV, § 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause) ................... 32
Amend. XIV (Equal Protection Clause) ............... passim
Ky. Const. § 233A ...................................................................... 7
Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25............................................................ 7
Ohio Const. Art. XV, § 11 ......................................................... 7
Tenn. Const. Art. XI, § 18 ........................................................ 7
Act of Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, § 3, 39 Stat. 875 ........................... 5
Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199,
110 Stat. 2419:
28 U.S.C. 1738C (§ 2) ........................................................ 32
1 U.S.C. 7 (§ 3) ....................................................... 31, 32, 33
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649,
104 Stat. 4978 .......................................................................... 5
VI
Statutes—Continued: Page
Ala. Code (LexisNexis):
§ 13A-6-60 (2005) ................................................................. 4
§ 13A-6-65(a)(3) (2014) ........................................................ 4
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-2(a)(1) (2011)......................................... 4
2006 Ga. Laws 386 ..................................................................... 4
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5504(a)(1) (Supp. 2013) ......................... 4
Ky. Rev. Stat. (LexisNexis):
(2010):
§ 141.069(2) ..................................................................... 8
§ 402.005 ......................................................................... 7
§ 402.020(1)(d) ................................................................ 7
§ 402.040(2) ..................................................................... 7
§ 420.045 ......................................................................... 7
§ 199.470 (2013).................................................................... 7
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:89(A)(1) (Supp. 2014) ...................... 4
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. (West):
§ 551.1 (2005)........................................................................ 7
§ 600.2922(a) (2010) ............................................................. 8
§ 710.24 (Supp. 2014) .......................................................... 7
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. (LexisNexis):
(2008):
§ 3101.01(C) .................................................................... 7
§ 3107.03 ......................................................................... 8
§ 2105.06 (2011).................................................................... 8
Tenn. Code Ann. (2014):
§ 36-1-115.............................................................................. 8
§ 36-3-113(a) ......................................................................... 7
§ 50-6-210(e)(1) .................................................................... 8
Tenn. House Bill No. 600, Pub. Ch. 278 (2011),
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0278.pdf ........ 20
VII
Statutes—Continued: Page
Tex. Penal Code Ann. (West 2011):
§ 21.01(1)(A) ......................................................................... 4
§ 21.06 ................................................................................... 4
Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-403(1) (LexisNexis Supp.
2014) ......................................................................................... 4
Miscellaneous:
Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents (Feb. 2002),
http://www.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/
109/2/339.full.pdf+html ....................................................... 28
Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Position Statement on
Homosexuality and Civil Rights (1973),
131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974) ....................................... 18
Am. Psychological Ass’n, Marriage Equality and
LGBT Health, http://www.apa.org/about/gr/
issues/lgbt/marriage-equality.pdf (last visited
Mar. 5, 2015) .......................................................................... 28
Dale Carpenter, Windsor Products, 2013 Sup. Ct.
Rev. 183 (2013) ........................................................................ 4
Simon R. Crouch et al., Parent-Reported Measures
of Child Health and Wellbeing in Same-Sex Parent
Families, 14 BMC Public Health 635 (June 21,
2014) ....................................................................................... 28
Andrew DeMillo, Arkansas bars expanding local
protections for gays, lesbians, Associated Press
(Feb. 23, 2015), http://www.apnews.com/ap/db_
268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=aAo9UJmZ ...... 20
FBI:
Hate Crime Statistics 1996, http://www.fbi.
gov/ about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/1996/
hatecrime96.pdf ............................................................ 6
VIII
Miscellaneous—Continued: Page
2013 Hate Crime Statistics, http://www.
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/
tables/1tabledatadecpdf/table_1_
incidents_offenses_victims_and_known_
offenders_by_bias_motivation_2013.xls ................... 6
Sean Gregory, Louisiana Sodomy Sting: How
Invalidated Sex Laws Still Lead to Arrests, Time
(July 31, 2013), http://www.nation.time.com/2013/
07/31/louisiana-sodomy-sting-how-invalidated-sex-
laws-still-lead-to-arrests/....................................................... 4
H.R. Rep. No. 664, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996)................. 32
Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen., to John
A. Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives
(Feb. 23, 2011) ......................................................................... 2
Michael Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar (2012) ...... 20
Official Journal of the House of Representatives of
the State of Louisiana (Apr. 15, 2014), http://
house.louisiana.gov/H_Journals/H_Journals_
All/2014_RSJournals/14RS%20%20HJ%200415%
2022.pdf .................................................................................... 4
Pew Research Ctr., How many same-sex marriages
in the U.S.? At least 71,165, probably more
(June 26, 2013), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-
in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more .......................... 29
Remarks by the President and Vice President at
Signing of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of
2010 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president-and-
vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a ....... 18
IX
Miscellaneous—Continued: Page
Trudy Ring, Voters in Two Kansas Cities Repeal
Antidiscrimination Laws, Advocate (Nov. 8, 2012),
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/
2012/11/08/voters-two-kansas-cities-repeal-
antidiscrimination-laws ........................................................ 20
Carl Smith, Wiseman: Aldermen offered no explana-
tion for LGBT-related policy discussions in execu-
tive session, The Dispatch (Jan. 7, 2015), http://
www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=39203 ............ 20
Glen Staszewski, The Bait-and-Switch in Direct
Democracy, 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 17 (2006) ........................... 29
A.G. Sulzberger, Kansas Law on Sodomy Remains
on Books Despite a Cull, N.Y. Times, Jan. 21, 2012,
at A13 ....................................................................................... 4
Williams Inst.:
LGBT Parenting in the United States (Feb.
2013), http://www.williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf ....... 27
Brad Sears et al., Surveys of LGBT Public Em-
ployees and Their Co-Workers, in Document-
ing Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity in State
Employment (2009), http://www.
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/9_Surveys.pdf. ................................. 6
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey
Data on Same Sex Couples (2013) http://www.
census.gov/hhes/samesex/data/acs.html............................ 29
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Investigation of the New Orle-
ans Police Department (Mar. 16, 2011), http://www.
justice.gov/crt/about/spl/nopd_report.pdf........................... 6
Robert Wintemute, Sexual Orientation and Human
Rights (1995) ......................................................................... 20
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-556
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL.
No. 14-562
VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.
No. 14-571
APRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
No. 14-574
GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
(1)
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
These cases concern the authority of a State to de-
ny to same-sex couples and their children the protec-
tions and benefits granted through civil marriage to
opposite-sex couples and their children. The United
States has a strong interest in the eradication of dis-
crimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The
President and Attorney General have determined that
classifications based on sexual orientation should be
subject to heightened scrutiny. See Letter from Eric
H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States,
to John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives (Feb. 23, 2011). The United States also has
an interest because marital status is relevant to many
benefits and responsibilities under federal law. See
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694-2695
(2013).
STATEMENT
Petitioners are same-sex couples who have been
denied the privileges and responsibilities of civil mar-
riage by the States in which they make their homes.
Petitioners have formed, and seek legal recognition of,
their committed relationships for the same reasons
that opposite-sex couples do. But their home States
persist in excluding them from the “dignity and sta-
tus” of civil marriage and the “far-reaching legal ac-
knowledgment of the intimate relationship between
two people” that civil marriage represents, United
States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013). In
doing so, those States have burdened petitioners in
every aspect of life that marriage touches, “from the
mundane to the profound,” id. at 2694.
(2)
3
*
The Court in Windsor did not address Section 2 of the Defense
of Marriage Act, which provides that “[n]o State * * * shall be
required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial pro-
ceeding of any other State * * * respecting a relationship
between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage
under the laws of such other State.” 28 U.S.C. 1738C. Section 2
concerns the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which addresses the
respect that one State must give the “Acts, Records and judicial
Proceedings” of another. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1; see H.R. Rep.
No. 664, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 24-30 (1996). Any effect Section 2
might have in the context of a State’s refusal to recognize an out-
of-state marriage of a same-sex couple would most logically be
considered only after answering the second question presented
here, which asks whether such a refusal would be consistent with
the Fourteenth Amendment. Should the Court agree with the
government that such a refusal violates the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, then Section 2 itself would never come into play. Should the
Court hold otherwise, then the government would, in an appropri-
ate case, evaluate the effect and constitutionality of Section 2 in
light of the principles set forth in the Court’s decision.
33