14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
-
Upload
downing-post-news -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
1/53
Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571 & 14-574
IN THE
Supreme ourt of the United States
————
J AMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., AND BRITTANI HENRY , ET AL.,
PETITIONERS,
v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
————
V ALERIA T ANCO, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
WILLIAM EDWARD “BILL” H ASLAM, GOVERNOR OFTENNESSEE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
———— A PRIL DEBOER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
————
GREGORY BOURKE, ET AL., AND TIMOTHY LOVE, ET AL.,PETITIONERS,
v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF K ENTUCKY , ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.
————
On Writs of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
————
BRIEF OF BAY AREA LAWYERS FOR INDIVIDUALFREEDOM, ET AL. AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
————
JEROME C. ROTH
Counsel of Record
A MELIA L.B. S ARGENT
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 512-4000
WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
2/53
TABLEOFCONTENTS
P AGE
InterestOfAmiciCuriae.................................................. 1
SummaryOfArgument................................................... 2
Argument.......................................................................... 4
I. ItIsTheProvinceAndDutyOfThisCourtTo
HoldThatTheMarriageBansViolateThe
EqualProtectionClause............................................ 4
A. ClassificationsThatAreIntendedOnlyTo
DisadvantageAGroupOfPeopleFailEven
RationalBasisReview.......................................... 4
B. ItIsUniquelyTheProvinceOfTheCourts
ToDecideTheEqualProtectionChallenge
ToTheMarriageBans.......................................... 5
II. ExcludingSameSexCouplesFromThe
InstitutionOfMarriageHarmsGayAnd
LesbianIndividuals,TheirFamilies,AndTheir
Children ....................................................................... 9
A. MarriageIsAUniquelyRevered
InstitutionInAmericanSociety.......................... 9
B. ExclusionFromMarriageCausesTangible
Harm....................................................................14
1. HarmToChildren.........................................14
2. LegalAndEconomicHarm..........................19
3. EmotionalAndPhysicalHarm....................22
C. TheMarriageBansCommunicate
GovernmentalAnimusTowardSameSex
Relationships .......................................................23
1. TheMarriageBansStigmatizeSame
SexRelationships ..........................................24
(I)
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
3/53
II
2. TheMarriageBans’StigmaPerpetuates
SocietalDiscriminationAgainstGay
MenAndLesbians.........................................27
Conclusion.......................................................................30
Appendix– ListofAmiciCuriae..................................1a
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
FEDERALC ASES P AGE(S)
Baskin v. Bogan,
766F.3d648(7thCir.2014).....................passim
Bostic v. Schaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014)............................... 3
Brown v. Board of Education,
347U.S.483(1954)............................................. 2
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,
473U.S.432(1985).............................4,5,17,26
Eisenstadt v. Baird,
405U.S.438(1972)............................................. 5
Griswold v. Connecticut,
381U.S.479(1965)........................................... 10
Kitchen v. Herbert,755F.3d1193(10th Cir.2014)...........................2
Latta v. Otter,
771F.3d456(9thCir.2014)......................... 3,17
Lawrence v. Texas,
539U.S.558(2003)..................................... 22,28
Loving v. Virginia,
388U.S.1(1967)................................... 4,8,9, 10
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
4/53
III
Marbury v. Madison,
5U.S.(1Cranch)137(1803)..............................6
Mayers v. Ridley,
465F.2d630(D.C.Cir.1972) ............................. 8 Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704F.Supp.2d921(N.D.Cal.2010)...............27
Plessy v. Ferguson,
163U.S.537(1896)............................................. 2
Reynolds v. Sims,
377U.S.533(1964).........................................7,8
Romer v. Evans,
517U.S.620(1996)...................................passim
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott
Laboratories,
740F.3d471(9thCir.2014)............................... 4 Strauder v. West Virginia,
100U.S.303(1879)..................................... 23,28
Taylor v. Louisiana,
419U.S.522(1975)........................................... 24
Turner v. Safley,
482U.S.78(1987)............................................. 10
United States v. Virginia,
518U.S.515(1996)........................................... 30
United States v. Windsor,
133S.Ct.2675(2013)...............................passimUnited States Department of Agriculture v.
Moreno,
413U.S.528(1973)....................................... 5,27West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette,
319U.S.624(1943)............................................. 7
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
5/53
IV
Williams v. North Carolina,
317U.S.287(1942)........................................... 10
STATEC ASES
Garden State Equality v. Dow,
79A.3d1036(N.J.2013)...................................21
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
798N.E.2d941(Mass.2003)..........10,11,15,25
In re Marriage Cases,
183P.3d 384(Cal.2008)....................... 24,25,28
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health,
957A.2d407(Conn.2008)................9,14,15, 25
Perez v. Lippold,
198P.2d17(Cal.1948)..................................... 10 Varnum v. Brien,
763N.W.2d862(Iowa2009).......................11, 12
CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS
Ky.Const.§233A...................................................26
Mich.Const.art.I,§25..........................................26
OhioConst.art.XV,§11.......................................26
Tenn.Const.art.XI,§18.......................................26
U.S.Const.amend.XIV,§1....................................4
STATESTATUTES
Haw.Rev.Stat.§ 572B(2014)............................... 12
Haw.Rev.Stat.§ 572C2(2014)............................ 12
Tenn.CodeAnn.§363113(2014)........................26
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
6/53
V
A DMINISTRATIVEREGULATIONS
Rev.Rul.201317,201338I.R.B.201...................20
OTHER A UTHORITIES
JeffreyM.Adams&WarrenH.Jones,The
Conceptualization of Marital Commitment:
An Integrative Analysis,72J.Personality
Soc.Psychol.1177(1997)..................................11
M.V.LeeBadgett,The Economic Value of
Marriage for SameSex Couples,58Drake
L.Rev.1081(2010).....................................19,21
RobertA.Burt, Belonging in America: How to
Understand SameSex Marriage,25BYUJ.Pub.L.351(2011).......................................10,11
KimChandler, Alabama Set to Become 37 th
State to Allow Gay Marriage,Associated
Press,Feb.7,2015,available at
http://news.yahoo.com/gaymarriage -
arrivesalabama183946121.html....................28
LisaC.Connolly, AntiGay Bullying in
Schools—Are AntiBullying Statutes the
Solution?,87N.Y.U.L.Rev.248(2012)...........23
NancyF.Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000)................. 29,30
AshleyFantz, An Ohio Transgender Teen’s
Suicide; A Mother’s Anguish,Jan.4,2015,
CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio -
transgenderteensuicide/.................................23
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohiohttp://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
7/53
VI
AdamW.Fingerhutetal., Identity, Minority Stress and Psychological WellBeing Among
Gay Men and Lesbians,1Psychol.&
Sexuality101(2010).........................................22GaryJ.Gates,WilliamsInstitute,UCLA
SchoolofLaw, LGBT Parenting in the
United States (2013),
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp -
content/uploads/lgbtparenting.pdf..................16
GilbertHerdt&RobertKertzner, I Do, But I
Can’t: The Impact of Marriage Denial on
the Mental Health and Sexual Citizenship
of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United
States,3J.SexualityRes.Soc.Pol’y33
(2006).................................................................22
GregoryM.Hereketal.,Correlates of
Internalized Homophobia in a Community
Sample of Lesbians and Gay Men,2J.Gay
&LesbianMed.Ass’n17(1997)................. 22,23
RobinA.Lenhardt,Understanding the Mark:
Race, Stigma, and Equality in Context,79
N.Y.U. L.Rev.803(2004)................................. 29
IlanH.Meyer, Prejudice, Social Stress, and
Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and
Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issuesand Research Evidence,129Psychol.Bull.
674(2003) .......................................................... 22
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wphttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
8/53
VII
NewJerseyCivilUnionReviewCommission,The Legal, Medical, Economic & Social
Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union
Law (Dec.10,2008),http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC
FinalReport.pdf.......................................15,16
OfficeofPersonnelManagement,Coverage of
Same–Sex Spouses,No.13203(July17,
2013),http://www.opm.gov/retirement-
services/publicationsforms/benefits-
administrationletters/2013/13203.pdf...........20
JamesG.Pawelskietal.,The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic
Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-
being of Children, 118Pediatrics349
(2006).................................................................15
MarcR.Poirier, Name Calling: Identifying Stigma in the “Civil Union”/“Marriage”
Distinction,41Conn.L.Rev.1425(2009)........29
ElizabethS.Scott, Social Norms and the Legal
Regulation of Marriage,86Va.L.Rev.
1901(2000) ........................................................ 10
ThomasB.Stoddard,Why Gay People Should
Seek the Right to Marry,Out/Look:Nat’l
Gay&LesbianQ.,Fall1989............................12USCIS, Same Sex Marriages,
http://www.uscis.gov/family/samesex -
marriages(lastupdatedApr.3,2014).............21
EvanWolfson,Why Marriage Matters:
America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right
to Marry (2004)............................................13,14
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURChttp://www.opm.gov/retirementhttp://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sexhttp://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURChttp://www.opm.gov/retirementhttp://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
9/53
INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE1
BayAreaLawyersforIndividualFreedom(BALIF)isabarassociationofmorethan600 lesbian,gay,bi-
sexual,and transgender (LGBT) members oftheSanFranciscoBayArealegalcommunity. Asthenation’soldest and largestLGBTbar association,BALIF pro-motestheprofessionalinterestsofitsmembersandthelegal interests of the LGBT community at large. Toaccomplishthismission,BALIFactivelyparticipatesinpublic policy debates concerning the rights of LGBTindividualsandfamilies.BALIFfrequentlyappearsasamicus curiae incases,likethisone,whereitbelievesitcanprovidevaluableperspectiveandargumentthatwill informcourtdecisionsonmattersofbroadpublic
importance. Additionalamici includeabroadarrayoforganiza-
tions,includingstate,metropolitan,local,andminoritybar associations and nonprofit organizations. Eachorganizationsupportingthisamicus briefisdedicatedtoensuringthatitsconstituentsandallothersinthiscountry,includinggaymenandlesbians,receiveequaltreatmentunderthelaw. See App.,infra,1a14a.
1Nocounselforapartyauthoredthisbriefinwholeorinpart,and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution
intendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.All
partieshaveconsentedtoamici’ssubmissionofthisbriefeither
inwritingorbyblanketconsentletter. Nopersonotherthan
theamici curiae,or theircounsel,madesuchamonetarycon-
tribution.Afulllistofamici curiae appearsintheAppendixto
thisbrief.
(1)
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
10/53
2
SUMMARYOFARGUMENT
FoundationaltotheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentistheprinciplethat“theCon-
stitution ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes amongcitizens.’” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 623 (1996)(quoting Plessy v. Ferguson,163 U.S. 537,559 (1896)(Harlan,J.,dissenting)). Inlinewiththisprinciple,ithas long been bedrock law that “separate but equal”treatment does not satisfy the Federal Constitution.The very notion is a contradiction in terms: as thisCourthasemphasizedsince Brown v. Board of Educa-tion, the Constitution’s promise of true equality isnecessarilybreachedbygovernmentsponsoredsepara-tionofadisfavoredclass.
ThestatutoryandconstitutionalbansinKentucky,Michigan,Ohio,andTennesseethatprohibitsamesexcouplesfrommarryingandthatprohibitrecognitionoflegallyperformedmarriagesinotherstates(collective-ly, the “Marriage Bans”) betray these longstanding
values. Theyexcludeaclassofpeople—gaymenandlesbians—from thevenerated institution of marriage.Theydosofornopurposeotherthantodenythatclassof people access to marriage, creating a perniciousdistinctionthatisasobviousandemotionladenasitisdifficulttofullyarticulate. Andthisunjustifiabledif-
ferentiation of gay and lesbian couples, as amici ex-plain below, inflicts profound injury upon them. Be-cause the Marriage Bans set them apart, gay men,lesbians, and their families are deprived of criticalbenefitsenjoyed by theirheterosexual neighbors, aresubjected to debilitating stigma, and are exposed toincreased discrimination on the basis of their sexualorientation. TheseeffectsarerepugnanttotheConsti-tution’sguaranteeofequalityandareinnowaymiti-
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
11/53
3
gated by access—where available—to separate andinherentlyinferiorsystemsofdomesticpartnershiporcivilunion.
The Marriage Bans cannot survive even rationalbasis review. Amici agreewithPetitioners’argumentthatthesebanslackanylegitimatejustification; theyhavebeenenacted“forthepurposeofdisadvantagingthe groupburdenedby the law.” Romer,517 U.S. at633. They “classif[y] homosexuals not to further aproper legislative end but to make them unequal toeveryoneelse.” Id. at635.
There iswidespread consensus among the districtcourtsof theSixth Circuitas wellas otherCourtsof
AppealsthatlawssuchastheMarriageBansunconsti-
tutionallydisadvantagegaysandlesbianswithoutanylegitimate justification. Amici respectfully urge thisCourttoholdlikewise. See Kitchen v. Herbert,755F.3d1193(10thCir.2014); Bostic v. Schaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014); Baskin v. Bogan,766F.3d648(7thCir.2014); Latta v. Otter,771F.3d456(9thCir.2014);Pet.
App. 161a218a2; 14571 Pet. App.103a139a; 14562Pet.App.108a130a;Pet.App.124a157a.Asexplainedbelow, first, theCourtshouldnot abandonitsjudicialresponsibility, astheSixthCircuitdid, byrefusingtoadjudicate the constitutionalityofthe MarriageBans
and by leaving the constitutional legitimacy of theMarriageBansexclusivelyinthehandsofstatevoters.Doingsowouldamounttoa stunningrejectionoftheconstitutional underpinnings of our judicial systemand over two hundredyearsof jurisprudence bythisCourt. Second, in deciding the constitutional issue,
2Unless otherwise noted, citations to “Pet. App.” are to the
AppendixinNo.14556.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
12/53
4
this Court should recognize that the institution ofmarriage is special, that nothing short of grantingsamesexcouplesthesame marriagerightsenjoyedbyoppositesexcouplesfulfillstheConstitution’smandateofequalprotection,andthattheMarriageBansinflictreal,tangible,andunjustifiableharmongaymenandlesbians,aswellasontheirfamiliesandchildren.
ARGUMENT
I. ItIsTheProvinceAndDutyOfThisCourtTo HoldThat The Marriage BansViolateTheEqualProtectionClause
A.ClassificationsThatAreIntendedOnlyToDisadvantage A Group Of People Fail
EvenRationalBasisReviewThe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendmentis“acommitmenttothe law’sneutralitywheretherightsofpersonsareatstake.” Romer,517U.S.at623. Inforbiddinganystatefrom“deny[ing]toanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionof the laws,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, the EqualProtection Clause “requires the consideration ofwhethertheclassificationsdrawnbyanystatutecon-stitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.”
Loving v. Virginia,388U.S.1,10 (1967). Evenunder
themostdeferentialreview—therationalbasistest—astate law must be “rationally related to a legitimatestateinterest.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,473U.S.432,440(1985).3 “TheStatemaynotrelyona
3 Amici believe that the MarriageBans shouldbe subject to
heightened scrutiny. See, e.g., SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinctions
basedonsexualorientationaresubjecttoheightenedscrutiny).
However,becausetheMarriageBansfailtoadvanceanylegit-
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
13/53
5
classificationwhoserelationshiptoanassertedgoalissoattenuatedastorenderthedistinctionarbitraryorirrational.” Id. at446.
A“classificationofpersonsundertaken for itsownsake”failsevenrationalbasisreview,becausebydefi-nition it serves no legitimate governmental purpose.
Romer,517U.S.at635. AsthisCourtrepeatedlyhasexplained,“[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equalprotectionofthelaws’meansanything,itmustatthe
veryleastmeanthatabare...desiretoharmapoliti-cally unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimategovernmental interest.” Id. at 63435 (quoting U.S.
Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)). Accordingly,in Romer,thisCourtstruckdownaColo-
rado constitutional amendment that prohibited gov-ernmental protection of gay and lesbian individuals. Id. at 636. The amendment, the Court held, was a“statusbased enactment” that “impose[d] a specialdisabilityupon[gaysandlesbians]alone.” Id. at631,635. It“inflict[ed] on[gaysand lesbians] immediate,continuing,andrealinjuriesthatoutrunandbelieanylegitimatejustificationsthatmaybeclaimedforit.” Id.at635;see also Eisenstadt v. Baird,405U.S.438,454-55 (1972) (law prohibiting distribution of contracep-tivestounmarriedindividualslackedarationalbasis
andviolatedtheEqualProtectionClause).B.ItIsUniquelyTheProvinceOfTheCourts
ToDecideTheEqualProtectionChallengeToTheMarriageBans
TheSixthCircuitCourtofAppealsentirelyabdicat-editsjudicialresponsibilityinholdingthat,intheface
imate governmental purpose, they fail to pass constitutional
musterundereventhemostdeferentialstandardofreview.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
14/53
6
of a federal constitutional challenge to the MarriageBansundertheEqualProtectionClause,statevotersshouldhavethelastwordastowhethertheMarriageBanswereconstitutionalandwhen,ifever,theyshouldbe invalidated. This Court should not repeat thaterror.
Itisbothdisappointingandsurprisingthatsuchafundamentalprecept of our nation’sreveredconstitu-tionalsystem,datingbacktothefounding,shouldhavetobepointedoutinabrieffiledbeforethisCourtintheyear 2015. Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch)137 (1803),thisCourthasbeencrystal clearon the issue, never flinching from the urgent dutyimposedonthejudicialbranch:
Itisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthejudi-cialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis. Thosewhoapplytheruletoparticularcases,mustofnecessityexpoundandinterpretthatrule....Soifalawbeinoppositiontotheconstitution;ifboththelawandthe constitutionapplytoaparticularcase,sothatthecourtmusteitherdecidethatcaseconformablyto the law, disregarding the constitution; or con-formablytothe constitution,disregardingthe law;thecourtmustdeterminewhichoftheseconflictingrulesgovernthecase. Thisisoftheveryessenceof
judicialduty.
Id. at17778. And yet,despite these foundational principles, the
SixthCircuitheldthatithadnodutyto“saywhatthelaw is” here because, in the face of a constitutionalchallengetotheMarriageBans,the“definitionofmar-riage”shouldbeleft“inthehandsofstatevoters”andlegislators. Pet.App.29a;see also id. at40a(“Dothebenefits of standing by the traditional definition of
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
15/53
7
marriagemake up forthesecosts? Thequestionde-mands an answer—but from elected legislators, notlifetenuredjudges.”). Thatdestructivetautology,pur-portingtoreassigntovotersandlegislatorstheinher-entlyjudicialtaskofevaluatingtheconstitutionalityofstateprovisionsoriginallydecideduponbyvotersandlegislators, fliesdirectlyinthe faceofthe ruleoflawand the principles in which our country rightfullytakes such great pride. As this Court held in WestVirginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,319U.S.624(1943),
Thevery purposeof aBill of Rights was to with-drawcertainsubjectsfromthevicissitudesofpoliti-cal controversy,toplacethembeyond the reach of
majoritiesandofficialsandtoestablishthemasle-gal principles to be applied by the courts. One’srighttolife,liberty,and property,tofreespeech,afree press, freedom of worship and assembly, andotherfundamentalrightsmaynotbesubmittedto
vote;theydependontheoutcomeofnoelections.
Id. at638 (striking down regulation mandating flagsaluteasviolatingFirstAmendment).
Whenmajorityenactedstatelawsarechallengedascontravening the EqualProtection Clause— especially
when they are challenged on the ground that theyseparate, disadvantage, and harm a minority—thisCourthasbeenadamant:thefederalcourtsmust act.
See Reynolds v. Sims,377U.S.533,566(1964)(statingin the context ofapportioning state legislative repre-sentation:“Wearetoldthatthematter...isacomplexandmanyfacetedone.WeareadvisedthatStatescanrationally consider [various] factors . . . .Wearead-monished not to restrict the power of the States toimpose differing views as to political philosophy on
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
16/53
8
theircitizens. Wearecautionedaboutthedangersofenteringintopoliticalthicketsand[other]quagmires.Ouransweristhis:adenialofconstitutionallyprotect-edrightsdemandsjudicialprotection;our oath and ouroffice require no less of us.”(emphasisadded)). Andthefederal courtshave never shied away just because achallenge presented social controversy or touched onfundamental issues; quite the contrary, that is whentheir responsibility to decide constitutional issues ismostcritical. See Mayers v. Ridley,465F.2d630,642(D.C. Cir. 1972) (“[A]ppellees suggest that appellantsshould address their complaints of racialdiscrimina-tion to the political branch of government and thatattemptingtowrenchsocialreformfromthejudiciary
disregards theprincipleofseparationofpowers. Butwhilewemust,ofcourse,maintainproperrespect forthejurisdictionofcoordinatebranchesofgovernment,under our law the judiciary too has the obligation of
enforcing constitutional rights.” (emphasis added)); Baskin, 766 F.3d at 671 (“Minorities trampled on bythedemocraticprocesshaverecoursetothecourts;therecourseiscalledconstitutionallaw.”).
Finally,theobligationofthecourtstodecideconsti-tutionalityisevenmoremomentouswhenthesubjectofthe challenged law issoessentialaninstitutionas
marriage. “State laws defining and regulating mar-riage,ofcourse,mustrespecttheconstitutionalrightsofpersons[.]” United States v. Windsor,133S.Ct.2675,2691(2013);see also Loving,388U.S.at7(“Whilethestatecourtisnodoubtcorrect inasserting thatmar-riage isa social relation subject to the State’s policepower,...theStatedoesnotcontendinitsargumentbeforethisCourtthatitspowerstoregulatemarriage
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
17/53
9
are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of theFourteenthAmendment. Norcoulditdoso....”).
Therighttomarryis not,asthe DeBoer appellatecourt found, a mere “policy problem” or “social ques-tion[],”Pet.App.37a,62a,suitablefora“Burkeansenseofcaution,”id. at37a. Rather,“[m]arriageisoneofthe‘basic civilrightsofman[kind],’”“oneofthevitalper-sonalrightsessentialtotheorderlypursuitofhappi-ness[.]” Loving,388U.S.at12. Whetheritcanconsti-tutionallybedeniedtoaclassofpeople,andwhetherthere isany rationalbasisfordoing so,arequestionsforthejudiciary.
II. Excluding SameSex Couples From TheInstitution Of Marriage Harms Gay And
Lesbian Individuals, Their Families, AndTheirChildren
In deciding the constitutionality of the MarriageBans,thisCourtshouldrecognizethatmarriageenjoysa privileged status among the institutions that thiscountry is foundedupon, and thatbarringentryintothat institution to samesex couples imposes seriousharmonthemandontheirfamiliesandchildren.
A.Marriage Is A Uniquely Revered Institu-tionInAmericanSociety
1.Marriageholdsahallowedstatusinoursociety. As courts repeatedly recognize, marriage can be anessentialaspectofthehumanexperience. Far“morethan a routine classification for purposes of certainstatutorybenefits,”Windsor, 133S. Ct. at 2692, mar-riage is“aninstitutionoftranscendenthistorical,cul-tural and social significance,” Kerrigan v. Comm’r of
Pub. Health,957A.2d407,418(Conn.2008),“aninsti-tution more basic in our civilization than any other.”
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
18/53
10
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287,303 (1942).Itssignificancetothecoupleinvolvedisunparalleled;itis“intimatetothedegreeofbeingsacred.” Griswoldv. Connecticut,381U.S.479,486(1965).Furthermore,marriage is a timehonored demonstration to family,friends, and the community of a loving commitmentand mutual responsibility between two people, andimplies a return promise by society to respect thatcommitment. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95(1987)(recognizingthatmarriageisan“expression[]ofemotional support and public commitment”). Theinstitutionis“ahighlypubliccelebrationoftheidealsof mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, andfamily.” Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health,798N.E.2d
941,954(Mass.2003).Therighttomarry,accordingly,“haslongbeenrec-ognizedasoneofthevitalpersonalrightsessentialtothe orderly pursuit of happiness by free men [andwomen].” Loving,388U.S.at12;see also Perez v. Lip-
pold, 198 P.2d 17, 1819(Cal. 1948)(“Marriage is ...somethingmorethanacivilcontractsubjecttoregula-tion by the state; it is a fundamental right of freemen.”). Asa resultofthespecialsignificanceofmar-riageinsociety,theinstitutionhasacritical“signaling”role,apartfromthespecificlegalobligationsitentails.
ElizabethS.Scott, Social Norms and the Legal Regula-tion of Marriage,86Va.L.Rev.1901,1917(2000). Thesignalsentbythefactthattwoindividualsaremarriedalters how they view themselves, how they behavetoward one another, and how society behaves towardthem.
First, married people understand they are to beemotionally and financially supportive, honest, andfaithfultooneanother. See RobertA.Burt, Belonging
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
19/53
11
in America: How to Understand SameSex Marriage,25BYU J. Pub. L. 351, 357 (2011) (noting that “[t]hisfaithfulnesshasalwaysbeenatthecoreofthemaritalstatusformixedsexcouples”).Althoughmarriedcou-plesmaymodifytheirexpectationsandbehaviorovertime,theybenefitbybeginningwithacommonunder-standing of the marital relationship, gleaned from alifetimeofparticipatinginsociety,hearingaboutmar-riage, and observing married couples. See generallyJeffreyM.Adams&WarrenH.Jones,The Conceptual-ization of Marital Commitment: An Integrative Analy-sis,72 J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1177 (1997). Thissharedunderstandingassistsmarriedcouplesinmeet-ingindividualandspousalexpectations,andmotivates
themtoworkthroughtemporarydifficulties. See id.The institutionofmarriagelikewise provides com-mongroundforothersinsocietytounderstandacou-ple’s relationship. Because marriage is universallyrecognized, married couples are readily treated in amanner that reflects theirpersonal commitment andconcomitant legal and social status. See Goodridge,798N.E.2dat955(“Because[marriage]fulfillsyearn-ings for security,safe haven, and connection that ex-pressour common humanity,civilmarriage isanes-teemed institution, and the decision whether and
whomtomarryisamonglife’smomentousactsofselfdefinition.”). Spousesareunderstoodasfamilymem-bers. When a married couple opensa joint bank orretirement account, orchecks into a hotel, orappliesfor a credit card, or attends a parentteacher confer-ence,oraccompaniesa childorgrandchildonaplaneflight,orrentsacartogether,thereisnoneedforex-planation or documentary proof of the relationship.
See generally Varnum v. Brien,763N.W.2d862,88384
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
20/53
12
(Iowa 2009) (“Iowa’s marriage laws” are “designed tobring a sense of order to the legal relationships ofcommitted couples and their families in myriadways.”).
Forthesereasons and others,manypeopleregardgetting married as the most important day in theirlives—indeed,marriage“isthecenterpieceofourentiresocialstructure.” ThomasB.Stoddard,Why Gay People
Should Seek the Right to Marry,Out/Look:Nat’lGay&LesbianQ.,Fall1989,at9,12.
2. Domestic partnership laws and civil unions,which some stateshave attempted to use to remedytheharmcausedbytheexclusionofsamesexcouplesfromtheinstitutionofmarriage,lackthesignificance,
stability,and meaningofrealmarriage. Thesenoveland unstable categories were invented recently,4andtheirmeaningisevershifting.5
Not surprisingly, inlightoftheirnovelanduncer-tain stature, domestic partnerships and civil unionsare not valued by society in a way that comparestomarriage. Peopledonotassociatetheselegalisticrela-tionshipswiththestabilityandpermanencethatchar-acterizemarriage.Inturn,theregistrationofadomes-ticpartnershipislessmeaningfultosamesexcouplesthangettingmarriedwouldbe. Thecomplexemotions
thatpeopleexperiencewhentheygetmarried—aswellas the joyandhuman closeness they feel when theyattendawedding—simplydonotattachtotheminis-
4The City of West Hollywood, California, enacted the first
domesticpartnershipordinanceinthemid1980s.5 For example, in 1997, Hawaii’s statutory scheme granted
samesexcouplesonly60rightsassociatedwith marriage, but
recentlyexpanded the numberof such rights. See Haw. Rev.
Stat.§§ 572B,572C2(2014).
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
21/53
13
terial step of registering a domestic partnership orenteringacivilunion. Evenwhendomesticpartnerscelebratetheirlegalregistrationwithaceremony,theterrainisunfamiliar: Istheeventawedding?Acom-mitment ceremony? Something else? The lack of acommonvocabularyunderscores theinstitution’s lackofsocietalstature.
Thesedifficultiescontinuethroughouttherelation-ship. Eventhesimpleactofreferringtoone’s“partner”can be wrought with embarrassment and misunder-standing: members of samesex couples can be leftsearchingforamannertoexplain,nomatterhowun-comfortablethesetting,whethertheyarereferringtotheirdomestic partnerortotheirprofessional,athletic,
orlawpartner. Consequently,samesexcouplesmustoften explain the intricacies of state family law tofriends andpotentially hostile strangers alike. Suchambiguities, and the likelihood of differential treat-ment,wouldbereducedifsamesexcouplescouldaccu-ratelyrefertothemselvesas“married”orcouldrefertoeachotheras“husband”or“wife,”avocabularythatisuniversallyunderstood.
Insum,marriagehasauniquestatusinAmericansociety. Thereis nodispute thatmarriagemeans farmorethaninheritancerights,taxadvantages,orcom-
munityproperty. Itis,instead,theultimatesymbolof“unequaled commitment.” Evan Wolfson, Why Mar-riage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s
Right to Marry 6(2004). Simplyput:“Nomatterwhatlanguagepeople speak—from Arabic toYiddish,fromChinooktoChinese—marriage iswhat we useto de-scribeaspecific relationshipofloveanddedicationtoanotherperson.Itishowweexplainthefamiliesthatare united because of that love. And it universally
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
22/53
14
signifiesalevelofselfsacrificeandresponsibilityanda stage of life unlike any other.” Id. at 3 (emphasisadded).
B.ExclusionFromMarriageCausesTangibleHarm
Denial of this fundamental right imposes seriousharmongayandlesbianindividuals,couples,andtheirfamilies. Thisharmisnot limited tothosesamesexcoupleswhowishtomarry.Rather,itisfeltbyallgaymenandlesbianswhoseehowpeoplewhosharetheirsexualorientationaretreated,aswellasbytheirfami-liesandchildren.
1. Harm To Children
Harm to children lies at the heart of the issue.“Formally, [the samesex marriage] cases are aboutdiscriminationagainstthesmallhomosexualminorityintheUnitedStates. Butatadeeperlevel,...theyareaboutthewelfareofAmericanchildren.” Baskin,766F.3dat654. Notably,“thebanonsamesexmarriageislikely to have an especially deleterious effect on thechildrenofsamesexcouples.” Kerrigan, 957A.2dat474. Children perceive and understand the uniqueinstitutionofmarriageinAmericansocietyandknowthedifferencewhentheirparents—theirfamilies—are
excludedfromit. AsrecognizedbythisCourtinWind-sor,theperceived“differentiation”ofsamesexcouplesnotonly“demeansthecouple,whosemoralandsexualchoicestheConstitutionprotects,”butalso“humiliatestens of thousands of children now being raised bysamesexcouples.” Windsor,133S.Ct.at2694. WhileWindsor addressed the differentiation felt regardingfederalrecognitionofastatesanctionedmarriage,this“humiliation” is only exacerbated for children whose
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
23/53
15
parentsarebarredfrommarriagecompletely. Moresothan inWindsor, theMarriage Bans “make[] it evenmoredifficultforthechildrentounderstandtheinteg-rityandclosenessoftheirownfamilyanditsconcordwith other families in their community and in theirdailylives.” Id.
“Aprimaryreasonwhymanysamesexcoupleswishto marry is so that their children can feel secure inknowingthattheirparents’relationshipsareasvalidand as valued as the marital relationships of theirfriends’ parents.” Kerrigan,957A.2dat474;see also
Baskin,766F.3dat664(“Ifachild’ssamesexparentsaremarried...thechildcanfeelsecureinbeingthechildofamarriedcouple.”). Whereas“[c]hildrenwho
are raisedbycivillymarriedparentsbenefit fromthelegalstatusgrantedtotheirparents,”childrenwhoseparentsarenotpermittedtomarrymaysufferpsycho-logicalharm. James G.Pawelskietal.,The Effects of
Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Lawson the Health and Wellbeing of Children, 118Pediat-rics349,358,361(2006).“Excludingsamesexcouplesfromcivilmarriage...doespreventchildrenofsamesex couples from enjoying the immeasurable ad-
vantagesthatflowfromtheassuranceofastablefami-lystructureinwhichthechildrenwillbereared,edu-
cated,and socialized.” Goodridge, 798N.E.2dat 964(citationomitted).
As the President of the New Jersey Psychological Associationhasattested:
Childrenofsamesexrelationshipsmustcopewiththestigma of being ina familywithoutthesocialrecognitionthatexiststhroughmarriage....Suchstigma may be indirect such as the strain due tolack of social support andacceptance. Also, some
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
24/53
16
childrenmaybetargetedduetoteasinginschoolorfrompeers.
N.J.Civ.UnionRev.Comm’n, The Legal, Medical, Eco-
nomic & Social Consequences of New Jersey’s CivilUnion Law 16 (Dec. 10, 2008),http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURCFinal-Report.pdf (quoting testimony of Dr. JudithGlassgold).
Inengagingintherationalbasisanalysis,theCourtmust look to the proffered “legitimate justification”providedbythestate. Ascharacterizedbythedissentin DeBoer,thisis“whathascometobeknownasthe‘irresponsible procreation’ theory: that limiting mar-riageanditsbenefitstooppositesexcouplesisration-
al,evennecessary,toprovidefor‘unintendedoffspring’by channeling their biological procreators into thebonds of matrimony.” Pet. App. 72a (Daughtrey, J.,dissenting).6 Thisrationaleandothertheoriesclaim-ingvaguestaterelatedinterestsinchildrearingsimp-lyignorethedestabilizingandstigmatizingeffect theMarriageBansandsimilarlawshaveonover200,000childrenthroughouttheUnitedStates.
Thereareapproximately125,000samesexcouplesraisingnearly 220,000 childreninthe United States.GaryJ.Gates,WilliamsInstitute,UCLASchoolofLaw,
LGBT Parenting in the United States 3 (2013),http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgbtparenting.pdf. Some of these
6Theillogicofthistheorywashighlightedwithsomeexasper-
ationbythe Baskin courtasfollows: “Heterosexualsgetdrunk
andpregnant,producingunwantedchildren;theirrewardisto
beallowed tomarry. Homosexual couplesdonot produceun-
wantedchildren;theirrewardistobedeniedtherighttomarry.
Gofigure.” Baskin,766F.3dat662.
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Finalhttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wphttp://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Finalhttp://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
25/53
17
families live in states where joint or secondparentadoptionbysamesexcouplesislegal.Inthesestates,therationalesimplyprovesthatthereistrulynobasisfordifferentiatingbetweensamesexandoppositesexcouplesinconferringtherighttomarry.
Totheextentthatchildrenarebetteroffinfamiliesinwhichtheparentsaremarried,theyarebetteroffwhethertheyareraisedbytheirbiologicalparentsorbyadoptiveparents.Thediscriminationagainstsamesexcouplesisirrational,andthereforeuncon-stitutionalevenifthediscriminationisnotsubject-edtoheightenedscrutiny[.]
Baskin,766F.3dat656.Thisregimeexemplifiestheimpermissible “classificationwhose relationship toanassertedgoalissoattenuatedastorenderthedistinc-tionarbitraryorirrational.” Cleburne,473U.S.at446.Intruth,“[t]oallowsamesexcouplestoadoptchildrenandthentolabeltheirfamiliesassecondclassbecausethe adoptive parents are of the same sex is cruel aswellasunconstitutional.” Latta v. Otter,771F.3d456,474(9thCir.2014).
Otherstates—includingallthe states of the SixthCircuit—prohibit adoption by a second parent of thesamesex,creatingalegalvoidinthefamilyrelation-
shipbetween the child and the nonadoptive parent.These states too lack a rational basis for prohibitingsamesex marriage simply because the evidence isoverwhelming that all marriage, “whether betweensamesex or oppositesex partners, increases stabilitywithinthefamilyunit.” Pet.App.84a85a(Daughtrey,J., dissenting). As the DeBoer district court found,samesex couples are just as able to provide for thewelfare and development of children as oppositesexcouples. 14571Pet.App.127a131a.Bycontrast,the
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
26/53
18
ramifications of a ban on marriage (and by conse-quence, on adoption) canbe lifealtering. What hap-pensiftheadoptiveorbiologicalparentisnotavailableinanemergency? Canthenonadoptiveparentmakemedicaldecisionsforthechild?Willthenonadoptiveparentbeabletogaincustodyandcareforthechildifthe recognized parent dies orbecomes incapacitated?Because of the Marriage Bans, the answers to thesefundamentalquestionsareleftuncertain.7
Every district court decision overturned by theSixth Circuit found that the Marriage Bans had norational basis and instead actively harmed children.Pet.App.209a210a(“Evenifitwererationalforlegis-latorstospeculatethatchildrenraisedbyheterosexual
couples arebetter off than children raised by gay orlesbiancouples,which it is not,thereissimplynora-tional connectionbetweentheOhiomarriagerecogni-tion bans and the asserted goal, as Ohio’s marriagerecognitionbansdonotpreventgaycouplesfromhav-ingchildren.”);14574Pet.App.147a(“TheCourtfailsto see how having a [samesex parent] family couldconceivably harm children.”); 14571 Pet. App. 129a(finding “no differences” between outcomes in raisingchildren in samesex versus oppositesex householdsand thattheMichiganmarriagelaw “actuallyfosters
the potential for childhood destabilization”); 14562
7 AsnotedbythedissentinDeBoer,for example,inMichigan
“[e]ven though one person can legally adopt a child, should
anythinghappentothatadoptiveparent,thereisnoprovision
in Michigan’s legal framework that would ‘ensure that the
childrenwouldnecessarilyremainwiththesurvivingnonlegal
parent,’ even if that parent went through the arduous, time
consuming,expensiveadoptionapprovalprocess.” Pet.App.78a
(Daughtrey,J.dissenting).
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
27/53
19
Pet.App.126a(issuinginjunctiondueto“animminentrisk of potentialharm to [Plaintiffs’] childrenduringtheir developing years from the stigmatization anddenigrationoftheirfamilyrelationship”).
TheSixthCircuit’srationaledoesnotwithstandra-tionalbasisscrutiny,andtheCourtshouldrejectitoutofhand.
2. Legal And Economic Harm
Aside from the harm to children, of course, is theharmtothecouplethemselves. Thisharm, too, “out-run[s]andbelie[s]”anypurportedstatejustificationfortheMarriageBans. Romer,517U.S.at635. Exclusionof samesex couples from the institution of marriageresults in thedenialof many real andconcrete legal
andeconomicbenefitsthatarepremisedupon marriedstatus. See generally M.V.LeeBadgett,The EconomicValue of Marriage for SameSex Couples,58DrakeL.Rev.1081(2010).
The legal harms suffered by samesex couplesbarred from marriage are myriad: limits on medicalaccess,deathandinheritancebenefits,federalbenefits,andparental rights (asdiscussedabove). InTanco v.
Haslam,14562Pet.App.108a130a,thedistrictcourtgranted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Tennes-see from enforcing its Marriage Ban against threecoupleswhomarriedoutsideTennessee. The“irrepa-rableharm”wasextensive,affectingjointhomeowner-ship; availability of employersponsoredhealth insur-ance plans; and parental rights, among other rightsandprivileges. Thecourtcalled“particularlycompel-ling”thecircumstancesofonecouplewhose
babyisdueanyday,andanycomplicationsormedi-cal emergenciesassociated withthe baby’s birth—
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
28/53
20
particularly one incapacitating Dr. Tanco—mightrequireDr.JestytomakemedicaldecisionsforDr.Tancoortheirchild. Furthermore,ifDr.Jestyweretodie,it appearsthatherchildwouldnotbeenti-tledtoSocialSecuritybenefitsasasurvivingchild.Finally, Dr. Tanco reasonably fears that Dr. JestywillnotbepermittedtoseethebabyinthehospitalifDr.Tancoisotherwiseunabletogiveconsent.
14562Pet.App.126a.Theavailabilityoffederalbenefitstomarriedcou-
plespostWindsor furtherdemonstratesthattheMar-riage Bans inflict real economic and legal harm onsamesexcouples. AsWindsor’sholdingwaslimitedto“lawfulmarriages,”Windsor,133S.Ct.at2696,certain
federal agencies have extended protections and re-sponsibilities to married samesexcouples;but manyagencieshave stated explicitly that they will not ex-tend protections to registered domestic partners.8
Thus,statutoryschemesthatallowsamesexcouplestoenterdomesticpartnershipsorcivilunions,butthatdonot allow themtomarry,result inthe deprivationoffederal benefits because many federal agencies offer
8Forexample,theOfficeofPersonnelManagementexpressly
providedthat“[b]enefitscoverageisnowavailabletoalegallymarriedsamesexspouseofaFederalemployeeorannuitant,”
but“samesexcoupleswhoareinacivilunionorotherformsof
domesticpartnership...willremainineligibleformostFederal
benefitsprograms.” OfficeofPersonnelManagement,Coverage
of Same–Sex Spouses, No. 13203 (July 17, 2013),
http://www.opm.gov/retirementservices/publications-
forms/benefitsadministrationletters/2013/13203.pdf; see also
Rev. Rul. 201317, 201338 I.R.B. 201 (extending federal tax
benefits to samesex marriagesbutnotdomestic partnerships
orcivilunions).
http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publicationshttp://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
29/53
21
such benefits only to lawfully married couples. Per-hapsthemoststrikingexampleoftheresultingdispar-ityarisesintheimmigrationcontext,wheretheques-tionofwhetherasamesexcoupleislawfully marriedormerelyinadomesticpartnershiporcivilunioncouldmean the differencebetweendeportation and avalidbasis for a familybased immigration visa. USCIS,
Same Sex Marriages, http://www.uscis.gov/family /samesexmarriages (lastupdatedApr.3, 2014). Andbydenyingsamesexcouplestheright tomarry,Ken-tucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee have placedthose federal protections and responsibilities entirelyofflimitstothem. See generally Garden State Equalityv. Dow,79A.3d1036(N.J.2013).
Moregenerally,marriageconfersnumerouseconom-icbenefitsthat stemfromthe unique commitmentitrepresents. For example, marriage fosters greaterspecialization of labor, which can increase a couple’sincome and the time available for family. Badgett,supra,at1101. Marriagealsotendsto reduceacou-ple’stransaction costs: Marriage“promotes economicefficiency by reducing transaction costs for couples,mainlybyremovingtheneedtorenegotiatethetermsofthelegalrelationshipascouplesexperiencechangedcircumstances.” Id. Furthermore,marriedindividuals
enjoy greater employmentrelated economic gains,whereas samesex couples who cannot marry faceuncertainty and pressures that may adversely affecttheir work performance and reduce their economicrewards. Id. at110203. Thoughdifficulttoquantify,these economic benefits of marriage are wellknownandacknowledgedinthefieldofeconomics. Id.
http://www.uscis.gov/familyhttp://www.uscis.gov/family
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
30/53
22
3. Emotional And Physical Harm
Aside from harming children, divesting couples ofstate, federal, and constitutional legalrights, and de-
privingthemofeconomicbenefits,theMarriageBanscan have devastating emotional and physical conse-quencesonindividualgayandlesbianpeople.Thisisbecause the Marriage Bans legitimize and magnifysocietalprejudiceanddiscriminationagainstgayandlesbian individuals—whose “moral and sexual choicesthe Constitution protects.”Windsor,133S.Ct.at2694(emphasisadded) (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.558(2003)).
The tragic results of that discrimination are welldocumented. It can cause gay men and lesbians to
suffer“minoritystress,”whichmanifestsitselfthrough“prejudice events”: expectations of rejection and dis-crimination, concealment of identity,and internalizedhomophobia. See Ilan H. Meyer, Prejudice, Social
Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexu-al Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evi-dence, 129 Psychol. Bull. 674 (2003). Such stressesnegativelyaffect the mentalhealthand wellbeing ofgayandlesbianindividuals. See, e.g.,GilbertHerdt&RobertKertzner, I Do, But I Can’t: The Impact of Mar-riage Denial on the Mental Health and Sexual Citizen-
ship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States,3J.SexualityRes.Soc.Pol’y33 (2006). “Greaterexposuretodiscriminationandperceptionsofstigmahavebeenlinked with poorer mental health in sexual minorityindividuals.” AdamW. Fingerhut etal., Identity, Mi-nority Stress and Psychological WellBeing Among Gay
Men and Lesbians, 1 Psychol. & Sexuality 101, 105(2010).
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
31/53
23
Internalizedhomophobia, for example, can lead tolowered selfesteem, anxiety, substance abuse, anddepression. Gregory M. Herek et al., Correlates of
Internalized Homophobia in a Community Sample of Lesbians and Gay Men,2J.Gay&LesbianMed.Ass’n17 (1997). And frequent suicides by gay teenagershave “drawn national attention to the insidiouspeerharassment that lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender(LGBT)youthfaceonadailybasis.” LisaC. Connolly, AntiGay Bullying in Schools—Are Anti
Bullying Statutes the Solution?,87N.Y.U.L.Rev.248,249(2012);see, e.g.,AshleyFantz, An Ohio TransgenderTeen’s Suicide; A Mother’s Anguish,Jan.4,2015,CNN,http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohiotransgender-
teensuicide/ (discussing the Dec. 28, 2014 death oftransgender teen Leelah Alcorn, whose suicide notepleaded,“TheonlywayIwillrestinpeaceisifonedaytransgender people aren’t treated the way I was,they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings andhumanrights....Fixsociety.Please.”).
C.The Marriage Bans Communicate Gov-ernmental Animus Toward SameSex Re-lationships
Theharmsoutlinedaboveareconsequencesofthelegaloperationofstateprohibitionsonsamesexmar-riage. This Court has long recognized that statecondoned discrimination and separatebutunequalinstitutionsinflictinjuriesevenbeyondthedeprivationofparticularbenefitsand can themselvesbemarkersof official denigration which serve to perpetuate dis-crimination. See, e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100U.S.303,308(1879)(notingthatexclusionofnonwhitecitizens from juries was “practically a brand uponthem,affixedbythelaw,anassertionoftheirinferiori-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio-transgenderhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio-transgender
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
32/53
24
ty”)(abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Louisiana,419U.S.522(1975)). First,barringonegroupfroma
valued institution demeans the group’s members byofficially designating themassomehow inferior. Sec-ond,exclusionofanunpopulargroupleadstostigmati-zation,which,inturn,leadstofurtherdiscrimination.
1. The Marriage Bans Stigmatize Same-Sex Relationships
AstheCourtnotedinWindsor whenitstruckdowntheDefenseofMarriageAct,“Theavowedpurposeandpracticaleffectofthe lawhereinquestionare toim-poseadisadvantage,aseparatestatus,andsoastig-ma”onsamesexcouples. Windsor,133S.Ct.at2693.“Responsibilities,aswellasrights,enhancethedignity
andintegrityoftheperson.” Id. at2694.Indeprivingsamesex couples of the opportunity to take part inthose rights and responsibilities, the Marriage Bans,likeDOMA,“tell[]thosecouples,andalltheworld,thattheir”relationshipsare“unworthyof...recognition.”
Id. AswastrueforDOMA,theMarriageBans’“prin-cipaleffectistoidentifyasubsetof[relationships]andmake them unequal. Theprincipalpurposeis to im-poseinequality.” Id.
ThattheMarriageBansandsimilarlawsconveyof-ficialdisapprovalofsamesexrelationshipswasnotedas far back as 2008, when the California SupremeCourtheldthatdomesticpartnershipwasnotaconsti-tutionallyadequatesubstituteformarriage:
[T]hestatutoryprovisionsthatcontinuetolimitac-cess to [marriage] exclusively to oppositesex cou-ples—whileprovidingonlyanovel,alternativeinsti-tution for samesex couples—likely will beviewedasanofficialstatementthatthefamilyrelationship
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
33/53
25
ofsamesexcouplesisnotofcomparablestatureorequaldignitytothefamilyrelationshipofoppositesexcouples.
In re Marriage Cases,183P.3d384,452(Cal.2008). Tothatend,thecourtreasoned:
[T]here is a very significant risk that retaining adistinctioninnomenclaturewithregardtothismostfundamental of relationships whereby the term‘marriage’isdeniedonlytosamesexcouplesinevi-tably will cause the new parallel institution thathas been made available to those couples to be
viewedasofalesserstaturethanmarriageand,ineffect,asamarkofsecondclasscitizenship.
Id.at445;see also Kerrigan,957A.2dat474(citing Inre Marriage Cases,183P.3dat445)(“[B]ecauseofthelongandcelebratedhistoryoftheterm‘marriage’andthewidespreadunderstandingthatthisworddescribesa family relationshipunreservedly sanctioned by thecommunity, the statutory provisions that continue tolimitaccesstothisdesignationexclusivelytooppositesexcouples—whileprovidingonlyanovel,alternativeinstitutionforsamesexcouples—likelywillbeviewedasanofficialstatementthatthefamilyrelationshipofsamesexcouplesisnotofcomparablestatureorequal
dignity tothe familyrelationship ofoppositesex cou-ples.”);Goodridge,798N.E.2dat962(statutorybaronmarriage for samesex couples “confers an officialstampofapproval on the destructive stereotype thatsamesex relationships are inherently unstable andinferiortooppositesexrelationshipsandarenotwor-thyofrespect”).
AsthedistrictcourtfoundinObergefell,“nohypo-thetical justification”—such as fostering natural pro-
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
34/53
26
creation—“can overcome the clear [] purpose” of theMarriage Bans, which is to “disparage and demean”samesex relationships. Pet. App. 212a. The courtnotedthatOhiogrants full faithand credittooutof-statemarriagesthatOhioitselfdoesnotperform( e.g.,marriages between first cousins, marriages of mi-nors)—but not to samesex marriages. Id. at 190a-192a.Ohiosinglesoutsamesexmarriageforspecial,unfavorable treatment by refusing to recognize suchmarriages evenwhen theywerevalidly performed inanother state. “The constitutional issue is clear[]”whenastatetreatsonegroupdifferentlyfromalltheothers:thelawmustbebasedon“irrationalprejudice.”
See Cleburne,473U.S.at447,450.
Thatpurposetodisparageanddemeansamesexre-lationshipsismadeevenclearerbythefactthatthreestates’MarriageBansprohibitstatelegislaturesoranypoliticalsubdivisionwithinthestatefromcreatingorrecognizingevendomesticpartnerships(which,asthisbriefdemonstrates,areinferiortomarriageandinsuf-ficienttoremedytheconstitutionalharms). See OhioConst.art.XV,§11(“Thisstateanditspoliticalsubdi-
visionsshallnotcreateorrecognizealegalstatus forrelationshipsofunmarriedindividualsthatintendstoapproximatethedesign,qualities,...oreffectofmar-
riage.”);Ky.Const.§233A(“Alegalstatus...substan-tiallysimilartothatofmarriage...shallnotbevalidorrecognized.”);Mich.Const.art.I,§25(banonrecog-nizing a “similar union” to marriage, such as a civilunion).9
9TennesseeistheonlystateintheSixthCircuitwhichdoes
notprohibitthecreationofdomesticpartnershipsthatapprox-
imate the legal rights associated with marriage. See Tenn.
Const. art. XI, § 18 (prohibiting state and local governments
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
35/53
27
TheeffectoftheMarriageBansisthereforenotjustexclusion from a set of “rights and responsibilities”associated with the legal institution ofmarriage, butofficialdisapprovalofsamesexcouplesthatresultsinstigma. They have been enacted “for the purpose ofdisadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
Romer,517U.S.at633.“[I]ftheconstitutionalconcep-tionof‘equalprotectionofthelaws’meansanything,itmustattheveryleastmeanthatabare...desiretoharmapoliticallyunpopulargroupcannotconstitutealegitimate governmentalinterest.” Id. at63435(quot-ing Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534). In Romer, the Courtinvalidatedavoterenactedconstitutionalamendmentthat,itstated,“classifie[d]homosexualsnottofurther
aproperlegislativeendbuttomakethemunequaltoeveryoneelse.” Id. at635. TheCourtshoulddolike-wiseherefor theMarriageBans,whosebroadharmsbetraythelackofanyrationalbasis.
2. The Marriage Bans’ Stigma PerpetuatesSocietal Discrimination Against Gay Men And Lesbians
When disapproval of samesex marriage is en-shrinedinthelaw,moraldisapprovalanddiscrimina-tioninsocietycanfesterandspread. Bymakingsexu-alorientationalegallysalientcharacteristic,theMar-riageBansencourageandprovide“cover”forthosewhoseektotreatgaymenandlesbiansdifferentlybasedontheir sexual orientation. See, e.g., Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 973 (N.D. Cal.2010) (describing how Proposition 8 sent “amessagethat gay relationships are not to be respected; that
from allowingorrecognizing samesex marriages,but notdo-
mesticpartnerships);Tenn.CodeAnn.§363113(2013)(same).
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
36/53
28
theyareofsecondaryvalue,ifofanyvalueatall;thattheyarecertainlynotequaltothoseofheterosexuals”).Because the state provides for separate and lessertreatmentofgaymenandlesbians,certainindividualsmay logically conclude that it is permissible to treatthemasinferior.10 Cf. Lawrence,539U.S.at575(crim-inalizingsexualconductbetweensamesexcoupleswas“an invitation to subject homosexual persons to dis-crimination both in the public and in the privatespheres”); Strauder,100U.S.at308(exclusionofnon-whitecitizensfromjurieswas“astimulantto...raceprejudice”). As the California Supreme Court ex-plained,“providingonlyaseparateanddistinctdesig-nation [ofcivilunions]forsamesexcouplesmaywell
havetheeffectofperpetuatingamoregeneralpremise...thatgayindividualsandsamesexcouples...may,under the law, be treated differently from, and lessfavorably than, heterosexual individuals or oppositesexcouples.” In re Marriage Cases,183P.3dat402;cf.
Baskin,766F.3dat658 (“Notthatallowingsamesexmarriage will change in the short run the negative
viewsmanyAmericansholdofsamesexmarriage.Butitwill enhance the status of these marriages in theeyes of otherAmericans, and in the long run it may
10Oneneedlooknofurther than the headlinesfor anecdotalevidence: when the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme
Courtdirectedcountiestorefusetofollowafederalcourtdeci-
sioninvalidatingagaymarriageban,newsreportshighlighted
coverageofaSouth Carolina pastor’s prayer vigil, literally in
theshadowoftheAlabamaStateCapitol,atwhichhe “urged
southerners to [ ] refuse to recognize marriages that he said
came ‘from the devil’shell’[.]” KimChandler, Alabama Set to
Become 37 th State to Allow Gay Marriage,AssociatedPress,Feb.
7, 2015, available at http://news.yahoo.com/gaymarriage-
arrivesalabama183946121.html.
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriagehttp://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
37/53
29
convert some of the opponents of such marriage bydemonstratingthathomosexualmarriedcouplesareinessentialrespects,notablyinthecareoftheiradoptedchildren,likeothermarriedcouples.”).
Moreover,bysegregatinggaymenandlesbians,theMarriageBanscausesocietytofocusonsexualorienta-tiontotheexclusionofothercharacteristics. Aswithsegregation on the basis of race, when gay men andlesbiansare singled out,and hencestigmatized, thenanindividual’ssexualorientation
andallthenegativeconnotationsgenerallyimputedtoit—eventuallyovershadowsor ‘eclipsesallotheraspects’ofhis orher self, essentially becomingallthat anyone sees. [Sexual orientation] becomes a
sortofmask,abarrierthatbothmakesitimpossi-bleforthestigmatizedperson’strueselftobeseenand fixes the range of responses that others willhavetothatperson.
Robin A. Lenhardt, Understanding the Mark: Race, Stigma, and Equality in Context,79N.Y.U.L.Rev.803,81819 (2004). Thus, when gaymenor lesbiansdis-closethat they are ina domesticpartnership, othersoftenseethemonly asgay—andtreatthemaccording-ly—ratherthanviewingthemasfullpersonsentitled
to thesame respect anddignity given to othermem-bers of society. See generally MarcR. Poirier, NameCalling: Identifying Stigma in the “Civil Un-ion”/“Marriage” Distinction, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1425,142930,147989(2009) (describingtheway inwhichthe nomenclature distinction perpetuates bias andfacilitatesdiscrimination). ThereisnodoubtthattheeffectoftheMarriageBansis“immediate,continuing,and real injur[y]” to gay and lesbian individuals.
Romer, 517U.S.at635.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
38/53
30
CONCLUSION
A number of racial, religious, and ethnic minoritieshave, at various times in history, faced restrictions on
their right to marry. See Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 4 (2000) (discussingfor example Native Americans, African Americans, and
Asian Americans). But “[a] prime part of the history ofour Constitution . . . is the story of the extension of consti-tutional rights and protections to people once ignored orexcluded.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557(1996). The Marriage Bans create a separate and une-qual regime for a disfavored class. Continuing to exclude,demean, and stigmatize gay and lesbian individuals andfamilies is inconsistent with that constitutional tradition.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be re- versed.
Respectfully submitted.
JEROME C. ROTH A MELIA L.B. S ARGENT
MUNGER, TOLLES &OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] (415) 512-4000
M ARCH 5, 2015
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
39/53
APPENDIX
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
40/53
APPENDIX
LISTOFAMICICURIAE
AIDSLegalReferralPanel(ALRP)TheAIDSLegalReferralPanel(ALRP)providesle-
galservicestopeoplelivingwithHIV/AIDSintheSanFranciscoBayArea. ALRPiscommittedtoensuring
justice for our clients infacing discrimination. Sinceroughly80%ofALRP’s clientsareLGBT,discrimina-tionagainstLGBTpeopledirectlyimpactsourclients.
APIEqualityLA API EqualityLA is a coalition of organizations and
individuals who are committed to working in the Asian/PacificIslander(API)communityinthegreaterLos Angeles area for equal marriage rights and therecognition and fair treatment of LGBT familiesthrough community education and advocacy. APIEqualityLA recognizes that the long history of dis-crimination against the API community, especiallyCalifornia's history of antimiscegenation laws andexclusionary efforts targeted at Asian immigrants,parallelsthecontemporaryexclusionofgaysandlesbi-ansfrommarriage.
The Asian American Bar Association of theGreaterBayArea(AABA)
TheAsianAmericanBarAssociationoftheGreaterBayArea(AABA)isoneofthelargestAsianAmericanbarassociations in thenation andone of the largestminority bar associations in the State of California.From its inception in 1976, AABA and its attorneys
(1a)
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
41/53
2a
havebeenactively involvedincivil rights issuesandcommunity service. AABAmembers filed an amicusbriefinthe Bakke affirmativeactioncase,fileda suc-cessful petition overturning the conviction of FredKorematsu in the landmark Korematsu v. United
States case, worked on the successful campaign toreleaseCholSooLeefromprison,andwereinvolvedineffortstoreleaseWenHoLeeandtounsealdocumentsinhiscase.
The Asian Pacific American Bar Association ofLosAngelesCounty(APABALA)
TheAsianPacificAmericanBarAssociationofLos AngelesCounty(APABALA)isamembershiporgani-
zationcomprisedofover700attorneys,judgesandlawstudents.Sinceitsformationin1998,APABALAhasadvocated onissuesthat impact the APAcommunityand has demonstrated a commitment to civil rights,racial justice,andequalopportunity. APABALAhas,andcontinuesto,opposeinitiativesdesignedtodepriveimmigrants, people of color, and other minorities oftheircivilrights,includinginitiativesthatdiscriminatebaseduponsexualorientation. APABALAstrivestoaddress all issues relevantto the equal treatment ofthoseintheAPAcommunity.
AtlantaBarAssociationThe Atlanta Bar Association has approximately
6,000 members and is interested in supporting thiseffort as a matter of justice.
AtlantaWomenforEquality AtlantaWomenforEqualityisanonprofitorganiza-
tiondedicatedtoprovidingfreelegaladvocacytowom-
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
42/53
3a
enandgirlsfacingsexdiscriminationintheworkplaceorschoolandtohelpingourcommunitybuildemploy-mentandeducationalenvironmentsaccordingtotruestandards ofequaltreatment. Our central goal istousethelawtoovercometheoppressivepowerdifferen-tialssociallypredeterminedgenderrolesimposeandtoempowerthosewhosufferadversetreatmentbecausetheydonotfitwithintheconfinesofsexbasedstereo-types. We believe that statutes banning samesexmarriageenforcepreciselythekindofgendercategori-zationthatunderminesthebasicprinciplesofequality,freedom,andjusticeitisourmissiontoserveandourConstitution’spurposetoprotect.
California Employment Lawyers Association(CELA)The California Employment Lawyers Association
(CELA) is an organization of approximately 1,200attorneyswhorepresentprimarilyplaintiffs intermi-nation,discrimination,wageandhour,civilrightsandothercivilcasesarisingintheworkplace.CELAhelpsits members protect and expand the legal rights ofworkingwomenandmenthroughlitigation,education,legislativeactivitiesandadvocacy.
Dallas Gay and Lesbian Bar Association(DGLBA)
The Dallas Gay and Lesbian Bar Association(DGLBA)iscomposedofapproximately35lawyers,lawstudents, paraprofessionals, and related professionalallieswhoshareaninterestinthelawsthataffectandprotect the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgenderedcommunity. TheDGLBAissuesamonthlynewslettertonearly200subscriberson currenttopicsof interest
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
43/53
4a
in LGBT law and the community and has over 800Facebookfollowers.TheDGLBAholdsmonthlylunch-eonmeetingsforitsmemberswherespeakersprovidecontinuing legaleducation on abroadrangeof topicsaffecting lawyers who represent LBGT clients. TheDGLBA also holds networking events, gives scholar-ships todeservinglawstudents,profilesitsmembersonitswebsite,andeducatesandpromoteslegalissuesaffectingtheLGBTcommunity.
GeorgiaAssociationforWomenLawyersThe Georgia Association for Women Lawyers’
(GAWL)missionistoenhancethewelfareanddevel-opmentofwomenlawyersandtosupporttheirinter-
ests.GAWL’sAmicusPolicyprovidesforfilingorjoin-ingamicusbriefsincaseswhichwilladvanceorclarifythelawregardingissuesthatfallwithinourmissionorthatrelatetotheadministrationofjustice. GAWLhasfoundthisbrief tofallwithin these categoriesand ispleasedtosupportthiseffort.
GeorgiaTrialLawyersAssociationPursuant to our constitution, the Georgia Trial
Lawyers Association is founded for the purpose ofsupportinganddefendingtheciviljustice system,the
righttotrialbyjury,andindividualrightsofourmem-bershipandourclients.
JapaneseAmericanBarAssociation(JABA)JapaneseAmericanBarAssociation(JABA)isoneof
the oldest AsianPacificAmerican bar associationsinthe country and consists of a diverse membershipofover300attorneys,judicialofficers,andlawstudentsofJapanese and Asian Pacific Islander ancestry in the
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
44/53
5a
greater Los Angeles area and beyond, including gayand lesbian individuals. With adeep appreciation oftheuniquehistoryofJapaneseAmericansintheUnit-edStatesandthe failureofconstitutionalprotectionsthat led to their internment during World War II,JABA has aproudhistoryofactivelyadvocatinganddevoting resources to issuesof civil rights and social
justice, especially for those members of society whocontinue to suffer from discrimination and unequaltreatment.
LGBT&AlliedLawyersofUtahBarAssociationLGBT&AlliedLawyersofUtahisanonprofitor-
ganizationofassociatedlegalprofessionalsandmem-
bers of theUtah State Bar, whosemission is to pro-moteeducation,advocacy,andequalitywithregardtosexualorientation,genderidentity,andgenderexpres-sion.
LGBTBarAssociationofGreaterNewYork(LeGaL)
The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York(LeGaL)wasoneofthenation’sfirstbarassociationsofthelesbian,gay,bisexual,andtransgender legalcom-munityandremainsoneofthelargestandmostactive
organizations of itskind inthe country. Serving theNew York metropolitan area, LeGaL is dedicated toimprovingtheadministrationofthelaw,ensuringfullequality for members of the LGBT community, andpromoting the expertise and advancement of LGBTlegalprofessionals.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
45/53
6a
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago(LAGBAC)
The Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago(LAGBAC), founded in 1987, is one of the country’soldestbarassociationsdedicatedtoservingthelesbian,gay,bisexualandtransgender(LGBT)communityandtheonlybarassociationintheChicagolandareadedi-catedtoservingtheLGBTcommunity. LAGBACpro-
vides judges, attorneys and law studentswitheduca-tional experiencesand career opportunities that sup-port them throughout their career. LAGBAC hostscountless CLE seminars, networking programs andsocialeventsthroughouttheyearforitsmembersandnonmembers,alike.
With over 200 members, including practitioners,agencyheads,professors,andlawstudents,anddozensofjudicialaffiliates,LAGBAChaslongbeenaleaderinshapingpublicpolicyinIllinoisandacrossthecountry.We,theboardofdirectors,fullysupportthesubmissionof this amicus brief to further achieve the organiza-tion'smissionandtoprovidetheCourtwithimportantinsightonmattersaffectingpublicpolicy.
Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(LGLA)
The Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (LGLA) was foundedin1979andhasgrowninto a relevant, multicultural, open and active barassociation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenderlawyers, judges, law studentsand other legal Profes-sionals. LGLA isdedicatedto furthering justiceandequalityandtheadvancementofgay,lesbian,bisexualand transgender issues throughout California andaround the nation by making judicial endorsements,
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
46/53
7a
appearing amicus curiae in cases such as this one,holdingrepresentationontheConferenceofDelegatesfor the StateBar ofCalifornia, and providingeduca-tional and networkingopportunities for itsmembers.LGLAhasfoughtforequaljusticeforallpersonswith-out regard for theirsexual orientationfor morethanthirtyfiveyears.
Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,AndTransgender(LGBT)BarAssociationOfMaryland
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender(LGBT)BarAssociationofMarylandisastateassocia-tion of lawyers, judges and other legal professionals,law students, activists,andaffiliate lesbians, gay, bi-
sexual,andtransgenderlegalorganizations.
LoveHonorCherishLoveHonorCherish(LHC)isthelargestgrassroots
marriageequalityorganizationinSouthernCalifornia.Founded in May 2008 to defend the California Su-preme Court’sdecision In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th757(2008),LHChasstrategicallymovedmarriageequalityforwardsinceitsinception.In2010and2012,LHC launchedefforts togather signatures toput re-pealofProposition8ontheballotinCaliforniadueto
itsunwaveringdedicationtorestoremarriageequalityinCaliforniaassoonaspossible. While thoseeffortswereunsuccessfulduetotheprohibitivecostoffund-ingasignaturegatheringcampaign,LHC’svolunteershad more than one million conversations about theimportanceofmarriageequalitywithCaliforniavoters.LHCcontinuestoadvancemarriageequalitythroughpublic education, community empowerment and out-reachincollaborationitscoalitionpartners.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
47/53
8a
MinnesotaLavenderBarAssociation(MLBA)TheMinnesotaLavenderBarAssociation(MLBA)is
avoluntaryprofessionalassociationofLGBTattorneysand allies, promoting fairness and equality for theLGBTcommunitywithinthelegalindustryandfortheMinnesotacommunity. TheMLBAenvisionsaMinne-sota where LGBT attorneys, clients, and communitymembersaretreatedequallyandwithoutdiscrimina-tion.TheMLBA’smissionis topromoteequalityand
justiceinthelegalprofessionandtheLGBTcommuni-tyinMinnesota.
NewMexicoLesbianAndGayLawyersAssocia-tion(NMLGLA)
TheNewMexicoLesbianandGayLawyersAssocia-tion(NMLGLA),formedin1995,isanonprofit,volun-tary bar organization committed to promoting andprotectingtheinterestofthelesbian,gay,bisexualandtransgenderlawyersandtoachievingtheirfullpartic-ipationinallrights,privilegesandbenefitsofthelegalprofession. TheNMLGLAalsostrivestopromotetheefficient administration of justice and the constantimprovementofthelaw,especiallyasitrelatestoles-bians,gaymen,bisexualandtransgenderindividuals.
NewYorkStateBarAssociationTheNewYorkStateBarAssociation(NYSBA)was
foundedin1876,andisthelargestvoluntarybarasso-ciation in the UnitedStates, with over 74,000 mem-bers.NYSBAservestheprofessionandthepublicby,interalia,promotingreforminthelawandfacilitatingthe administration of justice. NYSBA has long sup-ported marriage equality for samesex couples. In2009,NYSBApassedaresolutionsupportingsamesex
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
48/53
9a
marriage;andin2010theNYSBAwasaleadsponsoroftheAmericanBarAssociation’sresolutioninsupportofsamesexmarriage.TheNYSBAsupportsallowingsamesexcouplestomarryandrecognizingmarriagesifcontractedelsewhereastheAssociationbelievesonlymarriagecan grant full equality to samesex couplesandtheirfamilies.
OGALLA:TheLGBTBarAssociationofOregonTheLGBTBarAssociationofOregonisavoluntary
organization of legal practitioners – including attor-neys, judges,paraprofessionals,andeducators–dedi-catedtothepromotionofthefairandjusttreatmentofallpeopleunderthe lawregardlessofsexualorienta-
tion,genderidentity,orgenderexpression,toproviding visibilityforLGBTpersonsinthelaw,toeducatingthepublic,thelegalprofessionandthecourtsaboutlegalissuesofparticularconcerntotheLGBTcommunity,toidentifyingandeliminatingthecausesandconditionsof prejudice in society, and to promoting a spirit ofunity,whilevaluingthediversityofourcommunity.
PhilippineAmericanBarAssociationofLosAn-geles(PABA)
ThePhilippineAmericanBarAssociation(PABA)is
anorganizationofattorneys,students,andcommunityleaders who have been dedicated to advancing theinterestsoftheFilipinoAmericancommunityandthe
AsianAmerican communityatlarge for thirty years.PABAisferventlycommittedtocreatingamorecom-passionateand just future, and proudly joins its col-leaguesonthisamicusbrieftoensurethepreservationofequalityforpersonsfromeverywalkoflife.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
49/53
10a
PublicCounselPublicCounsel isthe largest pro bono law firmin
the nation. Founded in 1970, Public Counsel is thepublic interest law office of the Los Angeles CountyandBeverlyHillsBarAssociationsand theSouthernCaliforniaaffiliateoftheLawyers’CommitteeforCivilRights Under Law. Public Counsel is dedicated toadvancing equal justice under law by delivering freelegal services to indigent and underrepresented chil-dren, adults and families throughout Los AngelesCounty,ensuringthatother communitybasedorgani-zationsservingthispopulationhavelegalsupport,andmobilizing the pro bono resources of attorneys, lawstudents and other professionals. Public Counsel’s
staffof71attorneysand50support staff,alongwithover5,000volunteerlawyers, law students,and legalprofessionals,assistsover30,000children,youth,fami-lies,andcommunityorganizationseveryyear.PublicCounsel’s clients include lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgenderyouthandadultswhoarehomelessoratrisk ofhomelessness orwho seekasylum in the U.S.becauseofpersecutionintheircountryoforigin. Asacivilrightsorganization,PublicCounselhassteadfast-lysupportedmarriageequality.
QLaw:TheGLBTBarAssociationofWashingtonQLaw,theGLBTBarAssociationofWashington,is
an association of gay, lesbian, bisexual, andtransgender (GLBT) legal professionals and theirfriends.QLawservesasavoiceforgay,lesbian,bisex-ual, and transgender lawyers and other legal profes-sionalsinthestateofWashingtononissuesrelatingtodiversity and equality in the legal profession, in thecourts,andunderthe law. Theorganizationhasfive
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
50/53
11a
purposes:toprovideopportunitiesformembersoftheGLBTlegalcommunitytomeetinasupportive,profes-sionalatmospheretoexchangeideasandinformation;tofurthertheprofessionaldevelopmentofGLBTlegalprofessionalsand lawstudents;toeducatethepublic,thelegalprofession,andthecourtsaboutlegalissuesofparticularconcerntotheGLBTcommunity;toem-powermembersoftheGLBTcommunitybyimprovingaccesstothelegalandjudicialsystemandsponsoringeducationprograms;andtopromoteandencouragetheadvancementoflesbian,gay,bisexual,andtransgenderattorneysinthelegalprofession.
Queen’sBenchBarAssociation
Queen’sBenchBar Association isanonprofitvol-untary membership organization made up of judges,lawyers, and law students in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Establishedin1921,Queen’sBenchisoneoftheoldest women’s bar associations in the country.Queen’sBenchseekstoadvancetheinterestsofwom-en in law and society, and to serve the professionalneeds of women lawyers, judges, and law students.Queen’sBenchhasastronganddemonstratedinterestinthepreservationoftheConstitutionalrighttoequalprotectionofthelaws.
San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association(SFLRLA)
San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association(SFLRLA) is a professional membership organizationofSanFranciscoBayAreaLatino/aattorneys.Centraltoitsmission isSFLRLA’sinterest inprotecting fun-damentalconstitutionalrightsandminorityinterests.
Accordingly, in March 2004, SFLRLA filed the first
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
51/53
12a
amicusbrieftobefiledbyabarassociationwiththeSan Francisco SuperiorCourt inwhateventually be-came In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).SFLRLA’scoremission istoservethepublic interestbycultivating thescienceof jurisprudence,promotingreform in the law, facilitating the administration of
justice, and cooperating with other professional andcommunity organizations in the furtherance of ourmission.
StonewallBarAssociationofGeorgia,Inc.StonewallBar AssociationofGeorgia, Inc.was es-
tablished in 1995 as a coalition of attorneys, judges,lawstudents,paralegals,andotherlegalprofessionals
toutilizetheirexpertisetosupporttherightsoflesbi-an, gay,bisexual, and transgenderpeople and opposediscriminationbasedonsexualorientationandgenderidentity. A voluntary bar association, consisting ofalmost 300 duespaying members, SBA publishes anonlinedirectory of attorneys whoare eager to servegay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clients. Theorganizationalsopublishesamonthlynewsletterthatis emailed to approximately 800 legal professionals,providesscholarshipstolawstudents,conductscontin-uingeducationforattorneys,andprovides opportuni-
tiesfornetworkingwithjudgesandotherlegalprofes-sionals. SBAhasworkedwithotherorganizationstofileamicusbriefsincasesthatimpactourcommunityinGeorgia. Suchbriefshavebeensubmitted in Hol-lingsworth v. Perry andcasesthatoverturnedGeorgia’ssodomy law and secured the rights of local govern-mentsandprivatecorporationstoofferdomesticpart-nership benefits tocompanyemployeesand their lifepartners.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
52/53
13a
Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston(SLAGH)
StonewallLawAssociationofGreaterHoustonisa voluntary professional association of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender attorneys, judges, paralegals,lawstudentsandallieswhoprovideaLGBTpresencewithinthegreaterHoustonlegalcommunity.SLAGHencouragesthe recognitionofcivilandhuman rights,promotes sensitivity to legal issues faced by LGBTcommunityandthoselivingwithHIV,assuresthefairandjusttreatmentofmembersoftheLGBTcommuni-ty,providesopportunities forLGBTattorneys, judges,law students and their allies to interact ina profes-
sionalsetting,buildsallianceswithotherminoritybarassociationsandlegalorganizations,andenhancesthepractice and professional expertise of lawyers whoserveoraremembersoftheLGBTcommunity.
TomHomannLGBTLawAssociation(THLA)TheTomHomannLGBTLawAssociation(THLA)is
anonprofitvoluntarymembershipbar association ofattorneys,lawstudents,judges,andotherlegalprofes-sionals dedicated to the advancement ofgay, lesbian,bisexualandtransgenderissuesthroughoutCalifornia
andthenation. WearetheplaceforSanDiego’sLGBTlawyers to network, build friendships, and developtheircareers. THLAmembersarealso committed toestablishing and maintaining personal connectionswithlocal law studentcommunity. Throughour suc-cessful mentor program, we provide encouragement,guidance,insightandfriendshiptothenextgenerationofLGBTlawyersenteringtheSanDiegolegalcommu-nity.
-
8/9/2019 14-556 Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
53/53
14a
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(WLALA)
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles(WLALA) is a nonprofit organization comprised pri-marilyofattorneysandjudgesinLosAngelesCounty.Founded in 1919, WLALA is dedicated to promotingthe fullparticipationofwomenlawyersandjudgesinthe legalprofession, maintaining the integrity of ourlegal system byadvocatingprinciples of fairnessandequality, and improving the status of women in oursociety. WLALA believes that lawyer groups have aspecialobligationtoprotectthecoreguaranteesofourConstitutionfromunlawfulabrogationwhenamajori-
tyofvotershasattemptedtodepriveaminorityofitsconstitutionallyprotectedrights.